Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[Hero1000]

@camelotkid You are correct, if the goal was just to hold sz 3 then 3 rafts would be better as they'd give 3 hp and three 3/12 instead of the 2 hp and one 5/12 the dromund would give.

That said, the reasons I recommend a dromund instead are, well firstly our objective(or rather, my recommended objective) is more than just protecting sz 3. The rafts kind of put pressure on sz 2 but not that much as they're worse on attack, and they put less pressure on sz1 and sz Carnen as they can't reach there. (Their best participation is moving into sz 2 as that's where dromund pokers retreat to after attacking 1 or Carnen)

Secondly, the dromunds are better attackers, this supports my first reason in putting pressure on even sz1 and sz Carnen as, for example, if Rhun doesn't buy ships and stays on 1 or Carnen, Northmen can attack with the two dromunds. It is worse overall odds than the example I previously went through, with 47% and -2.2 IPC. However given the same reasonings I outlined before, while at the absence of rafts the consequence of the defender rolling 3 hits is higher, the loss of a dromund, the chances of that are lower. 5/12 x 3/12 x 3/12 for roughly 2.6%. Where as the chances of 2 dromund hits (and Rhun losing 1 raft) are roughly 17.3%. It gets a bit more complex if less hits happen on both sides but generally speaking its worth it for Northmen to start the combat and see how the dice roll. (and then non-com their raft into sz 2)

This essentially forces Rhun to either buy more ships, move them to sz Rhun, or move a blocker sz 2. (And blockers can be somewhat partially unsafe as a result of Dwarf birds being able to take them out.)

The last reason is that dromunds are better for long term engagements. Rafts are significantly better in defense than in attack, and even then, if you go into the calculator and periodically add 1 attacking dromund and 3 defending rafts and put it at "retreat after 1 round", while at 1 vs 3 it'll be at -0.25 tuv roughly speaking. At 2 vs 6 it'll turn positive, and the more and more you add, the greater the positive of the avg tuv swing will get. With pure dromunds attacking pure rafts of equal value, you'll on average destroy a higher overall value of ships than you lose on pokes even if he loses rafts and you lose dromunds. (And he won't be able to counter-attack at equal value because rafts are poor attackers)

It gets a bit more complicated if its a mix of dromunds and rafts, but generally speaking, dromunds are better defenders than rafts in pokes, are worse defenders than rafts in all-in battles, and are better attackers than rafts in both, and move further than rafts. For the struggle of Celduin you get overall more value for your money building dromunds than rafts in most situations.

In my opinion the most primary benefit of rafts is that they can be built anywhere you started a turn with a coast. (and have no limit to how many rafts you can build there). So for example if you wanted to do a safe poke into sz 1 as Northmen (and have 2 dromunds but no rafts), but don't want to risk a counter attack in case you're forced to retreat without enemy losses, you can cue up a raft (or several, if necessary) and spawn them in sz 2.

[Hero1000]

@camelotkid A few things of note. While technically if Northmen build more than 1 dromund Rhun is forced to build a matching (or likely larger) navy to hold position, Rhun is not forced to hold position due to being able to retreat to sz Rhun, allowing it to either bank money or invest in land units or do a mix both. Which is why I personally recommend just one dromund.

That said Northmen themselves instead have the advantage of safe blocking. While there are flier units from DG and potentially Angmar that can clear blockers, Northmen still go before Rhun after either of those factions clear the blocking units. (And orcs, who can go after Northmen and before Rhun, are too far)

Even then it is still easier for Northmen to lose the sea permanently than it is for Rhun, as they have nowhere to retreat to, if Rhun has enough combined navy and bank compared to Northmen navy and bank (and dwarf birds and bank), and decides its worth it, it can cash it all in and full attack sz 2 (in such a way that sz 2 is not counter-attackable) and then full attack sz 3. Northmen will suffer more from its mistakes than Rhun will on average, at least as far as the sea front is concerned.

[rsnorunt]

@camelotkid @Hero1000 did a pretty good job discussing how 2r1d from Rhun can 1r1d Northmen (I play low luck, so odds are ~5% higher), but I disagree with his buy recommendations. Here's my strategic analysis.

Generally Evil starts with a momentum advantage and an IPC disadvantage, and its main goal is to turn that momentum into territory before Good can build a big enough army to stop them.

