As discussed in the features thread, I moved this to a seperate thread. This will help us keep track of the different elements and will always have the updated list in the very first post. A prelimenary list of civs and their leaders and heroes is here. Suggestions are always welcome, especially for the not yet known heroes and leaders.

Elves

Noldor

House of Fingolfin

Leaders: Finwe, Gil-Galad, Galadriel
Hero: Elrond, Glorfindel
UUs: Elven Archers, ??
UBs: Flets (city defense)??

House of Feanor

Leaders: Feanor, Fingolfin?
Hero: ??
UUs: ??
UBs: ??


Teleri

Leaders: Cirdan, Celeborn, Elwe
Hero: Arwen??
UUs: Elven Archers, Swan ships (early transport)
UBs:

Sindar

Leaders: Thranduil, Luthien, Thingol
Hero: Legolas
UUs: Elven Archers, ??
UBs: ??

Vanyar

Leaders: Ingwe
Hero: ??
UUs: ?? --> maybe something with more magic, are still in Aman after all
UBs: ??


Good Men

Numenor (leader: Elros Tar-Minyatur, Tar-Elendil, Ar-Pharazôn, Tar-Palantir, Tar-Minastir)(hero: Valandil)

Leaders:
Hero: Valandil
UUs: Unique ships
UBs: Something with watchtowers maybe?

Arnor

Leaders: Elendil, Isildur, Aragorn II, Arvedui, Earendur, Argeleb I
Hero: Halbarad (captain of Aragorn after Helms deep)
UUs: Dunedain Rangers (horseman & rangers, if this is possible)
UBs: Watchtower, healing house

Gondor

Leaders: Elendil, Isildur, Aragorn II, Eldacar, Earendil
Hero: Boromir, Faramir
UUs: Tower Guards, Guards of the Citadel
UBs: Strong gate, Rammas Echor

House of Beor, Haleth, Halor

Leaders: Beor, Haleth, Halor
Hero: Beren
UUs: ??
UBs: ??


Neutral Men

Rohirrim

Leaders: Theoden, Eorl, Helm Hammerhand
Hero: Eomer, Fram
UUs: Different mounted units.
UBs: Keep, ??

Northmen [Dale and Beornings]

Leaders: Beorn, Bard
Hero: Brand
UUs: Dale archers, ship??
UBs: city on water (something with health or gold)

Dunlending

Leaders: Freca
Hero: Wulf
UUs: units plunder more gold??
UBs: ??

Isengard (only one city, rest settlements)

Leaders: Saruman
Hero: Lurtz (not really from the books though)
UUs: Uruk-Hai
UBs: Industry?


Evil Men

Haradrim

Leaders: Herumor
Hero: ??
UUs: Mumakil (only civ with elephants), chariots
UBs: something with a stable?

Easterling

Leaders: Bor, Ulfang
Hero: ??
UUs: ??
UBs: ??

Angmar

Leaders: Witch King
Hero: ??
UUs: sorcery maybe?
UBs: ??


Shadow

Mordor

Leaders: Sauron
Hero: Mouth of Sauron, Ringwraith(s)
UUs: Orcs, Uruks, Trolls
UBs: Something with factories or breeding pits??

Angband

Leaders: Melkor
Hero: Gothmog (first of the balrogs), Glaurung
UUs: Balrogs, Dragons, Orcs, Trolls
UBs: ??


Dwarves

Longbeard

Leaders: Durin, Thorin Oakenshield, Dain, Thráin I
Hero: Gimli, Balin
UUs: Dwarven slingers, Dwarven "cannon", Dragon slayers
UBs: something with forge

Firebeard & Ironfists

Leaders: Azaghâl, Telchar
Hero: ??
UUs: ??
UBs: ??

Azaghâl and Telchar for the Firebeard and Ironfist Dwarfs. I would concentrate on leaders first, heroes later.

How many Noldor leaders are we going to add? There are quite a lot of them.... one of the first scenario's that we should make is a first age one with all of them in :drool:

Haradrim leader: Herumor

That's a good question. I would say we add to start something like 4 maybe and only take the most important ones (preferably in 4 different era's). I was thinking of Finwe (first king of the Noldor) and Feanor (creator of the Silmarils) (first era), Fingolfin and Gil-Galad. These are all high kings of the noldor which may be appropriate, but not covering all era's. But then again, elves are immortal :). Maybe we should add Galadriel as well? Glorfindel could be a good hero by the way also for the Noldor (just came across him as also being Noldor).

For Gondor and Arnor: the reason three leaders are the same is because they ruled both. In FFH2, although I'm not sure about only BtS, is that leaders can be assigned to multiple civilizations. This is really cool for at least some of these leaders and gives us the flexibility to put leaders in multiple civs if that would fit better and we don't have to choose.

Didn't knew about leaders subbing for multiple civs. That's going to come in handy. I think Finwe and Feanor should definately be in, and I would like to see Gil-Galad as well. Not so sure about Fingolfin. He could indeed be used as hero as well (not that we are short on Noldor heroes). I think we best have a open slot for the last leader of the Noldor, that we can fill in when we are deciding on the traits of the other leaders, so that we can pick a leader with a unique feel to it.

Yeah that is true. I thought Fingolfin because he was the king of the Noldor that led them to Middle Earth if I remember correctly from the top of my head. As far as the others go, Gil-Galad definetly and as far as I'm concerned also Finwe and Feanor. That way we at least already have three fixed ones.

Do you know actually if there is a maximum number of leaders per civ? I don't think so but I'm not sure (although of course to many would really also not be good)

Heroes:

Teleri - Arwen (since she is Celeborns Granddaughter)

Numenor - Valandil (first of the Lords of Andunie - renowned for their friendship with the Eldar).

Gondor - Faramir

Edain - Beren

Longbeard - Balin

Rohan - Fram (slayer of Scatha the Worm - The Great Dragon of Ered Mithrin) - Eomer should perhaps be a Leader

Dunlending - Wulf (Son of Freca - conquered Rohan for a time)

Isengard? Where is Isengard?

The problem with Isengard is that it is a city, not a civ really. Though I read about some civ in FFH that was limited in the number of cities it could build (and could build settlements for obtaining more resources IIRC (Kuriates??)). Maybe that could be adapted for Isengard.

The problem with Isengard is that it is a city, not a civ really. Though I read about some civ in FFH that was limited in the number of cities it could build (and could build settlements for obtaining more resources IIRC (Kuriates??)). Maybe that could be adapted for Isengard.

This is indeed a possible solution although I'm not sure about it. It could give some very nice flavor to the civ (one city with special Orthanc texturing or something and the rest as settlements) but I'm not sure how workable this is. I haven't yet played with the Kuriates in FFH2. It is worth considering. If not than I don't know if we should really make it a civ. Maybe Saruman in the Dunlendings although that also doesn't really fit well I think.

Also hero for Arnor: Halbarad, the leader of the dunedain that accompanied Aragorn after Helm's Deep)

Do what we were originally planning, and make a civ that is both Dunlendings and isengard....

early units are human, but later ones are Uruk hai

That makes a lot of sense actually.

I'd say it's nonsense to have both Arnor and Gondor, and only one Edain civ. The later were actually one people, thought divided; the first were completely different in all concerns, and never had anything to do with each other except race.
Also, having only one civ for the Noldor is a thing I could not conceive (perhaps I like them the most...). The houses of the Noldor were allies against Morgoth, but in all other concerns rivals and even enemies - the House of Feanor actually turned against the survivors of Gondolin and crushed them. In the Second Age, they kind of united; but still there was Gil-Galad amongst the Falathrim and Celebrimbor in Eregion (let's say, too civs: the people of Gil-Galad in the Havens and Rivendell, and the people of Celebrimbor in Eregion). In the third age... well, there were too few noldor for even one kingdom, they actually had one single city.
One Shadow civ for Sauron and Angband for Morgoth? First, if this is the structure adopted, it would be Mordor and Angband. Second, I'd not separate Morgoth and Sauron in 2 civs. Sauron was never a rival power to Morgoth, only one servant and sucessor. Like Finwe and Feanor, or Elendil and Isildur (even thought the later actually had two coexisting realms, they were not really separate - Isildur "served" his father).
The Men of Khand could easily fit in one of the other civs. We know too little about the evil men to separate them in all the correct peoples and kingdoms.

I see what you're saying but to be honest I don't agree. Mordor and Angband are completely different in the kind of units etcetera they employed (Morgoth used werewolves, balrogs, dragons, etc, while Sauron had different units, think uruks, etc). Of course there are similarities in units (orcs, trolls, etc) but I would really make them seperate civs. Gameplay wise this also makes much more sense, even if it would theoratically be possible to have them against each other in a normal game.

Arnor and Gondor I would really like to have seperate. We can do enough I think to make them unique and it is not a problem of having more civs in my opinion. The leaders can be shared among the two in FFH2 so that is not a problem.

I see your point in splitting the Noldor and the Edain. If we can find sufficient names for each civ and give them a distinct feeling, this is not a problem in my opinion.

PS: Mordor was a typo, should always have been this instead of shadow twice.

I'm in favor of splitting the Noldor and the Edain (especially the Noldor), at least for the 'long list'. And I agree with Berenthor that Melkor and Sauron were so different in outlook that they shouldn't be lumped together, though I think I'm going to see whether it is possible to restrict the shadow civs to one per map (Angmar would have to move to evil men in that case).

For Isengard, you could merge them with the Dunlendings, but I think the whole Kuriotates idea works great for them.

I think keeping Arnor and Gondor separate works, there's enough difference. I'm neutral on the Noldor and the Edain - if you can pull off enough differentiation between the splits to make it worth it, do it, otherwise just add some extra leaders.

Keep in mind that if Angband gets Balrogs, they're going to almost have to be ridiculously overpowered. Either every Good civ is going to have to have some way to counter them, or you have to somehow make it so that they can if they all ally together. (And if there's only 1 evil civ per game, then Good players fighting Mordor are going to have a WAY easier time than fighting Angband.)

As a random and highly unlikely suggestion: Split the game into Ages. That way Morgoth's Balrogs don't way overpower TA Good guys like Gondor, and FA Good guys don't way overpower Sauron. Wouldn't be easy to pull off though unless you did something reminiscent of RFC.

For Morgoth and Sauron, perhaps they could be different civs with different Unit lists, but we could make it so that only 1 of those Civs can be presant in any 1 game. Both can never exist at the same time. That would be easier perhaps.

I remade the civ list to reflect the current discussion and also added UU and UB placeholders and suggestions. This way when we talk about differentiating them we can immediatly do that there. I definetly like the Kuriates idea although there they have as a minimum on small maps four cities I think. Isengard would have one, so we have to check if that is still playable. As for the Balrogs, we can in favor of gameplay not make them that strong. Keep in mind, nothing can be perfect, we have to balance for gameplay. We can also keep them as later units in a kind of berserker way (strong attack, week defense) and keep the earlier units as orcs, trolls, etc. The same holds for the elves, I would make them not stronger in the first age, but make some good decisions about when units appear.

In FFH2 you can select a random civ normally but also by allignment. Maybe we could add something that also does this for the shadow civ. Only one can be there, although maybe it would be cool to have Sauron fighting Melkor (he wants the power for himself). It is about alternate paths in history :). I wouldn't really limit the game by disallowing this completely. Maybe people want to play this.

Perhaps allow both Shadow Civs through Custom Games only then.

Unique Building for the Rohirrim should also perhaps be an upgraded Stable of some sort to show their mastery of Mounted Warfare.

For normal games either Sauron or Morgoth (not both), give a check box in the Custom Game screen for allowing both.

I agree with splitting the Noldor into House of Finwë and House of Fëanor. That, or if there's not enough difference you can have some of the House of Finwë as Good-aligned leaders and some of the House of Fëanor as Neutral-aligned leaders.
However, I don't think you can get as much gameplay variance out of splitting the Edain, especially with three separate civs.

I think Dunlendings should be merged with some other Evil Men civ (in the Quenta Silmarillion their ancestors fell under what was then called 'Easterling'), and Isengard should be a separate Evil civ. It shouldn't count as a full Shadow civ, but it shouldn't be any Men civ either. The vast majority of Isengard's military in the late-game should be Uruk-based, but IDK about the early-game.
We might want a sort of Wild Orc civ too (Goblins?), just as a suggestion.

Do you think we could add the civ leaders as heroes as well? Pretty much everybody listed as Leaders up there personally fought in some battle or other (Vanyar excepted).

Rohan UB agreed. Mordor UB should be Orc Pit or something (replaces Barracks, adds some bonus when producing Orc-race units), and any Isengard civ (Dunlendings if Isengard isn't separate) get a better Forge. (But of course a Forge doesn't make any sense for a pure Dunlending civ, they barely had any metalworking in the first place.)
The Dwarves should get something special with Mountains - workable Mountain tiles? cities in Mountain tiles? Maybe we should have a separate Mountain-with-Underground-Passages tile for the Dwarves and some kind of Orcs.

There is the Machu Pichu Wonder from one of the Mods (History in the Making, I believe). Change the name to Durin's Tower or something like that, to give it the Middle-Earth flavour.

The Wonder doesnt give workable mountains, but gives the peaks food and commerce. It could be changed to allow working though, I am sure.

Well, that's what I meant. Mountains as tiles cities can use.
I think workable mountains should be either automatically available to all Dwarves immediately, or be a kind of UB that any city can build (not a Wonder or Project of any kind).

We could also give the Dwarves a free combat upgrade that gives them the first defence for Hills for free. To represent their lifestyle of living in the Hills and Mountains. Like protective, but for Hills Defence instead of a Free Strike Bonus.

For unique Buildings for the Noldor: House of Finwe:

Flets?: +25% City Defence Bonus as your Units can take to the Tress with ease.

Some comments, I've played as Kuriotates last night and I think It should be possible to limit Isengard to one city, though it would require some additional traits on the leader (at least adaptive), which makes sense as the leader is a pretty big guy. Isengard would be Neutral IMHO. Personally I would like to make most evil civs not evil by nature, but have a tendency to turn to evil (they are easier to corrupt, but not evil from the start).

The reason why I don't want to group the evil/neutral civs together is that from a gameplay point of view we need some kind of a balance between good (elves/edain) and evil. It is ok to tip the balance in favor of the good, as the shadow civs will probably be stronger powerwise, but we should at least have some choice between evil/neutral civs.

Also about Balrogs: I think we can keep them as extraordinary strong units (which they were), but they would be expensive to build (and wouldn't be build right out of the gate, but need a tech and a building, not sure which yet). They would not start as overly powerful, but get automatic experience just like heroes, albeit a tad slower. Anti-balrog promotions should also be available, so that a couple of units should have a decent chance to defeat one Balrog. If that's still to strong we could also limit the number of available Balrog by making them national units.
Most of the above goes for dragons as well.

About dwarves: They should be able to work mountains and their workers should probably be able to make passages through the mountains, after which dwarven units can pass through without problem (as fast as on roads), other units can pass through at a max of one move per turn. Passages outside dwarben culture would have a chance of collapsing per random event.

Some comments, I've played as Kuriotates last night and I think It should be possible to limit Isengard to one city, though it would require some additional traits on the leader (at least adaptive), which makes sense as the leader is a pretty big guy. Isengard would be Neutral IMHO. Personally I would like to make most evil civs not evil by nature, but have a tendency to turn to evil (they are easier to corrupt, but not evil from the start).

The reason why I don't want to group the evil/neutral civs together is that from a gameplay point of view we need some kind of a balance between good (elves/edain) and evil. It is ok to tip the balance in favor of the good, as the shadow civs will probably be stronger powerwise, but we should at least have some choice between evil/neutral civs.

Yes, that's good. With most Men civs the idea works fine. The only thing is with Isengard (and maybe Angmar) is that they should get units that are decidedly evil.

Also about Balrogs: I think we can keep them as extraordinary strong units (which they were), but they would be expensive to build (and wouldn't be build right out of the gate, but need a tech and a building, not sure which yet). They would not start as overly powerful, but get automatic experience just like heroes, albeit a tad slower. Anti-balrog promotions should also be available, so that a couple of units should have a decent chance to defeat one Balrog. If that's still to strong we could also limit the number of available Balrog by making them national units.
Most of the above goes for dragons as well.
I like it. Definitely go with national unit.

About dwarves: They should be able to work mountains and their workers should probably be able to make passages through the mountains, after which dwarven units can pass through without problem (as fast as on roads), other units can pass through at a max of one move per turn. Passages outside dwarben culture would have a chance of collapsing per random event.
Almost exactly what I was thinking. Collapsed passages should be faster to build new passages on than plain mountain.
There should also be random events where passages become inhabited by goblins.

Yes, that's good. With most Men civs the idea works fine. The only thing is with Isengard (and maybe Angmar) is that they should get units that are decidedly evil.
Well that's the point. They will only get those units if they have turned to evil and will get other units if they stay neutral or turn to good.

I agree with making teh Balrog a national Unit. Do the same with the Ringwraiths/Nazgul. Limit it to Nine total. Earlier version Ringwraith on Horse, later version Nazgul on flying mount.

Well that's the point. They will only get those units if they have turned to evil and will get other units if they stay neutral or turn to good.

Ah. I see what you mean.

Somehow 9 Nazgûl seems like a bit much, it depends on how strong they are. Maybe 8 (or however many balance limits us to) Nazgûl and have the Witch-King as a hero unit.

The Wraiths on Wings brings up another question. What kind of flying units are we going to deal with, and how will we deal with them? I think treating them like normal Civ4 treats airplanes would work fine for most if not all flying units.
I think we definitely need Eagles and Nazgûl+Fell Beasts, and winged dragons from the First Age (IIRC). IDK what else there would be.

The Nazgûl should definately be split in 8 Nazgûl and the Witch-King, as the Witch-King was far more powerfull than the others. This way we can get one very strong unit and 8 reasonably strong units. (I'm not quite sure about going to prevent them from crossing running water without bridge, but it would be in tune with the book).

About the flying creatures... I haven't thought about it yet. Will do so. I agree that we should put them in but as of yet I'm not quite sure how. As normal planes might work... we'll have to see about it I guess.

Let the Winged version be an upgrade. Perhaps require the Shadow Civ to build a special National Wonder that provides the Ability to build Nazgul or upgrade Ringwraith if already Built.

Example:

Removed - Better Example below

That, and a tech as well probably.

I agree with the Tech as well. I also added in the requirement for building The Nine Rings of Power national Wonder for them.

So:

The One-Ring -> The Nine Rings of Power (Mounted Ringwraith) -> Subjugation of Fell-Beasts Tech (Fell-Beasts/Flying Nazgul)

I like that idea. As far as the flying is concerned: don't make them airplane like. This will make it very limited to "air missions". In FFH2 they have dragons and griffon units which just move over impassable terrain (although we should think about oceans) and ignore movement costs. These thinks should really be balanced properly but this will work quite well I think. "Flying" or "Winged" could be a promotion which gives these properties to a unit maybe or just make it racial (dragons have it or something).

The Rings of Power seem like they need to be Projects or whatever that create items. We don't have to have all 20 rings (3 elf, 7 dwarf, 9 men, One), maybe just one or two of each kind (and the One Ring) that do whatever. Maybe for Men Rings their ability for Evil players is to upgrade a Man-race unit to a Nazgûl, consuming the ring in the process (destroying a Nazgûl doesn't leave a ring behind).
Maybe building the projects give you all (3, 7, 9) of the relevant rings. The only benefit for obtaining a not-your-race ring (except the One Ring) should be that then nobody else can use it.

For Fell Beasts, the Fell Beast project I suggested should give you Fell Beast units. You can use them as units individually, or combine them with Nazgûl (i.e. man + man ring) to create Wraiths on Wings.

Using the One Ring (whatever that may mean) should instantly convert Good civs to Neutral and Neutral civs to Evil. That shouldn't apply for any stealth effects it may give. (If all the One Ring does is stealth, then it's ridiculously underpowered.)

You are thinking of teh Rings as equipment then, right?

I wasn't thinking along those lines when I was writing up the wonders. I suppose that could work. I was thinking that The Three Rings of the Elves would be one wonder and so on.

Yeah, pretty much. They're equipment that's created by Projects (so the Three Rings of the Elves would be a project that creates three Elven Ring items).

We probably need some sorta Ring of Power Forging tech enabling all of these.

Sounds like a good idea. But maybe a first thing we should try is to get the civilization list filled in completely. I know these are important issues but we can't resolve everything at once :). Maybe we should focus on filling the civilization and unit list and the tech tree. That is a good basis to start modding also.

I concur! :)

Yeup, as soon as we have some finalized ideas about the techtree and civlist, we can start making the xml files and linking things to techs as well.

That said,
- I like the elves list the way it is now (Noldor split, 5 elven civs alltogether). Leave as is.
- I'm not sure on splitting the Edain. Limiting the good men to Numenor, Gondor, Arnor and Edain is still an option for me.
- Neutral men: I would add Isengard as a separate civ, using the Kuriotates from FFH as a base. Dunlending, Rohirrim and Northmen are ok (obviously if we put in Isengard, we should put in Saruman as a leader for Dunlendings). The reason I want Isengard as a OCC, is that I feel it gives us a really unique civ that fits well with the books.
- Evil men, Shadow and Dwarves: Ok.


Summary:
Add Isengard, I'm still in doubt about the Edain.

NOTE: this is only about the civs list. I think we should finalize that first, only then start working on the leaders, heroes, etc.

How Civs stand at the moment without any other information + a few additions for discussion.

Civilizations:

Elves:

Noldor: House of Finwe
Noldor: House of Feanor
Teleri
Sindar
Vanyar

Good Men:

Numenor
Arnor
Gondor
Edain *

Neutral Men:

Rohirrim
Northmen
Dunlending
Isengard

Evil Men:

Haradrim
Easterling
Angmar

Shadow:

Mordor
Angband

Dwarves:

Longbeard
Firebeard & Ironfists


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* = In regards to the Edain, I agree that they should be 1 Civ. We can break them up for a scenario at some point.

* = In regards to the Dwarves, we can add these other Fathers for a scenario sometime perhaps (Broadbeams, Stiffbeards, Blacklocks & Stonefoots).

I'll go by your discussion points one by one:

1. Numenor: I can go either way on this one, but I'm slightly in favor of including them, otherwise I feel we lack an era.

2. Edain: Agreed.

3. I prefer 2 dwarven clans: Longbeards, and Firebeards/Ironfists combined.

4. hmmm, not quite sure. On the one hand I would like to keep the shadow reserved for the heavy weight evil guys and would like to have only one shadow civ on the map. Having Angmar as a shadow civ can complicate this, but that can probably be worked around. On the other hand: you are absolutely right that they were never ruled by men. I do not remember at the moment what the troops of Angmar were composed of. Did they include trolls/orcs?

5. I am of the opinion that Saruman is not inherently evil and should not start out as such (it is mainly Saruman we are talking about). He started out as quite a nice guy, albeit a tad arrogant. He should however be more easily turned to evil then to good.

#1: I understand this point. I'll remove my comments and leave it as is.

#2: Agreed = no comments necessary ;)

#3: I understand. I'll put them in Brackets to perhaps be used for a Scenario, but not as main civs.

#4: It depends on the Era about units I believe. In all, men were used. Specifically the Men of Carn Dum during the Witch-King's Rule. We'll leave them as an Evil Men Civ. You are right about not pumping up the Shadow too much.

#5: I agree. Saruman should be able to go either way.

Current List:

How Civs stand at the moment without any other information.

Civilizations:

Elves:

Noldor: House of Fingolfin
Noldor: House of Feanor
Teleri
Sindar
Vanyar

Good Men:

Numenor
Arnor
Gondor
Edain *

Neutral Men:

Rohirrim
Northmen
Dunlending
Isengard

Evil Men:

Haradrim
Easterling
Angmar

Shadow:

Mordor
Angband

Dwarves:

Longbeard
Firebeards & Ironfists


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* = In regards to the Edain, we can break them up for a scenario at some point.

* = In regards to the Dwarves, we can add these other Fathers for a scenario sometime perhaps (Broadbeams, Stiffbeards, Blacklocks & Stonefoots).

I mostly like the civ list as it stands. I'm not sure about having men divided by alignment at the beginning though. I kind of like the idea of all (or at least most) men starting out neutral and then being attracted to Good or Evil by either the Elves or the Shadow.

5. I am of the opinion that Saruman is not inherently evil and should not start out as such (it is mainly Saruman we are talking about). He started out as quite a nice guy, albeit a tad arrogant. He should however be more easily turned to evil then to good.
I like this, and I think it should be extended to several other civs (see spoiler).


STARTING ALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT MOST LIKELY, i.e. Isengard's would be EVIL)

Elves:
Noldor: House of Finwë - GOOD
Noldor: House of Fëanor - NEUTRAL
Teleri - GOOD
Sindar - NEUTRAL (GOOD, faster than most)
Vanyar - GOOD (PERMANENT GOOD?)

Men:
Nûmenor - NEUTRAL
Arnor - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Gondor - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Edain - GOOD
Rohirrim - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Northmen - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Dunlending - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Isengard - NEUTRAL (EVIL, maybe faster than most)
Haradrim - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Easterling - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Angmar - EVIL

Shadow:
Mordor - PERMANENT EVIL
Angband - PERMANENT EVIL

Dwarves:
Longbeard - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Firebeard & Ironfists - NEUTRAL (GOOD? I don't know who they are, so I don't know if it fits)

Don't forget your dïâcrítîcs ^_^

Good list T F.

Most of the Firebeards and Ironfits amalgamated with the Longbeards after there homes were destroyed. By the end of the Third Age, I don't think there was really any difference anymore due to intermarriage and all.

I like the allignment list. I made some modifications to the first list. I removed the Edain as three seperate civs and added Isengard as its own civ. I like it how it stands now. One point in the alignment list: Northmen should be neutral (good). It is the men of dale and esgorath so they were more good than evil if I remember correctly. Keep all dwarfs neutral indeed. Vanyar definetly permanent good. They still reside in Aman and not in Middle Earth. Like the Isengard civ, we should make this civ quite different and special. That would be really cool. The rest of the allignments I like. I will add them to the first list after we discussed it a little. Maybe tomorrow.

If this is the finalized list of Civs, then we can officially move on to Alignments.

Lets get a yes or no here before really getting into the alignments.

I believe the Civ list is good and done.

What is everyone elses vote on this?

We should also have a listed order of discussions.

Idea:

#1: Civs: Not Finalized

#2: Alignments: Not Finalized

#3: Leaders: Not Finalized

#4: Heroes: Not Finalized

#5: Unique Units: Not Finalized

#6: Unique Buildings: Not Finalized

I will start a new thread just for this. The only posting will be to announce updated material. We can debate over the list here as well.

Yes for alignments. Agreed on the Northmen thing (wasn't thinking), that balances Good and Evil leaning Men civs perfectly (1 starting, 4 leaning each).

I'm fine with the order.

Civ list is ok. Alignments as well (with Northmen as (Neutral (Good)) that is). It has a nice spread indeed.
Let's give others say 24h to comment, otherwise we'll brand this as the offical Arda Mod Civ List (TM)

I agree with the list and also with the allignment.

All right. So just to confirm, according to the post by T F:

STARTING ALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT MOST LIKELY, i.e. Isengard's would be EVIL)

Elves:
Noldor: House of Finwë - GOOD
Noldor: House of Fëanor - NEUTRAL
Teleri - GOOD
Sindar - NEUTRAL (GOOD, faster than most)
Vanyar - GOOD (PERMANENT GOOD)

Men:
Nûmenor - NEUTRAL
Arnor - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Gondor - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Edain - GOOD
Rohirrim - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Northmen - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Dunlending - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Isengard - NEUTRAL (EVIL, maybe faster than most)
Haradrim - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Easterling - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Angmar - EVIL

Shadow:
Mordor - PERMANENT EVIL
Angband - PERMANENT EVIL

Dwarves:
Longbeard - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Firebeard & Ironfists - NEUTRAL (GOOD)

----------------------------------------------------------

My comments:

So so people know about the two changes I made based on previous comments. I changed Vanyar to GOOD (PERMANENT GOOD) - removed the question mark. I also changed Firebeard & Ironfists to NEUTRAL (GOOD) - they ended up integrating with the Longbeards so they are they are the same alignment wise.

I have only 1 problem. I believe that the Northmen should be NEUTRAL (GOOD), not NEUTRAL (EVIL), because they are based on the Beornings and Dale/Esgaroth. These are all basically good people, not evil. Let me know what you think and then we can have this info for the Alignment posted in the discussion as completed.

I am also going to post completed material there in spoilers so the post doesn't get to be as big as Arda itself :). I will post the completed Civ list there now. Now that the Civ list is completed, Sengir can update the features page if he wishes.

Yeah, about Northmen I that's what I said, T_F agreed as well, and I think Berenthor did too (but his text can be interpreted both ways).

Other than that, alignments are done in my book.

Done then, I must have forgot about that sorry. I'll move it over now as well.

What about Elda King's and Thomas's "King Unit" idea? It was quite good.

Long time no see. Good to see you back Sifaus. That is an idea that can still be talked about. Perhaps you should create a thread for Hero & King Units. That way we can talk about it without get too distracted about other things.

I think hero and king units should wait until we have agreed upon the leaders as that will make a major difference. I do however think it would be nice to have them in, if only because most of the leaders were heroes as well and using king-units is a way to have them as both.

Good idea. We should make all the Leaders, King Units. Perhaps also have Heros. This should go in its own thread however. This thread, now that the Civ list is finalized should be considered dead. This way we can concentrate on those that need attention.

Agreed with King Units (I think I suggested them somewhere back too...), and Heroes definitely also. We need an official Leaders thread now.

Apparently the Civ list is no longer finalized. Both Sengir and Berenthor have problems with it now it seems.

The POINT:

Isengard as 1 City and Dunlendings are their own Civ.

or

Isengard and Dunlendings as 1 Civ and Isengard is the Capital/Master.

I am putting this in the vote thread.

The Noldor are great with just 2 Houses, but it should not be House of Finwe but House of Fingolfin. Feanor was the heir of Finwe, his most loved son; Fingolfin was the other major Noldo leader, Feanor's "rival", the High King after him, and Finarfin's people followed him and his sons allways.

The Edain really don't have that much information to make many different civs. But if you go for separate Arnor and Gondor (wich actually were one people, and allways strongly linked) having 3 different peoples, that had completely different culture and nothing at all to do with one another as a single civ is simply illogical. Make an Exiles civ and it would be simply fine.

I do not agree at all with having Mordor and Angband. Sure, they were different, Morgoth had a lot of units Sauron didn't. They were of different ages. The Shadow can build Balrogs in the first age, either it is Sauron or Morgoth, but later it focuses on better orcs and trolls, nazgul, etc.
The point with the single Shadow civ was: all the evil in ME actually came from Morgoth. Sauron was all the time only "serving" Morgoth, even when he was acting for himself. Even when banned from the world, Morgoth was still the responsible for all the evil in it. Also, one predominant event in the books is the recognition that all the while, behind all the evil powers was a single will. Separating Angmar from the Shadow broke it a bit, but it made sense because it was actually a "vassal" of Sauron much like the evil men. But the goblins in the mountains, the evil on Mirkwood, the Balrog of Moria ("maybe the malice of Sauron had already awakened it"), the plague in Gondor, the civil wars, even Smaug, everything that was thrown against the free peoples in the 2nd and 3rd ages was Sauron's will in action - and behind him, Morgoth's. That was what I thought when I created the Shadow civ.


About balrogs: having them as expensive units, or heroes, would not work. They were very, very early units - so no civ could build an expensive unit. They were powerful at all times, and not more powerful with time passing. They should be national units, but something should keep you from building more and more as they died - no Balrogs in 3rd age, perhaps except those that survived the 1st.
Giving them a good power level, but weak against heroes, is a must. But my idea was giving them a very powerful promotion, not based in their strength, that kept them frightening wether your unit has an attack of 2 or 10. I thought about the "Doom" promo, that killed any unit that defeated the Balrog. It made a lot of sense, since every balrog-killer in the canon died with his feat (Ecthelion, Glorfindel, Gandalf), and made you think twice about attacking a balrog even if you could easily defeat it - specially since it's allways hard to defeat it without a hero, and losing a hero is something you really wish to avoid. But there are other options: for example, random events when fighting a balrog (from collateral damage to feature changing, first strikes or losing promos, everything may count) or giving it a constant chance of victory (and perhaps turning any unit that defeats it into a hero, or giving a HUGE bunch of exp. points to heroes). A unit that wins 80% of it's fights, even against your strongest units, means trouble (perhaps lesser chances against heroes...). A increase in strength from age to age should also work, making it challenging against either first or third age units.


About leaders, kings and heroes: when I designed the first civs, I took care to do not use great warriors (like Aragorn, Túrin, etc) leaders, because I wanted them as heroes. But later, we came up with king units, that allowed those to be both leaders and units. Anyway, having just civ-based leaders is not the best way - some heroes should be buildable by many civs, sometimes even by different peoples (elves should be able to build Beren or Túrin, for example). The main problem was that some civs had way too many heroes, while some (like Harad) had none. I believe that having a Hero Cap (only X heroes, either civ-specific or free for all) would be great, but you should still watch for no civs being unable to build heroes. Also, I'd advise you to diferentiate between great warriors (should be heroes) and great commanders (should be leaders/kings).

I like the idea of King units. I hadn't heard the idea yet and we should check if it is possible to determine which unit you can build depending on the leader instead of the civ, but this should be possible (probably in python code I think). A max number of heroes is indeed also wise (maybe one or two per civ or one per age or something but I'm really not sure). Can someone explain the full concept of king units to me, please?

The balrogs should indeed be contained and I like the idea of making them obsolete after the first or second age but the ones you have will stay. Personally I'm not too fond of only letting heroes be able to kill them and then also dying themselves. Gameplay wise I think this would be very frustrating. Increasing strength (coupled to the entry tech of an era maybe) is however a nice idea.

On the shadow being Mordor and Angband seperate or together, I think we disagree completely. In my opinion, Mordor and Angband are sufficiently different to make it into two civs. One of the proposals done in this thread keep it more realistic is to make sure there is only one shadow civ in every game (either Angband or Mordor). I don't like the fact of making Mordor an immediate vassal of Angband or something like that. I think officially they can propably even coexist: Sauron went to Mordor while Morgoth was still in Angband before his defeat. Another argument I would like to present is that this mod is also partially about being able to make alternate history for Middle Earth. In the mod it will/should be possible for example to have Rohan (neutral leaning to good) slip into evil and help the shadow against for example Gondor. Or for Arnor to split more directly from Gondor and maybe even completely align themselves with Angmar (I think one of the three kingdoms of Arnor almost did).

On the Noldor: I am not sure about which houses to take so if nobody has a different opinion I'm fine with going with the house of Feanor and the house of Fingolfin (if I understood it correctly).

King units should indeed be used.

About the balrogs, they should indeed not be buildable after the first age. And I agree with Berenthor that having it auto-kill your unit will only cause frustration, as you'll probably have thrown a reasonable amount of troops on it to kill it in the first place, and now it's taking another, depriving you of any xp in the process.

About shadow civs: I like the idea of two different civs better as Morgoth and Sauron were inherently different, even though, or maybe because Morgoth had a hand in Saurons actions. If at any way possible I'd try to prevent having both in a normal game (people can select it in a custom game), to avoid them fighting each other (though I wouldn't think it impossible). I agree very much with Berenthor on this: civ (and this mod) is about alternate history.

On the Noldor: yeah that should be Feanor and Fingolfin, not Finwe. I simply assumed he was on the list, but it never occured to me that Finwe could be on it instead.

@T_F apologies for any missing diacritics ;)

I think I agree with Berenthor on the whole Shadow thing. The point is not where the ultimate authority comes from, the point is merely whether or not they're different enough to justify separate civs. I think they are; there are a lot of differences in at least units used - for example, Sauron made extensive use of trolls and Morgoth never used them at all.
Plus Morgoth himself would be a FAR more powerful king unit than Sauron, and anyone in their right mind playing Shadow would pick Morgoth unless we totally ignored the difference in power levels between Valar and Maiar.
I'm perfectly fine if we have only Shadow, but I disagree with it.

I like the ideas with balrogs. I do think that instant death upon victory is a bit harsh, I like some of the minor penalties though. Agreed that any unit who kills one gets to be a hero and heroes get a LOT of XP and maybe a special Balrog-slayer promo.
The balrogs should also get that Fear or whatever promotion from FFH, where sometimes units will refuse to attack them.

King units are basically just hero units that represent the guy who's also represented by your civ's leaderhead. I remember in Civ3 when there were regicide games and if you killed a king unit the civ would disappear from the map, but I don't think we want that. Maybe we could implement RFC's leaderhead switching code so that a civ's leader changes if the current one dies.
I think all civs should start with their king unit. That also solves the problem of disabling building the other leaderheads' units, since you can just disable all of them. We might want to give them FFH's slow-but-constant XP gain too, though that might unbalance them a bit.
I like the max number of heroes too, maybe there should be a National Wonder (and maybe a World Wonder too) that raises the cap.

I knew I forgot something: max number of heroes is ok, I like T_F's idea of a wonder raising the cap.

Those are all good ideas. I understand the reasoning for just 1 civ and for breaking them up. I like the idea of breaking them up myself.

I like the idea of a Wonder or perhaps a Project increasing your Heroes cap.

I had an idea about the Colour Code. I am not sure if this has been discussed or not so I thought I would put out my ideas for it.

Civ Colour Codes:

Gondor: Blue (Khmer)
Arnor: Blue (America)
Rohan: Brown (Mali)
Isengard: Grey (Byzantine - RFC)
Haradrim: Yellow (Zulu)
Easterling: Orange (Netherlands)
Khazâd: Longbeards: Brown (Mongols)
Khazâd: Ironfists: Brown (Native Americans)
Mordor: Red (Russia)
Angband: Black
Angmar: Red (Japan)
Dunlendings: ?
Quendi: Vanyar: White (England)
Quendi: Noldor: Finwe: Gold (Inca)
Quendi: Noldor: Feanor: Green (Aztec)
Quendi: Teleri: Green (Arabia)
Quendi: Sindar: Green (Portugal)
Northmen: Purple (Vikings)
Númenor: Purple (Byzantine 1000AD Scenario)
Edain: Blue (Greece)

Anyway, those are just some ideas, feel free to pick apart.

Oh, we forgot that.

Lessee...
Dunlendings are probably going to be merged with Isengard, so that's that problem solved.
If Angband is black and we have barbarians, there might be some conflict there. Also, both Angband and Mordor can be black (or red if barbarians exist) if we implement the one-shadow-civ-per-game rule.
I think the Teleri should be some kind of light bluish, they've always seemed blue in my mind. Same goes for both Noldor (though Gold is fine), I somehow don't think Aztec Green really fits the House of Fëanor. (Maybe switch out Rohan and Fëanorians, since Rohan seems somehow Green to me, though keeping them Brown works fine.)

Rest is fine.

It was a virtual tie when it comes to Isengard on its own or combined with the Dunlendings. That is one of the first things that the new Mod Leader will have to make a decision on. Right now, the list has them separated which is why the optional idea citylist has been posted in the city list thread.

Colours look good. I don't know of the top of my head what's left for the Dunlendings.

I like the list, but I wouldn't make two civs the same color, even if they are normally not in the same game (Mordor and Angband) we would like to have the possibility to choose both in a custom game. For Isengard and Dunlendings, I really think we should seperate them (Isengard as a one city civ for extra flavour).

nevermind.

Offer suggestions for the colour codes. The one I posted are just that, suggestions. I like the idea of Rohan being green and I think Dunlendings would fit better as Brown myself. However we have only so many colours to work with.

We might need to move away from Colour associated with Civ because so many are similar. We mihgt just need to assign colours at first without thought of how it applys to the Civ itself. We can always update them at another time.

The Noldor are great with just 2 Houses, but it should not be House of Finwe but House of Fingolfin. Feanor was the heir of Finwe, his most loved son; Fingolfin was the other major Noldo leader, Feanor's "rival", the High King after him, and Finarfin's people followed him and his sons allways.

Elda King makes a very good point here. Perhaps we should change Finwe to Fingolfin.

EDIT: I just noticed Sengir's remarks regarding this issue. If no one has a problem with it, I will change the Leader from Finwe to Fingolfin.

I allready agreed to changing Finwe to Fingolfin, but I will happily agree a second time, as it makes much more sense then having Finwe as leader.

Yeah, I just edited my post. Sorry I missed that. I will go ahead and change the leader to Fingolfin. If anyone has an issue with it, by all means bring it up for discussion.

EDIT: If Berenthor agrees, perhaps he could make the same change in the OP of this thread.

Agreed, Fingolfin it is.

I was just thinking, maybe the Kuriotates idea would work for the Elves too. Instead of just trying to encourage them to be small, we could just make them small. Isengard would have to get a big bonus for its one city to balance it though.

Agreed. Changed in first post

I was thinking along the lines for Isengard of:

+2 Food to all Plots in City Radius
+1 Commerce to all Plots in City Radius
+2 Hammers to all Plots in City Radius

Or do you think that is a bit too powerful. We could give certain bonuses at different ages as well to Isengard instead.

If we do Isengard the Kuriotates way, it will have 3 rings instead of the usual 2, so keep that in mind. I would personally not give it extra food, but leave it at +1 commerce and +1 (maybe +2) hammers.

Also some happy and health bonusses might be necessary to allow a big city. +2 on both perhaps?

That is a good idea, although I'm not sure about the balance. Isengard should definetly work all three rings of the plots around it (instead of the normal two). For the settlements, I'm still not sure how it works. I'll try to play a game with them to see how it works.

So, will Isengard be the only City that can work these "3 Rings" because it is a 1 city Civ, or is that going to be for all Civs?

Also, could someone please explain what the settlements actually do or represent? Do they cultural borders, can they only be founded in certain circumstances, etc.?

EDIT: on the topic of health and happiness. Perhaps they get a Bonus 1 for each AGE after the AGE OF STARS.

FIRST AGE OF THE SUN: +1 Health & Happiness
SECOND AGE OF THE SUN: +1 Health & Happiness
THIRD AGE OF THE SUN: +1 Health & Happiness
FOURTH AGE OF THE SUN: +1 Health & Happiness

I will also think about trying that race out in a game of FFH2 tonight.

Nope, only Isengard.

From the manual:
The Kuriotates can only have a few real cities (the exact number depends on the map size), all the rest of their cities are Settlements. Settlements are unable to produce gold, research or culture and nothing can be built in a Settlement. They don't cost any maintenance.

Kael's Notes: Originally we designed the Kuriotates to only have their limited number of huge super cities. But being unable to expand and claim more resources was to limiting for them so we created Settlements as a way to still allow the Kuriotates to expand their borders without adding to the production capacity, or significantly to their population.

So the only thing they really do is expanding the cultural borders so that the civ has means to obtain more resources then the ones in his few cities. The same rules as for normal cities apply (2 spaces apart).


Trying it for yourself will help clearing things up (hopefully), as it is kinda hard to explain it.

That explains it perfectly. Thank you very much. I like that idea. It is sort of like border forts being placed as you expand your empire. All they do is allow you to control more territory without adding to the GNP (so to speak) of your empire.

What did you think of my bonus for Isengard as the ages go along. Instead of 1 big bonus right away, they get a small, but steady increase over time.

That's actually a pretty good idea to keep Isengard balanced through the ages (otherwise it will have a really big advantage early on, but will be progressively harder to play as the game evolves.)

Like the bonuses. I've been playing as the Kuriotates to get a feel for them too, so that may help.

If we go with the Kuriotates thing for Isengard, their settlements may want a slight bit more freedom - for the Kuriotates, they can't grow or build anything and contribute nothing more than an extra spot of culture.

People may have missed me suggest using the idea for Elves too. Don't know how to balance it out with Isengard though, since you can't reasonably restrict the Elves to just one city.

I think using the 1 City aspect for Isengard helps to make it unique. It is also true as Saruman never conquered any other places (unless you count Hobbiton of course ;)).

True. Then we have to figure out other ways to try to keep the Elves small with big cities.

Is that really necessary?

If we have to do that, you could always increase the maintenance penalty of the cities. Or perhaps put in a limit of how many settlers any 1 city can build or put in a cap on how many cities that Civ can have.

It just seems to fit them better. If we didn't have Isengard I would push the Kuriotates idea harder for them, but I agree that it helps keep Isengard unique.

Increased distance-to-palace maintenance costs seems like it would work, maybe balance it with a small health and happiness bonus in the X number of largest cities. Or just have a health and/or happiness penalty for more than X number of cities over Y size instead of increased maintenance.

I had a quick question about the Dwarven Civs.

Why did we decide to use the Ironfists when it was the Broadbeams that were with the Firebeards. They were both in the Blue Mountains. The Ironfists were out east.

Because we made a mistake I guess. I think the plan was to use the pair, so that would indeed be Broadbeams/Firebeards

Ah, I thought we might just want to be including more. Should I change the Civ name to Broadbeams & Firebeards then everyone?

Sure. (10chars)

Another thing. Perhaps we should rename "Elves" to "Eldar" to make it more unique and fit in wth the Arda concept better. Not so generic this way and still correct.

Eldar would be great, but it isn't the same as elves. Only those who attended to the call of the Valar were called thus. However, the generic Quendi would work.

Still one last comment about the shadow: I still think that the difference in agest would be enought for Mordor and Angband. But it's just a difference in concept. You'll have a hard time making anything unique for Morgoth after the First Age, thought: you'll have one civ that has more unique units than any other (vampires, werewolves, dragons, balrogs, etc) in one age, and none at all later. Of course you could advance those, but it wouldn't be the same as having Ologs and Nazgul... and Morgoth not having a Sauron unit in the first age simply seems wrong. It was one of his most powerful units!
By the way, a Morgoth king unit wouldn't be unbalanced - Fingolfin battled him. Also, Tolkien said that in the end of the 1st age Sauron was more powerful than Morgoth (because Morgoth "used" his power to corrupt all the world, and empower his servants, and create new monstrosities) - and still used the resources of Morgoth, like Trolls (that he improved to Ologs) and Orcs (to Uruks) and even the corruption of the world ("Morgoth's Ring").

Edit: Just remembered one thing we considered once, but decided was too complicated and unbalanced. The Men didn't have cities right on the start, but camps that spawned units like in the Warlords mod. I'm not saying this should be done, but may give you some good ideas.

Eldar would be great, but it isn't the same as elves. Only those who attended to the call of the Valar were called thus. However, the generic Quendi would work.

Quendi would work well I think.

Still one last comment about the shadow: I still think that the difference in agest would be enought for Mordor and Angband. But it's just a difference in concept. You'll have a hard time making anything unique for Morgoth after the First Age, thought: you'll have one civ that has more unique units than any other (vampires, werewolves, dragons, balrogs, etc) in one age, and none at all later. Of course you could advance those, but it wouldn't be the same as having Ologs and Nazgul... and Morgoth not having a Sauron unit in the first age simply seems wrong. It was one of his most powerful units!
By the way, a Morgoth king unit wouldn't be unbalanced - Fingolfin battled him. Also, Tolkien said that in the end of the 1st age Sauron was more powerful than Morgoth (because Morgoth "used" his power to corrupt all the world, and empower his servants, and create new monstrosities) - and still used the resources of Morgoth, like Trolls (that he improved to Ologs) and Orcs (to Uruks) and even the corruption of the world ("Morgoth's Ring").

Very good points there. Perhaps a few thoughts from everyone is needed on this.

Edit: Just remembered one thing we considered once, but decided was too complicated and unbalanced. The Men didn't have cities right on the start, but camps that spawned units like in the Warlords mod. I'm not saying this should be done, but may give you some good ideas.

This sounds like the beginning of The Stone Age Mod. Perhpas it would work better as a Mod/Scenario to try out at some point (the same Mod with a slightly different working for men. Everything else the same I mean).

Race: Quendi as a promotion just sounds cool. We can show off our geek-ness ^_^

Still one last comment about the shadow: *etc*
Good points, definitely. It would certainly work if we could pull off a leader switch at a certain point (after X turns or Y technology or whatever) to signify that Morgoth leaves direct control. We could just have early-game Shadow be a Angband-ish civ which morphs to a late-game Shadow that's more like Mordor. (Since that's pretty much what happened anyway...)
That also eliminates the need to constrain it to one Shadow civ per game (since there's only one Shadow civ anyway), though you would need to make sure that the Shadow does appear in every game.

The camp thing would give Men a distinct disadvantage, but it is an idea.

I'm just thinking of how awesome it would be to do an RFC equivalent for this mod. EPIC.

Eldar would be great, but it isn't the same as elves. Only those who attended to the call of the Valar were called thus. However, the generic Quendi would work.
Definately go for Quendi.

Still one last comment about the shadow:
-snip-
You make some strong arguments, I'm going to think about this a bit.

Edit: Just remembered one thing we considered once, but decided was too complicated and unbalanced. The Men didn't have cities right on the start, but camps that spawned units like in the Warlords mod. I'm not saying this should be done, but may give you some good ideas.
I don't think this is a good idea for the basic mod, though we might want to revisit this idea for a scenario. Another thing I've read somewhere that we might want to think about in this regard is the minor civs thing, that some civs will show as barbarian untill they have discovered writing (I think this is how it works, but I'm not quite sure). Still, I would have the Men start as full blown civ in the basic mod.

Allrighty then. Lets get this thing locked up.

Civs:

1 Shadow or 2 Shadow = I like either.

We could limit Sauron being in charge for Scenarios or Custom games only perhaps if we go with 1 Civ. We wouldn't need to change the City lists then. Morgoth should have Sauron as a Hero Unit unless Mordor is in the game, in which case Glaurung(?sp) becomes the Hero Unit.

If we do it as 2, then Balancing would be required, such as limiting a lot of Morgoths Units to National and Unique Units (Dragons/Balrogs, etc.). We could give him more Men/Orcs/Werewolves/Vampires, etc..

Hopefully Berenthor can come back on soon to give us his ideas.

Also, if we have the Witchking as a Hero for Sauron, then he shouln't be Leader of Angmar.

EDIT: One other thing we could do is have a completely open game on an Arda and/or Random Map and have another verion with just Morgoth (in a reworked civ) in another. Because of the difficulties in combining the best in this instance I think we should be looking at creating multiple scenarios from the outset.

This would make everyone happier I think and head off potential problems.

We could even name the Civ differently in that case and even change Morgoth's name to Melkor for the single Shadow Civ.

I'm fine with either 1 or 2 as well.

We should probably have several scenarios, yes. We could have a First Age scenario with all the elves and Morgoth and such, and a Third Age scenario with a lot of Men and Sauron. I still do want to be able to have everybody in one game though.

------double post-------

All civs would be playable in Custom Games and Specific Scenarios.

If we do this right and it takes off well, then others will also make scenarios for us. We might even be able to recruit Jeelen for that. Their scenarios are very good for other Mods.

After speaking with Berenthor (he has been quite busy) he also agrees with the change for the Dwarves. They will now be listed as Broadbeams & Firebeards. We will remove Ironfists. Perhaps they will be added in for a scenario at some point.

Also taking into account is Elda Kings Suggestion of "Quendi" as a replacement name for "Elves". It will make the name more unique and "Tolkienish" (bad word, I know).

Current List:

How Civs stand at the moment without any other information.

Civilizations:

Quendi:

Noldor: House of Fingolfin
Noldor: House of Feanor
Teleri
Sindar
Vanyar

Good Men:

Numenor
Arnor
Gondor
Edain

Neutral Men:

Rohirrim
Northmen
Dunlending
Isengard

Evil Men:

Haradrim
Easterling
Angmar

Shadow:

Mordor
Angband

Dwarves:

Longbeard
Broadbeams & Firebeards


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* = In regards to the Edain, we can break them up for a scenario at some point.

* = In regards to the Dwarves, we can add these other Fathers for a scenario sometime perhaps (Blacklocks, Ironfists, Stiffbeards & Stonefoots).

Also a question for the Coders. Should the Names of the Civs and Leaders, etc be all Capitalized for you? If that would make it easier I can modify the list in such a way without a problem.

I have also asked T F, since he was great in helping with the City lists, to help out with the proper accents for the Civ list.

Finally, Shadow Civs are still under discussion. 1 Civ or 2. Or, 1 Civ for core campaign and 2 available for Random and Scenarios.

Sorry for my absence for a while, I am now catching up with a lot of the discussion of the previous few days (there's a lot, so that means this mod is really alive and kicking :)). Quendi definetly an improvement so no argument there. I read through Elda Kings arguments and I think he raises valid points. I'm still personnally in favor of two civs but I can understand his considerations. It is a difficult decision I think.

Some things I though of to remedy some of the problems raised by having two shadow civs: If we don't mind a partial what if for the mod, some concepts could be brought to other ages like vampires and werewolves, keep ballrogs as something of the first age maybe and dragons can develop maybe into the second age (first only crawling dragons, then walking and then flying and maybe some differences in firebreating dragons and cold dragons). Maybe we can apply a similar trick that people raced for the elves (very good units in the beginning but very costly upgrades later on and find some balance there). This way Angband is an early civ in the sense of when the civ is at its best without denying it the power to even win later on in the game. The development of orks, urucs, trolls, etc. could still be done by Angband. Another difference we can maybe emphasise is that Sauron used a lot more evil men than Morgoth. If I remember my Tolkien correctly now from the top of my head, Morgoth used no (or almost none) men in his serves. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, because I'm doing this from memory. About the hero unit, it is indeed a shame not to have Sauron as a hero. If we go for the concept of limiting the shadow civ to one per game, Sauron could still be used as a hero maybe.

As for the civ list: I like it as it stands now. Definetly leave the witchking out of mordor (if we go with seperate civs) since he is the leader of Angmar. Make it a generic nazgul or something (or maybe even 8?) or no heroes for Mordor but give them 8 nazgul as national units (first on foot, than on horses, later upgradable to fellbeast?) or something that Mordor has to capture men and then he can "upgrade" them to nazgul (in the same upgrade order as before: foot-->horses-->fellbeast) to a maximum of 8 captured units he can convert.
Just spamming ideas here.

I can't really decide on one or the other. My main problem is that I don't know how we are going to implement the shadow units exactly.

I think I like the option offered by T_F about having one shadow civ, that starts as Angband and later goes over in Mordor. The exact workings of that should probably left to a next release and if we decide to it this way a single shadow civ is most wanted for now. Discussion how we want this should probably take place in another thread. That won't stop me from posting my ramblings here though, as it is relevant for this discussion and I can repost it once we start discussing the shadow civ at length.

>> One shadow civ is good, as there ultimately there was always one Valar behind it all. However, after the first age, his direct involvement with the world stopped and his second in command took over. What I would like to propose is a shadow civ that starts with Melkor/Morgoth as a leader which can build Balrogs, Dragons, Werewolves, etc. These would be powerfull units and as long as Melkor is in charge they can be build (some to a limit (Balrogs eg) some indefinately). A hero unit, Sauron, can (must) also be build. However, upon reaching the second age, Melkor leaves this world (his king unit disappears), the Hero Sauron becomes king and there's a leader switch from Melkor to Sauron (with different traits as well). With Sauron as leader, the shadow cannot build the 'Melkor' units anymore, that is, no Dragons no Balorgs etc. The existing Balrogs and Dragons either go barbarian immediately or have a chance to go barbarian every turn(Shadow must be friendly with Barbarian for this to work), to show that Sauron doesn't have the influence over these creatures that Melkor had. With Sauron as a leader, the Shadow has the capability to create/invent new evil creatures and move forth along the techpath in general and some evil techs in specific.
What I like about this, is that it enables the possibility to stay with Melkor throughout the game (don't advance to the next age, his units are quite good and if he stays in the first age, he doesn't have much else to do then build units, so his number should make up for any quality problems). It also enables a Sauron only game through starting in the Second Age of the Stars. And it follows the book quite closely, which, though we want a 'what-if'-Arda, has its merits in this case.

<<End of rambling

Those are both great ideas Berenthor & Sengir.

Not for this release, but mentioned so it isn't forgotten:

An idea I had, that I think we could use for some scenarios is allow The Shadow of Melkor/Morgoth to be able to create a Colony which becomes Mordor and thus we can have our two Shadow Civs. Only allow them to be able to do this. I have an idea for a Numenor civ along these lines as well.

We need to make this decision and finalize it as quickly as possible. It is holding up the rest of the Mod to be honest, because so many things depend on it.

So lets get this done.

We have 2 great ideas on what can be done. So the decision to be made is:

1 Shadow Civ or 2 Shadow Civs?

After that is decided, we can then decide on a proper implementation of how to incorporate it into the mod.

Also, Melkor/Morgoth used the Early ancestors of the Easterlings. They were not a huge part of his armies or plans however, I don't believe.

I want to hear some thoughts from the others about how they think the shadow as one civ should be implemented before putting my vote down. The thing I especially want to know is whether they think it better to have Sauron and Melkor both as leaders to be chosen, or that they would prefer a leader-switching-mechanism.

This would be the opinion for what it should be in the end (not in this version, because the leader switching might we a little much to put in).

Deffinatley only having 1 leader would be best. Your units would be dependant upon the leader you choose. Leader switching is something that would be a good Option (not forced - i.e. a scripted event and you can then choose upon the entering of the Second Age) for future releases.

I also want to hear everyone elses ideas.

One civ, one leader. I like the option idea too.

We should also have it so that if the Shadow is destroyed with Morgoth as its leader, it is popped up somewhere else on the map with Sauron as its leader.
There's an interesting victory condition idea for Good civs: Destroy both Morgoth and Sauron's incarnations of the Shadow civ. (Conversely, for the Shadow you could have remove or convert all non-Evil civs.)

Provided by T F:

Númenor (or Númenórë if you like Quenya)

Which do we want for the Numenorean Civ?

I like the Quenya one, but the regular one to make it Human Distinctive would be great too.

In regard to T F's above post. That is also a great idea. I never thought about that. Limit the units for Melkor/Morgoth and then when he is destroyed Sauron comes up with his own units he can build. He should get an advanced start however.

For an Arda Map Scenario Perhaps we could even have Mordor as a place that cannot be inhabited and he will apear there.

I could go either way about Númenor.

Deffinatley only having 1 leader would be best. Your units would be dependant upon the leader you choose.
What do you mean by this? In my opinion people should not be able to chose between Melkor and Sauron at the start of the game, other then starting in the Second Age of the Stars to start with Sauron. Sauron would be an unpickable leader for a regular start but you would be able to switch to him at the start of the second age.

Leader switching is something that would be a good Option (not forced - i.e. a scripted event and you can then choose upon the entering of the Second Age) for future releases.
Making it optional is good: that way people can choose to continue with Melkor (still getting some new stuff, but not as much new units as Sauron, but keep the ability for (some of) the old units) or switch to Sauron for all the new goodies (but loose access to most of the old stuff).

What do you mean by this?

The reason I felt this way was this way Sauron could be used as a Captain Unit. But, I suppose we could make it in such a way as if you choose Sauron right off the bat, then you could have the Witch-King as a Captain Unit then. But then we also run into problems with Angmar. I guess we could use Gothmog from the movies or The Mouth of Sauron as a Captain Unit for Sauron. I would be allright with that.


You know what, I think I like the Mouth of Sauron being the Captain unit for Sauron and Gothmog as a Hero Unit. Then you can have the Nazgul as National Units (8 of them). Or we could remove Angmar.

If you meant the Units. I was thinking along the lines of Balrogs & Dragons, Vampires & Werewolves, etc, for Melkor/Morgoth and Orcs/Uruks/Trolls for Sauron.

I like Mouth of Sauron as a better captain unit for Sauron anyway, and it still solves the conflict with Angmar.
Starting off as Sauron, if possible at all (I'm not sure I quite like it), should be available only to human players - the AI should always start as Morgoth (and should always switch to Sauron when the option comes up). I think that the Shadow's units should be the same regardless of which leader you are, and just slowly shift from Morgoth's favorite stuff to Sauron's (like I suggested earlier).

Númenórë wasn't quite a serious suggestion, but if people like it, hey.

So, say certain Techs in the second age "Obsolete" certain units and you can no longer build them? That is a good idea.

Obsoleted units sound OK, but there's really no point if you have upgrades. Even if they don't upgrade, there'll at least be no point in building old stuff because the new stuff is better and won't take too much longer to build.
The idea I guess is that Morgoth's units upgrade to Sauron's units.

Though obsoletion implemented on a much wider scale would be interesting. That way battles in the First Age wouldn't be involving anything significantly weaker than Third Age units, and keeping First Age units alive throughout the game might be worth something (which is an odd - and unique - game dynamic). Since technically the First Age involved similarly strong if not significantly stronger units than the Third Age, it would be fairly accurate as well.

I figured you would no longer be able to build them because they were more powerful. You offset power with More units. Sauron also, did not create any Balrogs or have any Dragons under his command (that we know of). SO it makes sense that he wouldn't be able to build these units if he takes over.

That makes sense. Those should be obsoleted anyway, but that fits well into the large-scale obsoletion.

This conversation belongs more in the Units Thread. We should continue it there probably.

Decision Time:

#1:

Númenor (or Númenórë if you like Quenya)

Which do we want for the Numenorean Civ?

I like the Quenya one, but the regular one to make it Human Distinctive would be great too.

#2:

How many Shadow Civs will we have? This is extremely important as so many other decisions ride on this one! If we decide on 1 then we can discuss how to possibly incorporate Sauron. If we only go with a single Shadow Civ, then we will need to decide if Angmar will remain, or will it get sent to Scenarios or later builds of the Mod?

1 Civ: Angband

2 Civs: Angband & Mordor

#1: I'm fine either way. I like Númenórë better, but I also realize that that's by far not the most common name.

#2: 1 civ, morph from Angband in the early game to Mordor in the late game.

#1: I would go for Numenor I think. It is more commonly used (but I have no problem with the other one).

#2: Okay I will cave and go with one shadow civ. I like the colony idea also a lot, so maybe a combination of that with the leaderhead switching would be good in some way. I would then definetly not start with Sauron because I think it will be difficult to make that when you start with Sauron, all other civs are also advanced to the second age.

As for the captain units: I suggested mouth of Sauron as hero for Mordor in the units thread so I like that idea. Also in that thread there is some ideas about the nazgul. Check it out there.

As for the captain units: I suggested mouth of Sauron as hero for Mordor in the units thread so I like that idea. Also in that thread there is some ideas about the nazgul. Check it out there.


Good ideas.

We will wait just a little bit more to see if anyone else wants to comment. Then we can make our final decision.

I'm going for one shadow civ as well. We should probably have a long discussion about how we want it implemented exactly, but that should be done in a different thread (and can possible wait until a second release).

Sengir: What is your opinion on the Numenor discussion?

Should we go with: Númenor or Númenórë (Quenya version)?

Also, it looks like we will be going with 1 Shadow Civ for the first release. Now that it is settled for that we need to know how to implement this. I will start a new thread on this topic.

I could go either way about Númenor.
(tenchars)

Doh! Missed it. Sorry!

Allright, I think we will go with Númenor then. I will update the lists accordingly.

I just noticed T F's wording for the dwarves in the Tech Tree thread. It is Khuzdul there. That is what it should be overall I believe.

If T F could provide the accents for it, that would be great!]

What do you guys think. Dwarves - changed to - Khuzdul? That is more like Middle-Earth.

Khazâd is the word for Dwarves (singular is Khuzd, as in 1 Khuzd, 2 Khazâd), Khuzdul (no accents) is the adjective (well, genitive, but whatever).

Allright, go with what T F just wrote! :goodjob:

I see that we have Rohan nuetral, but they indeed were on the good side. They came to the aid of Gondor at the Pelenor Fields and the Black Gate and were allied with Gondor. Befor the Pelenor Fields, they fought Isenguard on several occasions not mentioned in the original trilogy (not just Helm's Deep) until the Ents took over Isenguard (speaking of which they should be a civ).

One of the main reasons for the Neutral disposition of Rohan was their originating status and to Balance the Good vs. Evil Civs.

We have decided no Ent Civ because of the Amazing power difference. We have an idea to incorporate them through a Project basis however.

We could still discuss Rohans Alignment I suppose.

To balance it out make Isenguard Evil.

The reason why we haven't is because Saruman wasn't always Evil. We leave the option for him to go either way, but that is possible. We have an Alignment basis and have it as being easier for him to fall to Evil however.

The biggest role that he played in middle earth was when he was evil. Also, he was building up his army for a really long time before LOTR

True in some ways, yet he was good to begin with. We can let the others also discuss this.

So, what does everyone think of Sandman730's thoughts on this? He has some valid points here!

Should Isengard be an Evil Civ to start? It would help to balance against all of the Good CIv (of which there are a lot).

UUs:

Easterlings: in LOTR they were portrayed as swashbucklers so how about a pirate ship of some sort?

Feanor aka the Gnomes: The children of Feanor were overly obsessed with recovering the silmarils, so how about a bezerker of some sort?

At this point, I would recomend going through the 1st post in the Discussion Status thread. There are a lot of things there you should read.

We also have threads for the Units if you want to continue on those topics. Make sure they are the 2009 ones though.

As for the Easterlings, they were entirely Land Bound except for the Sea of Rhun. It was the Haradrim that had Umbar and the Corsairs after Numenor.

Woops my bad. They were actually the exptert swordsmen so some swordsman?

As I mentioned, these are the best threads for this. The Discussion Status has links to the threads where discussions are taking place and the most updated more or less Finalized Lists. The second link is as I labeled it, for Units.

however, yes the Easterlings will indeed have Swordsmen.

Discussion Status: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=313600

Units: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=312822

As outlined elsewhere, I would like to have most Men civs start as neutral (but leaning towards good/evil depending on what they eventually became in the books). Angmar will be evil to start with and the Edain good, but the rest should start neutral (we got a list somewhere, which I thought we would be using)

I mostly like the civ list as it stands. I'm not sure about having men divided by alignment at the beginning though. I kind of like the idea of all (or at least most) men starting out neutral and then being attracted to Good or Evil by either the Elves or the Shadow.


I like this, and I think it should be extended to several other civs (see spoiler).


STARTING ALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT MOST LIKELY, i.e. Isengard's would be EVIL)

Elves:
Noldor: House of Finwë - GOOD
Noldor: House of Fëanor - NEUTRAL
Teleri - GOOD
Sindar - NEUTRAL (GOOD, faster than most)
Vanyar - GOOD (PERMANENT GOOD?)

Men:
Nûmenor - NEUTRAL
Arnor - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Gondor - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Edain - GOOD
Rohirrim - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Northmen - NEUTRAL (EVIL)(GOOD)
Dunlending - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Isengard - NEUTRAL (EVIL, maybe faster than most)
Haradrim - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Easterling - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Angmar - EVIL

Shadow:
Mordor - PERMANENT EVIL
Angband - PERMANENT EVIL

Dwarves:
Longbeard - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Firebeard & Ironfists - NEUTRAL (GOOD? I don't know who they are, so I don't know if it fits)

Don't forget your dïâcrítîcs ^_^

Yeah I like this list as well. The only one I don't agree with, which i didn't notice before, is the Northmen. I think they were neutral or even more good (they helped Gondor against the Wainriders and later spawned the Rohirrim). So definetly not evil in my opinion.

Sorry, picked the wrong list, I've changed them from Neutral (Evil) to Neutral (Good)

I think that would be best as well. The list is also in the Discussion Status Thread (1st Post).

Yeah, we've decided to start with Neutral for most of the Men to get a less determined gameplay style, where you can have (say) Saruman stay Good but Rohan turn Evil. We've given them starts in the historical direction, but we're leaving them an open question.

I originally had put Northmen as Neutral (Evil) since I had thought it was referring to the barbarians up in Forodwaith. They should indeed be Neutral (Good).

Originally Posted by T_F
I mostly like the civ list as it stands. I'm not sure about having men divided by alignment at the beginning though. I kind of like the idea of all (or at least most) men starting out neutral and then being attracted to Good or Evil by either the Elves or the Shadow.


I like this, and I think it should be extended to several other civs (see spoiler).

Spoiler for ALIGNMENT SUGGESTIONS:

STARTING ALIGNMENT (ALIGNMENT MOST LIKELY, i.e. Isengard's would be EVIL)

Elves:
Noldor: House of Finwë - GOOD
Noldor: House of Fëanor - NEUTRAL
Teleri - GOOD
Sindar - NEUTRAL (GOOD, faster than most)
Vanyar - GOOD (PERMANENT GOOD?)

Men:
Nûmenor - NEUTRAL
Arnor - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Gondor - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Edain - GOOD
Rohirrim - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Northmen - NEUTRAL (EVIL)(GOOD)
Dunlending - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Isengard - NEUTRAL (EVIL, maybe faster than most)
Haradrim - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Easterling - NEUTRAL (EVIL)
Angmar - EVIL

Shadow:
Mordor - PERMANENT EVIL
Angband - PERMANENT EVIL

Dwarves:
Longbeard - NEUTRAL (GOOD)
Firebeard & Ironfists - NEUTRAL (GOOD? I don't know who they are, so I don't know if it fits)

Don't forget your dïâcrítîcs ^_^

I am totally against this idea of having men start neutral. This is because for some of the scenarios the men have already been persuaded to one side. Also, some civs such as Numenor and Gondor started out good. Also, the Gnomes were good all along. In fact, they were the only people attacking Morgoth for a wile and after that they were still the main civ against Morgoth.

The House of Feanor wasn't especially "Good". Most of these groups did technically start neutral. When we get to scenarios we can change the alignemnts to start at one spectrum or the other however, but in the base game (which will be on a random map to begin with most likely), they should probably start at Neutral.

For scenarios, of course they would start with their respective historical alignments. The Noldor (they're still Elves in the final official version of the legendarium, there are no Gnomes in the Quenta Silmarillion) are Good for the House of Fingolfin since they indeed were, but Neutral for the House of Fëanor since they were so Silmaril-obsessed they were willing to do practically anything (like the Kinslaying) to get them.

Gah! Ninja-ed again!