MIddle-Earth: Lord of the Mods (septa)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Citizens seem fine by me PCH! Though the 'dwarven' with the Dwarf citizens should be left out. If u play dwarf its kinda obvious that ur citizens are dwarf.

In some ocations, we'll have a large maps with not many civs. So I suggest we raise road movement.

Iv had this idea in my mind for sometime now, but I believe it is impossible. Id like to add a terraform; 'Trail'. This should be the normal road, and road could have move of 6. Perhaps with Conquests???

Id raise the max for villige and towns. Bcuz alot of acual cities in ME is odd IMHO.
Could u please explaine why you want to reduce the max #?
 
The max number refers to the amount of citizens in a city before you have to build an aqueduct\hospital. As for the Dwarven part, I think it would be good to include them, as the mannish civs already get the 'merchant' citizen.

Mrtn want roads reduced to two, as it give to much of a bonus to cavalry. (With 4 movement, a three movement cavalry unit, can make 12 moves along a road!)

We will have to see, I requested that Breakaway games let us have a modable railroad movement cost, but I don't think they implemented it:(.
 
Originally posted by PCHighway
..."Evil" Citizens
Entertainer: Slaver
Taxmen: Pillager
Scientist: Torturer\Advocate

Elven Citizens
Entertainer: Poet
Taxmen: Artisan
Scientist: Lore-master

Dwarven Citizens
Entertainer: City Guard\Musician
Taxmen: Dwarven Merchant
Scientist: Dwarven Smith
...
I prefer Torturer. I don't really know about the Dwarf entertainer, both sounds good. But I think we should loose that "Dwarf" prefix. Just call them Merchant and Smith. We know they're dwarves. ;) They've got beards, after all. :santa:

Originally posted by PCHighway ...We should make the Hobbit civilization, more like to regular civ3, in terms of how it plays. This would be subtle, yet noticeable...
Sounds good.

Originally posted by PCHighway GENERAL SETTINGS
Movement Rate along roads-
Normally 3, should we upgrade it to 4, reduce it to 2, or leave it the same?
I think it should be set to 2, as this encourages the use of infantry.

The rest of the settings sounds good.
 
So lets make something else up for the dwarfs. They indeed shouldnt have the same name citizens. Something like 'trader' or somethin...

I know what the max # is for. let me clearify. In ME (forht age) I believe there is only one 'city'. Minas Tirith (and perhaps Pelargir or Umbar or something, but point being; few real cities).
But ingame you'd have cities bigger then size 10 in notime, which sound unrealistic to me. Offcourse we could counter this by choosing the right time for the aquaduct-like invention...

As for the roads. Ik like the idea to encourage infantry, but on a big map with few civs, won't in be a pain in the ass moving your units around???
 
Sorry for the slow reaction Wimp;

On larger maps (such as yours:) ), we can adjust the movment of the roads in the editor. But keep in mind, most people play on standard maps.
MEM has movement of 2, and TAM have a movement of 4. The cavalry in TAM is, to say the least, uber. Remember that Civ3 vanilla doesn’t have a ‘missile’ line, and it doesn’t have a ‘cavalry’ line, compared to ours anyway. It is centered around mainly an offensive and defensive line. And in many mods, people make mistakes while implementing cavalry. Historically they were simply a nuisance to the defending or attacking units. A ‘shock’ troop so to speak. If we give them as good attack and defense as the infantry, not only would it be very incorrect, but also very unbalancing. Any ability that would make the cavalry ‘uber’ should be “immediately shot, and strung up as an example”. :)

The exception is Rohan, where they’re missile line is mounted, and their cavalry line melds with their offensive infantry line. And maybe even a ‘fast defense’ oriented unit.

As for cities, I don’t think we are disagreeing here. You seem to not want size 10 cities ‘in no time’. I don’t either, why I think we should reduce the level from 6 population, to 5, and from 12 population, to 10.

I think it would be more realistic for them to have less chance of pumping out settlers and workers like no tomorrow. Remember, we are counting on 10-15 cities per civilization, not 20-40, which is very doable. Cities should be able to get improvements fairly easy, and they should definitely be important. But they should be fairly hard to construct, at least in the beginning. Also, each citizen is ‘supposed’ to represent 10,000 (?) people. I don’t think that the cities in LotR were so populated as that;)! The largest armies we hear about in LotR are 7-8,000 strong.

Don’t forget, ‘villages’ and ‘towns’ exist only in name. The only place you actually see the words: ‘village’ and ‘town’ and ‘city’ is when establishing an embassy, and in you advisor screen. If we make it so aqueducts come in the third era, and hospitals in the fourth, then the only towns, (that’s level 2 for size) on the map will be your capital and a city next to a river\lake.

So you will be seeing less size 12 cities this way, from my experience anyway.

Again, for the Dwarves. I think we should definitely clarify that they are Dwarves, If I were to say ‘smiths’ then it wouldn’t be anything special. however, Dwarven smiths is an automatic (hey, they must be very skilled and smart!). As for the merchant part, it’s pretty well known Dwarves had the best Merchants. It would be an injustice to call them traders, or something along those lines. So we either have to name the human unit a trader as Wimp suggested, or keep the Dwarven tag on the citizen.