The main way to do that for Rhun is to quickly take Dale and Rhovanion, but Rhovanion is long and Dale is behind the Iron Hills. If Rhun doesn't hold both regions by turn 3-4, Evil probably loses that front.

With boats, Rhun can take the riverbanks of Dale and Rhovanion as well as the Eastern Iron hills to act as a bridge for their cavalry to conquer a couple turns faster. They can also bring up siege units and infantry to threaten the halls of Gror and the capitols a few turns earlier.

Celduin 2 and Carnen are particularly good for Rhun because a 2-move dromund can move to Dorwinion and ferry units back every turn, saving at least a turn of move.

If Celduin 3 is open, Rhun can also threaten to send troops to the Long Marshes and attack the Elvenkings Halls, but this is usually a lategame worry, when one side has probably already won

The Northmen want to stop this.

The most basic move is to bring your fleet to Celduin 2 and build a raft there. This stops Rhun from being able to destroy your fleet or land in Rhovanion. In addition, if Rhun moves its fleet to the Carnen, you can move in behind them and kill any newly-produced ships or stop crucial resupplies.

If you didn't buy the raft and Rhun moves to Carnen, you'll only have a 77% chance to kill even a lone dromund, and if you lose the raft when doing so, you lose your fleet the next turn.

If you also buy a dromund, you threaten to kill Rhun's fleet the next turn. If also, there's a good chance they'll just give up, because they don't have the IPCs to match you. They'll just ferry everything they can to Carnen and take the East Iron Hills early, then die the next turn. If they don't give up, then they can't move their fleet so it's even better.

If you only buy the dromund, they might try the charge in hope of defeating you in detail. In fact, if they buy a dromund and a raft, they'll be in a good spot even if they get quite unlucky and retreat with both rafts lost and none taken.

You could also do the super aggressive move of buying raft fleets to defend both Celduin 2 and Carnen, which stops them from being able to bypass the Iron hills turn 1. But it's an expensive move (20-24 IPCs) and might cost you the Misty Mountains.

[CamelotKid]

@rsnorunt Thanks for your strategic analysis. I like the idea of moving the Northmen fleet to Celduin 2 and building a raft there. If you had to choose, would you buy a Dromund in addition to that move? Or would you be content with just buying a single raft in Celduin 2?

[rsnorunt]

@camelotkid Are you playing humans or AI?
If AI it doesn't really matter, but I'd err towards buying it since the AI has no idea how to use ships and you can chase him to the sea of Rhun.

If human, it depends how Angmar/Saruman played and how you think Moria will, because buying a dromund means you're losing resources you could spend on the west. In most games I probably wouldn't, but if Angmar does something dumb or focuses hard on Arnor, or Saruman doesn't prepare for Tharbad capture then it could be a strong play.

[CamelotKid]

@rsnorunt I'm playing humans. I would definitely not have thought that Northmen decision-making would be affected by Saruman since they are so far away. Thanks for the insight.

[Ancalagon]

Hi all. I've played this map probably a dozen times or so with my friends, usually 1v1 but we have done ffas as well. Interested in knowing if, in this current version, there are some universally accepted "optimal" early plays, especially from good. I was intrigued by the Northmen / Rhun naval discussion earlier. My group has never paid much attention to the Naval situation on the Celduin, assuming any investment was a suboptimal investment of PUs, but now I am rethinking everything. Any thoughts welcome.

[Hero1000]

@Ancalagon Well most of what I'd say about the Celduin sea would be disagreeing with rsnorunt and CamelotKid and retreading old ground, so I'll instead go over other stuff to be a bit fresh (though I wouldn't mind reopening that discussion if people want to). Though to be clear I am only on my second game so I'd say I have less experience than you have.

Not a good faction opening, but I have to mention this, both Mordor flying Nazguls attack the Gondor Dromund at sz lower Anduin 2. A sea controlling Harad is a strong Harad, especially one that could capture a Gondor city and start spawning units there.

Speaking of Gondor, while I can't say for certain how much it should invest at sea, and how much it should invest into land. I'd suggest a lot of its land investing should go into rangers for two primary reasons. The first reason is anti-air, not only does some rangers mean the flying Nazguls have less hp (and by extension, more units are lost), but if you have a high enough number of rangers that Nazguls have a decent change to die to anti-air alone, the opponent might elect to not have them in the battle at all, but that means they'd lose out on the leadership and terror flying Nazguls bring to the fight.

