Middle Earth: Battle For Arda - Official Thread

[alkexr]

While the relief map is being done, I'm working on some less spectacular stuff. After the territory effects rework, now units will be reworked. (At the same time, the game xml is going to be integrated with TagX, at least partially.)

First of all, a new ability will be added: shield is the equivalent of armor, except it works against ranged units, as opposed to armor which works against melee units.

Second, "axe cavalry" and similarly uncreative units are going to be replaced with more immersive ones. To this end all players will get more unique units, and generic units will become less prevalent.

Northmen already have their new unit set (as well as new color):

Sorry for the map graphics, everything got screwed up with the map changes, so I'm now stuck with this sh... stuck with whatever this is.

The five new units are:

• beorning warrior: 5 PUs, moves 2, 4 attack, 2 defense, 1 shield, has mountainwalk
• woodman: 5 PUs, moves 2, 1 attack, 3 defense, 4 antiair, 2 ranged bonus, forest dweller
• barding infantry: 7 PUs, moves 2, 3 attack, 4 defense, 2 formation, 2 armor, 2 shield
• raider: 5 PUs, moves 2, 4 attack, 1 defense, 2 flank, raider
• eotheod cavalry: 7 PUs, moves 4, 4 attack, 4 defense, 6 charge

[alkexr]

Development news

Cave dweller was a bit underwhelming, as being a "creature" as opposed to heavy infantry gave you more bonus in a cave than being cave dweller, and caves are rather rare anyway. Now it gives +2 attack and defense instead of +1. Forest dweller has a similar problem, but there are more forest territories, so I'm still thinking about that.

For mapmakers

TagX has a new feature: it can do set operations. ˇ is "or", or join; ^ is "and", or intersection, ~ is "and not", or set difference / except.

What this means is that now territory effects are done. Once and for all. No matter how many new units I add, I won't even have to touch territory effects, they will be implemented automagically. Heck, it can even handle fortification units with raider ability, lest I should decide to go full retard.

This is just to demonstrate the full power of the dark side TagX.

<attachment name="territoryEffectAttachment" attachTo="settlement" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TerritoryEffectAttachment" type="territoryEffect">
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@((infantry^melee)~(armor1ˇarmor2ˇarmor3))~raider@" count="0"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@((infantry^melee)~(armor1ˇarmor2ˇarmor3))~garrison@" count="1"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@(infantry^melee)^(armor1ˇarmor2ˇarmor3)~raider@" count="1"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@(infantry^melee)^(armor1ˇarmor2ˇarmor3)~garrison@" count="2"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@(ranged^infantry)~raider@" count="0"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@(ranged^infantry)~garrison@" count="3"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@cavalry~raider@" count="-2"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@cavalry~garrison@" count="-1"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@creature~raider@" count="-1"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@creature~garrison@" count="-1"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@flying~raider@" count="-1"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@flying~garrison@" count="-1"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@fortification~raider@" count="0"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@fortification~garrison@" count="1"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@noneˇraider^((infantry^melee)~(armor1ˇarmor2ˇarmor3))@" count="2"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@noneˇgarrison^((infantry^melee)~(armor1ˇarmor2ˇarmor3))@" count="3"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@noneˇraider^(infantry^melee)^(armor1ˇarmor2ˇarmor3)@" count="3"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@noneˇgarrison^(infantry^melee)^(armor1ˇarmor2ˇarmor3)@" count="4"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@noneˇraider^(ranged^infantry)@" count="2"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@noneˇgarrison^(ranged^infantry)@" count="5"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@noneˇraider^cavalry@" count="0"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@noneˇgarrison^cavalry@" count="1"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@noneˇraider^creature@" count="1"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@noneˇgarrison^creature@" count="1"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@noneˇraider^flying@" count="1"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@noneˇgarrison^flying@" count="1"/>
		<option name="combatOffenseEffect" value="@noneˇraider^fortification@" count="2"/>
		<option name="combatDefenseEffect" value="@noneˇgarrison^fortification@" count="3"/>
	</attachment>

(Note: "none" is just a tag, and only one unit, named "none", has it. This is necessary to avoid empty lists.)

[alkexr]

Unit changes for Saruman:

• dunlending wildman: 4 PUs, 2 move, 2/2 mountainwalk raider
• halforc: 5 PUs, 2 move, 2/5, 3 formation
• warg rider: 6? PUs, 4 move, 5/2, 4 charge
• uruk warrior: 8 PUs, 3 move, 4/3, 2 armor, 1 shield, raider
• uruk pikeman: PUs, 3 move, 4/6, 1 armor, 6 formation
• crebain: some weak 1 hit air unit
• wizard: idk really strong
• fire of orthanc: 2 move, 0/0, suicide, a shitload of siege

[Hepps]

The reliefs are all done. Here is a look at the Shires...

The colours are just cut and pasted from the original version with the map deatails on. So if you use the original Hex numbers in the Map Properties file everyting is more brilliant.

[Hepps]

Same thing with names and the PU & UP (reduced size)

[redrum]

@hepps Wow, looks awesome. Just need to redo those units now

[Cernel]

@hepps Yeah, now you are putting the units image to shame.:face_without_mouth:

[Hepps]

@redrum Let's just settle down for now. Perhaps once all the tweeking has been done to the map and a good balance has been achieved... we can examine the possibility of further enhancements.

Bear in mind that once I have gotten the thumbs up on the PU, UP and Names... I still have to design them all.

[prastle]

@hepps But you live for this! It is your purpose in life!

[redrum]

@hepps Fair enough. My thoughts:

• PUs and UPs look great
• I like the name font though is it possible to give them a bit more outline? Feel like they fade into some of the backgrounds a bit (ex. Tuckborough). Just an idea.

[Hepps]

@redrum Yup. Same thoughts here. I am working on a variation with it slightly bolder right now.

[alkexr]

@hepps The territory names and PUs are nice. The orange UP numbers are a bit hard to tell apart at a glance.

If you start doing PUs and unit production, keep in mind that I will change them for quite a few territories as soon as the new units are done and balancing starts, and they will be subject to modification throughout the beta period, especially PUs.

As for territory names, I will change some of them too. I'm going to send you a list of territory names that are new, changed or have unusual spelling.

[alkexr]

@redrum said in Large Middle Earth - official thread:

I like the name font though is it possible to give them a bit more outline? Feel like they fade into some of the backgrounds a bit (ex. Tuckborough).

They are fine on the full-sized image, I think.

[Hepps]

Here is my revision...

[alkexr]

@hepps I like that red line. Can we have more of that?

[Hepps]

@alkexr LOL... as far as what? The line is meant to simply separate the two versions of the territory names.

Where exactly would you like to see it used?

[alkexr]

@hepps Like so ;D

[Hepps]

@alkexr I have designed all the PU from 1 through 12 as per the original game design... as long as I know what upper limits you plan to use... I can add more in without issue.

You are going to be the one doing all the plotting and placement for the PU, UP and Names if it is to be done the official way. I emphatically refuse as it is an extraordinary waste of time... I did it for CCLXX and that is the VERY LAST time I will ever do such a ridiculous exercise.

[alkexr]

@hepps Anyway...

So I'm not sure it is necessary to change the territory names. But if I try to reverse the situation, and imagine that the question is whether or not the new names should be changed to the original names, I can't think of any reason to do that. So it's just status quo bias on my behalf: the new names are better.

As for placement of stuff: I'll just write a program where I can place this stuff instead of having to manually edit the placement files. I have done it manually once for this map, that was enough for me too I'll also write a better placement picker I think. Not now, though, this will have to wait until around August, barring miracles.

[Hepps]

@alkexr That would be a superb improvement.

I don't mind doing it all as long as we do it in this method....

1. All of the terrain and relief imagery will simply be put into the Base Tiles folder.

2. All of the PU, UP and Territory Names will be placed in the Relief Tiles folder.

3. If and when we implement Flags for the map (or anything else) they will be placed in the Decorations Layer.

Doing it this way will allow me to do everything for you as well as making any alterations very quickly without all the laborious work associated with doing things with the established methods. If and when an easier system is developed we can redo all the work at that time as it will be simple to change.