Middle-Earth: Lord of the Mods (octa)

[SoCalian]

Hey PCH I'm still not "officialy" back yet( probabbly 1 more week). I was just able to sneek in a post as I am doing right now. Anywho, I skimed over the last thread and all seems well. THaough I thought we were doing civs at the moment (perhaps they're just waiting for me, yeah thats it. Its all about me). You also said that natural resources was coming up. Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't we already do that?
Oh and don't expect any more out of me for the next week, unless of course I have an F on my report card, in which case it will be a year.

 

[The Last Conformist]

100% retreat bonus for Elites? That would allow some pretty questionable tactics from the human player's side; you can fearlessly throw outdated Elite units at enemy up-to-date defenders and eventually wear them down without any permanent losses to your troops. I'd suggest no higher than 90%.

 

[tjedge1]

Sounds good to me. They wouldn't be elite if they couldn't do that.

 

[mrtn]

Guys, you might have noticed utah's new, excellent Viking Swordsman, which should be a nice swordsman for the Rohirrim and the Northmen, for example. You might also have noted that yours truly posted a conversion of it, a shrunk version which is very good as a dwarven swordsman. :santa:
I've been working on another conversion too...

 

[PCHighway]

embryodead-
110+30+20 is actually 160
But hills are +50, so it should be 190

There are three buildings, but one available only to level 3 cities, remember?
As for the max. bonus - I wasn't counting terrain. Blame the hills Level 2 defenses can be expensive (contrary to walls) so it will not be easy to build in small settlements, unless location is very good (mines and resources), then it's justified.

I hurry walls all the time, and if I had a key location I didn’t want to put too many men on the defense of the city, I would hurry along the second defensive improvement also, and maybe the third.

embryodead-
It's hard to argue about it, since we just have different points of view. I see such differences as uneven, since it makes the technology backward factions even more crippled, with no chance to defend. Unless you just want to double the stats, without changing the proportions (ie. there are no 1.1.1 units, but 2.2.1 etc.). (now I think that it might have been your point from the very beginning )

Indeed it is. Yet I don’t think it should go up quite so drastically (meaning by 2 each time). For instance, we should look at the regular civ3 line. It is constantly evolving, and we should go by what seems good at the time. But they may include a warrior with 1 attack in the first era, being dwarfed by a end era unit with 16 attack. IMHO

I agree with The Last Confomist and think a 100% retreat bonus is also quite extreme. I think the general bonus of them should be raised, to make cavalry units better as RRnut says. Moreover, we may have quite a few units out there that are strange, and have 2 movement. Example: if we give some type of worker or settler upgrade a movement of 2, we will run into nearly un-captureable workers\settlers.

SoCalian, good luck again, and you might want to look into printing the thread out more seriously if that’s the case. I want to go over the resources with the ‘new blood’. About half the regulars posting now didn’t get to put a word in on it. I don’t plan to spend much time on it, but since c3c is out today, we may be able to add some abilities. So I will delay it once again till tomorrow. It shouldn’t take long though. I am thinking of giving Arathorn a PM, as the thread calmed down quite a bit, and he had good ideas on governments.

Great job with the Dwarvish units Mrtn, we'll get those two Dwarvish civs yet. (j\k)

 

[[Ant]Wimp]

Conquest is out?!?! Please man, dont torture me like this! I gotta wait another 10 days

Ok, so we rase general retreat boni, but not to 100%. I guess we gotta playtest this.
And yeah, I did notice the I think some1 oughtta give him a nice axe ...

 

[tjedge1]

Ok guys. I guess I can agree to not making it 100%, though I think it would still work. It would add a challenge to anyone battling a civ that has been at war a lot. The elite retreat back to cities where they can be finished off. An elite unit should be hard to kill. What about 85-90%? That is still high, but not a retreat everytime.

 

[RRnut]

Hello,

Ok. I agree that 100% is too high, so,

50%
70%
90%

It doesn't make a difference for conscripts.

I finished my maps, but will look over them first, and post in a few days.

RRNut

 

[tjedge1]

Originally posted by [Ant]Wimp
Conquest is out?!?! Please man, dont torture me like this! I gotta wait another 10 days

So do I. I didn't realize pc games sold so well in this state so I didn't reserve it. I am still hunting for it, but it is sold out everywhere. Should have known. .

 

[PCHighway]

I’m sort of worried about posting a pic of the new resource icons, even thought I see PtW icons strewn all over this site .
There is a new terrain called ‘land mark’ in c3c. It lets you re-name mountains to ‘Himalayas’ and lets you adjust the food\shield\commerce level. This will be a big deal for you map makers out there. Don’t go crazy with it though, we don’t want all the mountains giving +16 food! But a food bonus of some sort might be good for the Dwarves.

 

[PCHighway]

Ok, Strategic resources are up. The stats look fine to me, but I am worried about the appearance\disappearance ratio.

The higher the appearance ratio, the more likely it is to appear. “With a appearance ratio of 160, in an 8 player game, there will be 2 iron per civilization”. We should probably stick to multiples of 8 or 4. For 8: 80, 160, 240. For an example, iron in vanilla PtW, is 160.

The disappearance ratio is a fraction. Thus if you have a disappearance ratio of 4, you have a very likely ( 1\4 ) chance of that resource disappearing. Example, iron in vanilla PtW is 800, a 1\800ths chance of it disappearing.

[b][u]Iron[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		240
Disappearance Probability:	1000

[b][u]Horses[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		200
Disappearance Probability:	0

[b][u]Timber[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		160
Disappearance Probability:	0

[b][u]Stone[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		140
Disappearance Probability:	0

[b][u]Wolves[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		180
Disappearance Probability:	0

As you can see, I think Iron should be more common. 3 per player is good as nearly half, if not 2\3 of the units will need this. IMHO

I also think they should disappear far less frequently, and certain resources should not at all. This isn't final, suggest away.

I made civilopedia icons for the strategic ones while making the picture, you can get them at this link: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads5/StratResources.txt

If you want to make an entry for any of the upcoming resources, or revise mine, I would be very obliged . Don’t just copy the ‘regular wheat’ entry though, try and write it over and fit it into the Tolkien world. A tip the correct phrasing of ‘Middle Earth’ is Middle-earth. If you wish to write one of them up, or part of one up, “call it” before you do, so someone else doesn’t do it. namely myself. I will be posting them by ‘6’ (I know I only did 5 to start out). So I call Mithril, Wine, Pipeweed, Salt, Gems, and Gold. If you want to do one of those, have it done by tomorrow. After that you will have to revise one of the above. I don’t really expect anyone to do them, just thought I would put it on the table though.

The resources coming up are
Luxuries:
Mithril
Wine
Pipeweed
Salt
Gems
Gold
Wool
Lebethron

Bounus:
Wheat
Oliphaunts
Coneys
Deer
Cattle
Fish
Silver
Taters
Mushrooms
Wasteland

- Much thanks to the people who made the resource icons, namely Mrtn and Embryodead (I stole some, if thats ok ). And thanks again to Mrtn for walking me through the graphics we should use.

 

[mrtn]

I think both timber and stone should have a chance to disappear. And if we have a higher disappearance rate for iron, we don't need so many. If everyone has iron all the time it's just boring, and a meaningless resource.

What about Appearance ratio 200, and disappearance probability 600?

BTW, I'm back after being buggered by a worm.
In the computer, that is.

 

[embryodead]

Originally posted by PCHighway
The higher the appearance ratio, the more likely it is to appear. “With a appearance ratio of 160, in an 8 player game, there will be 2 iron per civilization”. We should probably stick to multiples of 8 or 4. For 8: 80, 160, 240. For an example, iron in vanilla PtW, is 160.

Uhhh it's totally wrong. The number of resources that will appear on the map = appearance ratio / 100 * number of civs. Ratio of 160 means 1,6 iron per civ, so in 8 player game you get 12 of iron.

I think your settings are bit high... I just released a patch for WH-Mod that actually lowers ratios for Iron, Horses and Timber (though maybe I went too far - from 180 to 120, but WH has different civ/map settings). Why? Because bonus resources are distrubuted on what is left in the "pool". I had ~180 for the most important ones, the result was 2 of each bonus res. on a standard map, 2 fishes, 2 cattles etc. Sure WH-Mod is set to "crowded" (up to 16 players on 100x100 map), but even if LotM will have this horrible setting of 8 players / standard map, it doesn't change the fact, that you will always get excessive iron/horses etc. and little fish, wheat and so on.

Apart from that - if you give so big ratio for iron/timber, why have it as a strategic resource at all... as mrtn said it's meaningless and boring. it has to be strategic... 160 is a good setting for non-crowded map.
Horses - the same + there are many factions not using horses at all.
Wolves - 1,8 wolves per civ? again why it is a strategic resource, if only one or two factions in the game use it and there will be 14-28 of it?

There is no reason to hide conquests icon, it's a screenshot.

 

[PCHighway]

embryodead-
Uhhh it's totally wrong.

Saying we should stick too of 8 are wrong, or all my stats?

embryodead-
The number of resources that will appear on the map = appearance ratio / 100 * number of civs. Ratio of 160 means 1,6 iron per civ, so in 8 player game you get 12 of iron.

Hey don't blame the messenger it was just a quote from the help file, in what I was basing my thoughts on.

I still don't see where I erred, if we go the normal route of how many civilizations per game, we will have Standard=8, Large=12, and giant 16. All are multiples of 4 or 8? By doing this with the appearance ratio, then we could be nearly sure that at least 1 iron will fall close to a nations proximity. Such as 160, 120, and 80.

embryodead- I think your settings are bit high... I just released a patch for WH-Mod that actually lowers ratios for Iron, Horses and Timber (though maybe I went too far - from 180 to 120, but WH has different civ/map settings). Why? Because bonus resources are distrubuted on what is left in the "pool". I had ~180 for the most important ones, the result was 2 of each bonus res. on a standard map, 2 fishes, 2 cattles etc. Sure WH-Mod is set to "crowded" (up to 16 players on 100x100 map), but even if LotM will have this horrible setting of 8 players / standard map, it doesn't change the fact, that you will always get excessive iron/horses etc. and little fish, wheat and so on.

I see your point here, many MODs have a lack of fish, I was wondering what could have caused this. But I don’t think that this will be to much of a problem if we stick to less resources than PtW, and conquests. PtW has 16 such resources, the rest being bonus resources. So far we have 13. Does this not allow us to have more leniency with the ratios? Since Iron is so important, and nearly all our strategic resources come within the first era, I guees I also think we should lower them more than our civ3 counterpart. How about:

[b][u]Iron[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		200
Disappearance Probability:	1000

[b][u]Horses[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		160
Disappearance Probability:	0

[b][u]Timber[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		120
Disappearance Probability:	800

[b][u]Stone[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		120
Disappearance Probability:	800

[b][u]Wolves[/u][/b]
Appearance Ratio:		140
Disappearance Probability:	0

 

[embryodead]

Originally posted by PCHighway
Saying we should stick too of 8 are wrong, or all my stats? Hey don't blame the messenger it was just a quote from the help file, in what I was basing my thoughts on.

Then, the help file is wrong. I actually tested it. Test it yourself if you want, you will see. Appearance ratio of 160 in an 8 player game does not give 2 resource per player, but 1,6 resource per player, that is 12.

I still don't see where I erred, if we go the normal route of how many civilizations per game, we will have Standard=8, Large=12, and giant 16. All are multiples of 4 or 8? By doing this with the appearance ratio, then we could be nearly sure that at least 1 iron will fall close to a nations proximity. Such as 160, 120, and 80.

Well, you erred assuming that the help file is right, I can't blame you I don't understand why do you want to stick the multiplies of 4/8 for ratios. It's just math. Here are examples:
8 PLAYER GAME
ratio 80 = 6
ratio 100 = 8
ratio 120 = 9
ratio 140 = 11
ratio 160 = 12
ratio 180 = 14
ratio 200 = 16
There is no reason to stick to any multipliers. You should rather keep an eye on the actual result, because it's not so obvious (numbers are rounded down).

I see your point here, many MODs have a lack of fish, I was wondering what could have caused this. But I don’t think that this will be to much of a problem if we stick to less resources than PtW, and conquests. PtW has 16 such resources, the rest being bonus resources. So far we have 13. Does this not allow us to have more leniency with the ratios? Since Iron is so important, and nearly all our strategic resources come within the first era, I guees I also think we should lower them more than our civ3 counterpart. How about:[...]

It would be best to actually made test after all resources are allocated, then made neccesary adjustments. Theoreticising is quite pointless, as we may get 4 fishes as well as 12.
Nevertheless, I am still against such huge ratios. You say iron is so important. It is actually equally important in civ3. If you don't get iron at all, you won't survive. My suggestions for compromise is: lower Iron and Wolves by 20. For 8 player game, it still means 2 more iron than in PTW, in which it is hard not to get iron anyway.

Also, shouldn't Oliphaunts be strategic/luxury?

Do we set ratios for luxuries?

 

[mrtn]

Originally posted by embryodead

... My suggestions for compromise is: lower Iron and Wolves by 20. For 8 player game, it still means 2 more iron than in PTW, in which it is hard not to get iron anyway.

Also, shouldn't Oliphaunts be strategic/luxury?
...

I could live with that compromise.
Re Oliphaunts: "I'm so happy we've started to import Oliphaunts. Last year it was impossible to get trampled to death by a huge animal, it's much better now!"
I have problems seeing the happiness factor in Oliphaunts, as you can see.
It's hard to have a strategic resource only needed by one civ, it's better to do like the Indian Elephants in vanilla, and not have a resource for them.

 

[RRnut]

Hello,

If PCH wants some civilopedia entries, then I'll give him some help. I claim Wool, Lebrethon, Wheat, and Oliphaunts.

I should have them mostly done in a few days.

RRnut

 

[Mithadan]

From all the technical talk going on in this thread, I figger our mod is coming along rather nicely! I thank PCH for working on the bic/x/q file, and the others for engaging him on this level. I apologise for not being able to do the same, as I have no clue what you guys are talking about. (When I mod, I don't give the slightest thought to "balancing" or whatever.)

That being said, if indeed there is need for pedia entries, I could help out a little bit. I won't "claim" any resources, though. If something's needed, just lemme know.

Cheers!

 

[RRnut]

Hello!!

I was going to post my map tonight but just realized that I can't attach .bix files. I don't have my zipper installed as I just recently did a reinstall, so will do tomorrow morning. Gnight all!!

RRNut

 

[SoCalian]

I'm back. Though don't expect me to post much. mabey one per week. though I will be lurking around sort of like Celeborn.