The second reason is mountain pressure, even with the fortresses on Mordor mountains, having enough rangers could complicate Mordor's defensive considerations to more than just putting big stacks in their cities. This is of course only relevant if Mordor is not pushing into or haven't taken Cair Andros and Osgiliath.

On that same note, if Angmar goes heavy into dragons, its neighbors can go heavier into anti-air units, except dwarves, if it looks like Angmar is preparing to melt Dwarven fortifications with dragon fire, Northmen might need to build and send its own anti-air unit to defend those.

I don't know a ton about it but there's argument for High Elves to invest into ocean ships so Gondor doesn't have to.

Dwarves and/or Northmen could consider having or making their catapults/trebuchets in their cities on the Rhun front to deter Rhun from parking their war wagons next to there. Even against an untouchable army stack, a single trebuchet doing a suicide attack is an average +7.5 TUV swing if said Rhun army stack has three or more war wagons. (+5.6 if two wagons, -2 if one wagon) and a single catapult suiciding is +4 if two wagons, +0.25 if one wagon. This does not apply if said army stack and war wagons are inside a city with fortifications

The more I say the more subjective it gets so I'll end it here for now. On an unrelated note, could I ask if you could invite me to your group? I know I am a complete stranger to you but I thought it wouldn't hurt to ask.

[Quack_89]

Hey guys! When I play with AI, it seems to get pretty bogged down. (runs slowly) I've got a decent gaming laptop so it kind of surprised me. Is there anyway around this?

Thanks

[Ancalagon]

@hero1000 Thanks so much for this, I found this very helpful!

After some playtesting, I tend to agree that the overall it's not worth investing in the Celduin sea at any point as Northmen, especially if Rhun does not do so turn one. Assuming an active and agressive Angmar, the Northmen will be in dire need of every land unit they can get their hands on.

One thing that I have noticed in my current 1v1 game is that if the Orcs commit completely turn one to taking Rivendell, there is almost no viable strategy for the elves to keep it by turn two (though they can do a strategic retreat to both threaten Rivendell later on and/or cause Angmar issues).

Anyhow, love this thread and appreciate your response.

The next time my group does a free for all, I'll be sure to send you a dm! It might not be for a bit but I suspect we will do so later in the year.

[Ancalagon]

@quack_89 Are you using "fast AI"? I also have a decent laptop and encounted the same issue when playing any other type of AI.

[Shorogyth]

Hey there, is the version "v2.1.x" still the one to download or is it "master"?

I hope progress is good and the beta test can be completed soon! Soon-ish at least :D. Balancing can always be done afterwards in mini-patches imho. There will always be stuff to balance in a map this complex. My group would love to play a stable version of the updated map. We just finished another round and were looking up the status of the next release.

[TheDog]

@shorogyth
Alkexr was online over a year ago

You might want to give this map a go, whilst he works on his massive update?
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3729/middle-earth-3rd-age-official-thread

Alkexr has been very generous in granting me permission to use his current Battle for Arda map. It is similar to his but it has been Doggy-fied

[Shorogyth]

@thedog Hi there, thanks for the reply

I took a look at your version but it has upkeep as a mechanic and I think that is not "fun" to have in a game. Did not like it, when WarCraft3 did it and try to avoid it whenever possible.

Little feedback otherwise:

• The symbols (crown, skull, ...) should only be visible when I buy a unit. They look a bit ugly on the map. Imho. But the idea is good/helpful to learn the rules.

• I could not get the map to work at first. I had to unzip it first. This has not been the case for any other TripleA map (when I first downloaded TripleA eons ago I did unzip my maps but nowadays I don't)

• You might want to edit the "wrong" terrain for the caves north of Goblin Town. This was/is broken in Arda as well.

Other than that: I like what you did with the unit balance and I liked the simplification for the rule (I still like the Arda complexity but yours is a good version as well). All in all, the stuff I saw while testing it looked good. Not for me because of the upkeep but good variant!

[alkexr]

Hi everybody! I see there's been lot's of good discussion above. I've read most of it, and skimmed through the rest. I see there are still a few things that I'll need to address, but for now I'll focus my energy on getting version 3 into a playable state.

The main reason I popped my head in here is that I've reworked territory effects for v3, and there is a new dev diary video where I explain it all.

[alkexr]

@cernel What's the status of the map right now? I was under the impression that triplea_maps.yaml wasn't needed anymore since version 2.5-ish. Or at least I remember reading something to that effect on the forum a few years ago.

[Shorogyth]

@alkexr Thanks for the update and the dev diary in particular. Map looks great!

You might be thinking of this thread concerning the new requirements for the maps:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/4177/2-7-system-updates-support-server-nginx-obsoletes-triplea_maps-yml-and-lobby_server-yaml/10

[mortetvie]

@alkexr

If the intent is for each unit to have a certain set of "terrain preferences" apply, and the "tactics" section is to describe how good a unit is in a certain terrain, perhaps the term "proficiency" or "terrain proficiency" would be better suited since that table reflects the proficiency of a particular unit in any type of terrain?

Just my thoughts.

[Shorogyth]

@alkexr

Some thoughts on your "Tactics" table. It is a good approach but I have some simplifications for your math that do not change anything about the balance but make it a lot more digestible/transparent.

First the most important aspect: the table should not have 1 as the standard entry. It absolutely needs to be 0. The value of the unit itself (seen when you purchase it) should be roughly correct and the table should be at 0 instead of 1 for most entries. So all units get +1 for their corresponding baseline stat instead. Then river modifiers change to -1 and the others change to +1 for individual rows.

Almost as important: "Excellent" units get +2 almost everywhere. So their baseline stat(s) should just be increased by +1 and their "Tactics" bonuses reduced by -1 (in comparison to their current state) to +1 and 0 for rivers instead. Which would bring an additional advantage: "Excellent" units would be exactly in line with "Poor" units, eliminating them from the table!

Almost as important as well (because it has the same advantages): "Primitive" is identical with "Good" just shifted down by one. I would reduce the values for "Primitive" units by 1 for their corresponding baseline stat(s) (same reasoning as with excellent). This brings them in line with "good" units, gives them more appropriate baseline stats and eliminates the (most complex) category as well!

These simplifications leave you with three very simple categories: The only modifiers left are:

• Specialized units (formerly "Poor" and "Excellent) get -1 for Rivers
• Average units get +1 for Caves
• Versatile units (formerly "Primitive" and "Good") get +1 for Caves, Plains and Settlements
  This is MUCH easier to digest and creates much better/more appropriate baseline stats for the units. Calling it "specialized" (or "focused" or something like that) and "versatile" eliminates the intuition that "better" units should be the one getting the bonuses.

If I understand correctly, the "tactics" table and the the "terrain preference" table are the same thing just differentiated between common modifiers and uncommon (individual) modifiers. That is fine, of course, but maybe "Tactics (shared modifiers)" would be a clearer headline (this is highly subjective...). The text could reference that there a individual modifiers as well.

Is open fields the better terrain for good and excellent units on purpose? As good as a settlement?

IF you are not going with the simplifications layed out above (you should at least try and to tests with it...)

• The original thought is/was "cheaper units should not be scaling as good as expensive units" and that led to the creation of shared modifiers/tactics. I would argue that the name of the table should reflect this logic. A troll does not employ clever "tactics" but it might bring "Versatility" because of its raw strength/power. So "Versatility" or "Versatility (shared modifiers)" would be clearer. Maybe even straight up something like "Units Power Levels".
• The wording is quite good (easy for all the non-native speakers). I do think "primitive" is a bit of an outlier. It does not work with "versatility" at all and it does wrong for "tactics". Primitive tactics are not necesarily wrong, they could potentially be the very best tactic possible. Overpowering an enemy by attacking all-out is often the best course of action (as is running away). Poor tactics are bad and poorly chosen. I would like this scale more: Poor - Simple - Average - Good - Excellent. It takes out the unclear meaning of primitive.
• The order in the tactics table is a bit broken.
• -> Rivers should be first (or last but then everything else would need to switch order as well).
• -> Caves should be last.
• -> Forests and Marshes should be part of the Mountains-and-Hills column.
• -> Open Fields and Settlements should be the same box/column.

[Paolo Carrera]

@shorogyth
Hi all!
I'm playing two nations (Dwarves and Northern) against IA (mixed easy and fast). First 10 turns: could someone tell me why Wood Elves and Harad AI neither purchase nor move any unit?

Tnx.
p.