Embryodead said that we could use spaces in the citizens name, but really I don’t think it’s necessary in this case, and we can botch that up, it’s hard to see when you need a space in the civilopedia\pedia icons text, and when you don’t.


I’m working on the next overview for the next thread:)
 
Ok, I understand. If aquaducts come in the third age, Im happy.

Merchants as Dwarf, okay, but something else for the mannish civs imho. 'Trader' or 'Tradesman'
 
Hello,

I was just browsing around the forum and came upon this thread. I was wondering if there was anything that I could do to help this project along?

I'm sure that you've heard such messages before, and I realize that the .bix design does not allow much outsourcing, but I could do just about anything except unit design.

I am currently working on a Map of Middle Earth. I had one that I had made before, but it was lost in a computer crash. So I am in the process of rebuilding it.

Oh, and I think that the torturer scientist sounds good. However, i think that perhaps something like evil smith might be better. I can't remember the passage -- perhaps it was in the Lost Tales -- that quotes the Dragons coming out of Morgoth's evil Smithies. However, something like Evil Inventors would sound beTter to those who haven't read the books.

RRnut
 
RRnut-
I was just browsing around the forum and came upon this thread. I was wondering if there was anything that I could do to help this project along?
Are you saying I am slow ;). (j\k)
RRnut-
I'm sure that you've heard such messages before, and I realize that the .bix design does not allow much outsourcing, but I could do just about anything except unit design.
Well, at this point, and this is subject to change in the near future, all anyone can do is debate their opinion on a single subject matter. I plan to post certain aspects for debate, ones we haven't agreed on yet and even a few we have. Once we got the main MOD down, we will start to ask people in the project for civilopedia entries, some .pcx graphics, and locating things we could use.

So as of now simply by debating your opinion, you are helping this project along.
RRnut-
Oh, and I think that the torturer scientist sounds good. However, I think that perhaps something like evil smith might be better. I can't remember the passage -- perhaps it was in the Lost Tales -- that quotes the Dragons coming out of Morgoth's evil Smithies. However, something like Evil Inventors would sound better to those who haven't read the books.
You already got the hang of it;). Yet I think we should stay away from the 'evil' classification. I don't think many people would refer to themselves as either good or evil. Some common replacements for evil could be; Dark Smith?, Smith of Mordor, Forger of Orodruin, etc.
I think we should stick with 'Torturer', in any case:undecide:.
RRnut-
I am currently working on a Map of Middle Earth. I had one that I had made before, but it was lost in a computer crash. So I am in the process of rebuilding it.
Sounds good:goodjob:! Any specs on it, size, etc.?
 
Im thinking, would it be too inacurate to perhaps call the Dwarf taxmen, "Dwarven Miner", because come to think of it that is where their wealth came from...

I vote for road movement 2
 
It's a neat idea, but I don't think it would be good, as the Dwarves were renowned as Merchants. The old road, newly renamed the 'Greenway' was mainly used by Dwarves, they built a road to Doriath for trade, and who can forget the 'Petty Dwarf'.

Perhaps we could use the Miner for the entertainer? To represent their ‘steadfastness’. And go even further, perhaps entertainers\miner would generate +1 wealth also? While the Merchant generates +2? Don’t forget, we are representing an entire race with on civilization. And we should at least give the coolest race some bonuses;). I think that this might be the way to go, especially if we limit there cities as has been discussed.
 
Hello,

So I am allowed to debate?? Kool!!;) I didn't mean that you were slow, but I just want to play this":d"

Re: Ok, we'll go with torturer. However, unless we're making new graphics then we would probably want to add the dwarven, etc. symbol to it. This is espically true if we will vary their values as compared to the original CIV3.
Again, I also like the idea of variying values for specialists. they are virtually useless for almost anything in the 3rd and 4th ages. perhaps we can even have some technologies which give new and more advanced specialists.

Re: Road movement. hmmm. I would really tend put my vote in for a movement of 3, just because of map concerns. I really didn't like the way that two road movement worked itself out in the DYP mod. Again, this decision is solely because of map concerns and playability, and not realisticity.

Re: City level size 5 and 10 as max seems fine.

Re: Wealth. Six seems fine. wealth seems to be minimally useful in the ancient ages. perhaps add the tech to double it earlier on. ( Trading? )

Re: Tech times. I'm not so sure about doubling this. I was just playing this last GOTM and was able to get 4 turn tech times from the IA on. I also collected over 15,000 gold. now, if tech times were 8 turns, I would go at half the 90% science that I was going at. this would about double the gold which I produced, and which I had little use for. If we are going to double min tech research times, we should also double tech costs. Therefore a compromise should seem more appropriate at about 6. This is actually quite a long time in the IA, MA, espically if you are at war.

The other values seem fine.

Re: my map. it was a huge map that contained an eastern fictional coastline, but that was lost. So the one that I am currently working on is a large map that contains only what is included on my LOTR map. just one question. when I get beyond the sea of Rhun, I was just thinking of including a line of mountains that would be up against the coast.

RRnut
 
Originally posted by PCHighway
Historically they were simply a nuisance to the defending or attacking units. A ‘shock’ troop so to speak. If we give them as good attack and defense as the infantry, not only would it be very incorrect, but also very unbalancing.

One word response- Catapracti (cant spell it, but there are 5 different spellings depending on the book/game)

The Byzantine Empire reconquered half of europe with them as basically the whole army. And their was a huge changeover, originally infantry was supreme. Then with the Punic Wars cavalry became powerful... then (I believe) the romans switched it back to infantry, but then in the middle ages mounted knights reigned supreme, and cavalry was still the best weapon until around the mid 1700s, when gunpowder weapons.... started working. Then, they totally were gone after the US Civil War (except the polish cavalry vs the German Panzers in WWII) until Mechanized&Armoured Cavalry came into power (tanks). So, technically, Cavalry ("Armoured Cavalry") reigns supreme at the moment

But we cant make them as powerful right in this game because it unbalances it (unless they're super expensive)

I vote for 2 road movement, can be edited in editor, and 4 for railroads if possible (are they gonna add that)
 
Could someone with PTW check this map out? Click
It looks promising, but I cant look at it :( It might be usefull for the mod.
And RRnut, In post 117 (page 6) of this thread I posted an early version of my map. mayb u could check it out.

I liked an earlier idea for Dwarf entertainers. Someone said something like Musicians. Which sounds perfect to me
 
I tried out the map. It needs more desert in the Harad area and maybe less land bridges in the Anduin. Otherwise it looks great. Therre's enough room to add Numenor in the ocean area. That is a big MAP! He said it is still missing resources. Not everyone could use this map since it is 362x362. I could but that's just me.

I think movement of road should be determined per scenario. Big map scenario could go 3 or 4 and smaller maps could be 2. A random map could just be 2.
 
AlcTrv, this mod will not include Cataphracts or tanks...:rolleyes:
It will include horsemen up to knights, but not the heavily armored cataphract. In ME infantry was what was used (if we exclude the Rohirrim). Thus we want to emphasize infantry.
 
RRnut, I think that this is a better pcture of what you want east of Rhun.
 
Not quite, they had a number of sufficient infantry troops besides the Hipparchia, and even then, they didn't come into their own until later. The re-conquering of Italy and beyond, was do more in part to their advanced tactics. They had a number of interesting tactics which they used, and skirmishing not the least of them.

I don’t see why you brought them up so much, as I said, they still were a nuisance, used to greater effect. Not until the high medieval ages would you see the Knights be used in Western Europe so effectively. After the ‘advent’ (more like traveling of ware tactics) of stirrups did cavalry become as important as we like to think.

A prime example of this is Alexander the Greats companion cavalry, used to harass troops, and the best use of mounted cavalry before stirrups in Eastern Europe.

When stirrups did come in use throughout Europe, Knights were hard to maintain, and with the advent of the crossbow\longbow’s powerful enough to pierce a Knights armor, this made it difficult for anything but heavily armored cavalry to do a successful charge. I can't think of any knight charge in history, where the knights were wielding swords either;).

Cavalry was effective, but not the norm. fighting troops, infantry should be relied on more than cavalry.
I vote road movement of 2.
 
PC Highway- Cataphracts were before knights, and they were incredibley powerful first.

I know the cataphracts were not alone, but they were incredibly powerful at the time, often easily defeating main enemy infantry forces. I know that the tactics were damn good, but the cataphract was their main tool of conquest, and it was what they were feared for, not their infantry as much

Alexanders cavalry is exactly an example of the see-saw relationship that exists between cavalry and infantry (much like with the attackers in war and the defenders. Early on- often the defender, archery Rome-Offense, siege weapons and speed, etc. The attacker usually won, and was defeated by a counterattack, not a defense Skip ahead [past some more seesaws] WWI- Trench Warfare (defense) WWII and beyond- Nukes and Tanks (Offense BIG advantage)

And I'm not saying tanks and cataphracts are in it, I do believe most cavalry (except rohan) should be weak. Especially since Lord of the Rings is so much more based around infantry than cavalry (except rohan, again)
I'm just trying to prove that in the real world, cavalry is/was not just for harrassment. It WAS used as shock troops, but not in the way of harassment, but more strike fast and do heavy damage before the enemy is ready, and hopefully shatter them. The difference is that they are not just a secondary force, but are and have often been used to totally shatter the enemy as the main weapon

Agree to disagree?
 
Why is there an argument over Cataphracts here? Isn't this off-topic since there aren't any any Middle Earth? They barely developed siege machines in Middle Earth. Not meaning to sound rude, sorry if that does. I do agree about the real world perspective AlcTrv, and I'm glad you know the difference between Earth and Middle Earth. I was just wondering why they were brought up?:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom