Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

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.

TheDog

@paolo-carrera
I have never used/tried EasyAI but that might your issue?
In short dont use it use Hard or Fast.

Paolo Carrera

@thedog
Thanks. I supposed so

[EDIT]:
just confirmed. I have set Fast IA for all, WoodElves and Harad started to play. Other powers set on Easy IA played properly til now.

Paolo Carrera

@thedog
[EDIT]: I don't know if this is the right 3d to post this.
I'm playing with all powers on FastIA and it seems Harad totally disregard a sea invasion of Gondor from south hitting Tolfalas and Belfalas for example. That could weaken the significant land forces superiority (imho) of Gondor over Mordor and rebalance that area.
They keep instead from the start of the game the entire fleet at bay without moving or loading units.
There is a in-game specific reason for that? It's only a matter to set an HardIA?
p.s. I'm new of TripleA, I've played in solo only few maps before Battle of Arda, but in my opinion this is a great map (detailed and done by a passionate of JRRT) and scenario of Middle Earth.
Tnx.

TheDog

@paolo-carrera
Yes this the correct place to post, map specific issues.

This is not my map so this could be misleading, check you have not changed the map options, its default should be as below

Note the Sea Units ticked.

Having said the above, sometimes the AI decides not to use ships much, this could be one of those occasions.

HardAI does play better than FastAI, but at a cost of a slower turn.

Paolo Carrera

@thedog
Ok. Yes, Sea Unit option was already checked.
So it seems only a strategical choice of IA.
I've forced Harad sea attack manually for a couple of turns against the Good (me) :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: