17. Okt 2017, 04:06 Hallo Gast.
Willkommen Gast. Bitte einloggen oder registrieren. Haben Sie Ihre Aktivierungs E-Mail übersehen?

Einloggen mit Benutzername, Passwort und Sitzungslänge


Select Boards:
 
Language:
 

News:



Autor Thema: Our Suggestions  (Gelesen 253 mal)

Offline ElessarTelcontar

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 8
Our Suggestions
« am: 28. Jul 2017, 17:07 »
Hi everyone,

First things first for me and behalf of my friends huge thanks for everyone has a contribution to create Edain Mod.  Guys you are the best.

Who we are?

We are playing this game since BFME and we are huge fan of The Lord of The Rings trilogy. There are some guys among us even read the books and watched LOTR movies more than their entire watched film collection. :) We have found Edain and loved this mod and spent countless night long times playing it and we look forward to arrival of 4.5

Well it is better to start suggestion part.

I will start with early game.

- As a strategy game lover I personally want to make decisions all myself. For example Gondor as a defensive faction can not train their elite archers inside their base. Like that game dictates some strategic movements in the early game. It would be good that we can train ithilien archers from the base as Gondor is a good faction to perform defense.

- Moreover, when the game starts there are 2 troops we have. It also be good that we can pick that soldiers type ie Archers, Pikemen, Melee. Or possible combinations of them.

- So basically we want to be able to create a strategy all by ourselves and not only according to faction but also according to our view to situation like faction combination of opponents.

- And when we are playing against AI there is a situation that if you take a building plot outside the base in early game AI will rush on that immediately particularly against evil factions. We understand that the evil factions love rushing as their structure is fit to that but that kind of "high vision" thing in early game. We think if it can be avoided it should be avoided.

The Middle of The Game

- I want to start here with the Heroes. Basically they should be sturdy to be able to "stand" (not kill everyone of them) against at least 2 troops of highly upgraded army because they are Heroes. And they cost much to lose them. Moreover, except some Heroes like Gimli they can be run away as fast as the infantry could not catch them because when a hero starts losing health points it is hard to take back it in the current situation.

- For example Witch-King, It is much expensive to gain his power. It cost Minas Morgul(2500) + Sauron(1000) + 2000 to recruit + 1500 to unveil it. Total 7000 is too much to lose it with ease. Sometimes "Screech" ability does not work on the enemy which is not powered with fear resistance.

- In Mordor, ringwraiths should be able to carry the ring to sauron if sauron is recruited. Because basically it is their duty.

- Elite Troops. They should be more sturdy. They are not worth it to train some of them most of the time for example Guardians of Gondor.

- Towers. Another issue of the current configuration. It is good to play on the building plot system but it would be super beneficial for strategy to have some building plot designated for building towers on some strategic points like very large passages on the maps. And we should be able to garrisoned them with archers.

- Speaking of Archers, towers from spellbooks or possible towers I mentioned above should be able to garrisoned because as they are lone they are basically nothing. And even we think that if someone on your team create a tower you should be able to garrison your archers to it if it is possible to done.

- Speaking of Towers, :D the ballistas are overpowerful against towers and archers, it is ok to be arrow resistant for them but they are deathly when they combined and the towers have nothing to protect themselves against ballistas. We think that if anyone wants to have a ballistas they should learn it to protect them. So they need to be balanced. For example when a ballista is be able to see a tower from the largest distance as possible the tower is not be able to see the ballista at that distance. It is lead to a situation that even if you have spike or riders to destroy it until your troops reach it it destroy the tower or your building in its target it is even worse if there are archers with the ballista or there are several ballistas and they remain outside of the battlefield. It is an excellent trap. (HUGE) Yes it is in the nature of the ballistas they can fire from far but towers should have the vision to be able to see them.

- In Angmar, gathering carts to get upgrades system is dictates player to protect all the way particularly on the settlements with the gate. It dictates to keep open your door a while and it make vulnerable your defence. To be honest we did not like that cart system.

- Same thing with the in Mordor. Sauron's influence requirements are everywhere. It would be good if their number will be decreased.

- The bombs of Isengard, it sometimes impossible to see them when there are a lot of noise in the game and boom your army is mostly gone. It is ok but when you train a highly upraged army and accidently did not saw that thing puff your all labor is gone and surprise surprise you also lose the game. We think that it should be more visible.

- The noise of loremasters, there can not be one thing in the game that disturbs us as much as these creatures. Couldn't rasp them a bit? :(

- When the walls of the base are destroyed you can not build them again. It breaks you when you try to continue. We should be able to build them again.

The End of the Game

- There is an idea about training multiple troops in one go. I am writing it to end game as when you lose everything except money and building that trains troops you should be able to defend yourself because when it happens it is 100 percent sure that you will be defeated but that should be harder than that. We think that if you have multiple buildings for specific troops you will be able to train more than one specific troop or a combination of them from one building in one go but it will cost you more. If you only have one building it will cost you even much more. These ability will come with an upgrade and you can use it in size limit(4 or may be 5 troops) and in periods I mean you can not do it one after another. That would be harden to be defeated or can be used in the mid-game and would add more joy to game.

- For those who thinks about mordor's "call the horde" power point can easily understand what I mean.

Technical

- Sometimes when you attack with several troops some of them does not attack or can not attack due to their stance I mean some of them stays at back. As we can not set the stance as circle it becomes hard to manage different troops at different spots on the map simultaneously performing a war. If they can be set to circle the building automatically we think they should be set.

- When you order your army to fall back they respond the enemy after your order most of the time especially infantry. It will lead to their death and it is too much annoying in the middle of the war.

- When you play in widescreen the game is so zoomed in normal game we use widescreen enhanced mode for this and it is working very well. I think it would be magnificent if you fix that. Because it is very hard to do that to maps one by one.

- And some of time it is impossible to turn the map with scroll.

- Is there any shortcut to select all army except heroes? (Not to group them)

Thanks for reading and thanks again for Edain team. Please write what do you think about. :) Have a nice weekend.
















« Letzte Änderung: 28. Jul 2017, 21:37 von ElessarTelcontar »

Offline Gnomi

  • Edain Team
  • Bewahrer des roten Buches
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 11.255
Re: Our Suggestions
« Antwort #1 am: 28. Jul 2017, 18:26 »
Hey,
Always nice to see some new people here who enjoy our mod. :)

Next time please use the faction sub-forums. It is very difficiult to discuss everything in one thread. I will answer to most of your parts, please put the rest in the fitting sub-forums. It' easier to discuss there and the chance that an evil team member (like me) refuses most of it immediatly is much lower. :P


Zitat
- As a strategy game lover I personally want to make decisions all myself. For example Gondor as a defensive faction can not train their elite archers inside their base. Like that game dictates some strategic movements in the early game. It would be good that we can train ithilien archers from the base as Gondor is a good faction to perform defense.
No. Ithilien archers were used and trained in the wildness. As in every strategy game, you have to make decisions - here the decision is: Do I want to have the rangers and therefore build outside of the fortress with a higher risk for stronger archers? Or do I want to just train the normal archers, but on a lower risk.
So you have decide between medium risk & medium reward or low risk & low reward.
With your decision, there would be no risk and you'ld always build the rangers without having any meaningful decisions.

Zitat
- Moreover, when the game starts there are 2 troops we have. It also be good that we can pick that soldiers type ie Archers, Pikemen, Melee. Or possible combinations of them.
That could be very unbalanced and would lead to a game of luck in the Multiplayer. Therefore: Because of Balance (and probably AI problems) also no.

Zitat
- I want to start here with the Heroes. Basically they should be sturdy to be able to "stand" (not kill everyone of them) against at least 2 troops of highly upgraded army because they are Heroes. And they cost much to lose them. Moreover, except some Heroes like Gimli they can be run away as fast as the infantry could not catch them because when a hero starts losing health points it is hard to take back it in the current situation.
This is a topic, I could write tons of pages about. "Because they are heroes" is not a real reason for being able to survive against 2 elite units. Just a few examples:
The hobbits were also heroes, but weren't able to fight against so many units. The whole fellowship had problems taking down a troll in the movies - in the books they had problems against 40 normal goblins. (the standard units, not even elite units)
A hero wasn't someone who was able to survive against 100 people on his own. Tolkien always tried to be realistic in his books and therefore also heroes weren't ableo to fight on their own against too many troups. So far the hero part.
Another big problem would be in the balance - heroes have their abilities, which make them much stronger, even if they aren't killing units. If a hero is having a leadership abilitywhich gives 10% damage to all units and you have 10 batallions of archers, which costs 300 each. Then the hero is worth 3000 ressources, only by giving the ability and doing NOTHING else.
If a hero would survive against 3 elite batallions, there would be no way to kill them against a player who us using his mouse. The hero would die so slowly, that you'ld always have more than enough time to save him.
A hero is always useful, if you care about him.
A third point I want to point out are the spellbook powers - you gain nearly no spellpoints from attacking a hero. Just imagine killing a hero worth 1000 or units worth 1000. Which gives you more spellpoinst? This is another oint which makes heroes stronger (or more useful).
There are dozens of other aspects, which are also important. We just can't make them too strong, we already had versions which had too strong heroes. If you want stronger heroes - then play the game mode which makes them stronger.

Zitat
- In Mordor, ringwraiths should be able to carry the ring to sauron if sauron is recruited. Because basically it is their duty.
Afaik this was removed because it caused unfixable bugs.

Zitat
- Elite Troops. They should be more sturdy. They are not worth it to train some of them most of the time for example Guardians of Gondor.
Always be careful with units, which have too much health - a few versions ago most units had more health and the gameplay was horrible and no micro was needed. Also it was impossible to defend your buildings.

Zitat
- In Angmar, gathering carts to get upgrades system is dictates player to protect all the way particularly on the settlements with the gate. It dictates to keep open your door a while and it make vulnerable your defence. To be honest we did not like that cart system.
You could also say that it gives you some diferent opportunities with some drawbacks.
We don't like it, if the player just sits back and builds up his army - we want the player to do something while building up the army.

Zitat
- The bombs of Isengard, it sometimes impossible to see them when there are a lot of noise in the game and boom your army is mostly gone. It is ok but when you train a highly upraged army and accidently did not saw that thing puff your all labor is gone and surprise surprise you also lose the game. We think that it should be more visible.
We think that they are visible enough.^^ It is very difficult to use this strategy in multiplayer, if all players are focussed on the map.
If they are more visible, it would be nearly impossible to use them.

Zitat
- There is an idea about training multiple troops in one go. I am writing it to end game as when you lose everything except money and building that trains troops you should be able to defend yourself because when it happens it is 100 percent sure that you will be defeated but that should be harder than that. We think that if you have multiple buildings for specific troops you will be able to train more than one specific troop or a combination of them from one building in one go but it will cost you more. If you only have one building it will cost you even much more. These ability will come with an upgrade and you can use it in size limit(4 or may be 5 troops) and in periods I mean you can not do it one after another. That would be harden to be defeated or can be used in the mid-game and would add more joy to game.
Technically not possible.

Zitat
- Sometimes when you attack with several troops some of them does not attack or can not attack due to their stance I mean some of them stays at back. As we can not set the stance as circle it becomes hard to manage different troops at different spots on the map simultaneously performing a war. If they can be set to circle the building automatically we think they should be set.
That's only very limited changeable. We already did some improvements on this parts and I don't think that we can make this any better.
Zitat
- When you order your army to fall back they respond the enemy after your order most of the time especially infantry. It will lead to their death and it is too much annoying in the middle of the war.
In 4.x it is way easier to fall back with your units in a big battle, than in all versions before that. Mostly you can sacrifice 1 (or even zero) batallion, to save your whole army. I don't know where your problem is, but most players I know think that retreating is too easy in the current version.

Zitat
- When you play in widescreen the game is so zoomed in normal game we use widescreen enhanced mode for this and it is working very well. I think it would be magnificent if you fix that. Because it is very hard to do that to maps one by one.
We would also have to change every map. We haven't done this, because it also causes more lags and higher pings. We have already increased the camera height and we had a lot of people who complained about the change, because they had more lags. We think that this is a good compromise.
Zitat
- Is there any shortcut to select all army except heroes? (Not to group them)
No. I also think that this is technically not possible.

Zitat
Everything about towers
I think many of our players would kill me, if I would agree with you [ugly] In MP towers are already really strong and don't need any improvements. (or let's better say: They are really frustrating and anti-fun, if you have to play against it.)


Please don't be too frustrated after my answers, sometimes people have different opinions about a topic and we have some more players who experience different things. My stand point is mostly from the multiplayer side, who are playing to win.
« Letzte Änderung: 28. Jul 2017, 18:49 von Gnomi »

Offline ElessarTelcontar

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 8
Re: Our Suggestions
« Antwort #2 am: 28. Jul 2017, 20:45 »
Hey Gnomi,

Thanks for your answers. Seriously after that attention and guiding I appreciate you even more.

I wrote here because I had things general from several races and and I think it is better to write it to general suggestions :D Forgive me. And I will write the rest to proper forums.

I am convinced with Ithilien, Heroes, Ringwraiths, Elite Troops, Bombs, Stance of Troops, Retreating, Angmar. The rest among you answered are I think general so I will write a few more things to clarify what I mean.

First towers. I wrote about ballista vs. towers and to clarify I vote for ballista for power but I think to be reasonable if a ballista  can see a tower the tower should see it as well. Because it is higher building serves to "see". I don't mean a tower should be able to kill at that distance but ballistas can not be avoided most of the times as towers are static thats the problem.

I don't understand why people(multiplayer) do not like towers but we are playing among us also(and online). They are necessary tools for a player who choose to defend over offence. Personally I am not a aggressive player I like to first defend than attack method. But game has a philosophy like "best defence is offence" As you play 2 vs2 some areas on the map should be protected and it is very hard to both help your ally and stand against your enemy when the enemy easily destroy your work with ballista( they are also resistant to normal arrows) and gaining powerpoints level up (holding the building is hard but destroying is easy) . And at least isn't that possible to garrison each others towers. I don't see a bother here as we are allies. I read people say that 1vs1 is very different from 2vs2 or more. I do agree. The mechanics are totally different. For example they can choose to charge one of you mostly. I find myself more annoying that ballistas then standing towers.(I am playing Isengard frequently.)

Starting troops. I mean here the basic or cheapest? xD troops so everyone will be able to choose their two. For example if my strategy includes creeping I first go with the pikes or will defend a while I choose archers first. Like that. I understand AI can be problem with random selection or etc but after all AI has a strategy itself so it can be an adjusted choice for AI. And it would be real strategy start.

I didn't understand why multiple troop training is technically not possible. I understand the buildings behavior can not be changed while game goes on. But it can be like another troop type which gives us multiple troops. Isn't that possible?. (Not combining different ones I understand know why it is impossible). Or our idea for defending till the bitter end is just bad?

Widecreen issue. Even at current height we can sometimes face with lags but the players who suffer from lagging can zoom up a little bit as we do sometimes with huge CP. It would not be a problem I think. And your + - buttons are quite good idea.

Shortcut for all army except heroes. We want it because It would ease our upgrade task. For example Erebor dwarves they can be upgraded all together. Shortcut is impossible ok but what about an other button like + -  for that?  :)

And you said that experience and multiplayer. Well I am quite experienced actually although not at degree of you having experience of creating a mod and knowledge of previous versions we played Edain(4.4.1) in multiplayer mod too much to talk about. I personally have been playing LOTR games for a long time. You said playing to win. You know what I hate losing even with rock-paper-scissors. It is kinda life mod for me. Thing is that Edain is a completely different experience I accept that. But things I used to from BFME II can be a little bit leading to me expecting some ability to purse familiar strategy. I mean a good strategy should work everywhere particularly in a strategy game. 

Thanks again for you Gnomi. And you earn my respect already with your work and attention. We are the people to enjoy and share our joy. It can be possible with only spreading not keeping. In that manner I had a urge to write here but you are the boss guys.  :P

 And I glad to see opinions from players.





Offline Gnomi

  • Edain Team
  • Bewahrer des roten Buches
  • *****
  • Beiträge: 11.255
Re: Our Suggestions
« Antwort #3 am: 29. Jul 2017, 21:53 »
Zitat
First towers. I wrote about ballista vs. towers and to clarify I vote for ballista for power but I think to be reasonable if a ballista  can see a tower the tower should see it as well. Because it is higher building serves to "see". I don't mean a tower should be able to kill at that distance but ballistas can not be avoided most of the times as towers are static thats the problem.
Things like that are always interesting to discuss in the balance section. :P There are many different opinions about that, so I don't want to give my own opinion. (quite often people stop discussung, if a team member gives his opinion about a special topic. That's why we're mostly silent readers and only interfere if we think that it is needed)

Zitat
I don't understand why people(multiplayer) do not like towers but we are playing among us also(and online). They are necessary tools for a player who choose to defend over offence. Personally I am not a aggressive player I like to first defend than attack method. But game has a philosophy like "best defence is offence" As you play 2 vs2 some areas on the map should be protected and it is very hard to both help your ally and stand against your enemy when the enemy easily destroy your work with ballista( they are also resistant to normal arrows) and gaining powerpoints level up (holding the building is hard but destroying is easy) . And at least isn't that possible to garrison each others towers. I don't see a bother here as we are allies. I read people say that 1vs1 is very different from 2vs2 or more. I do agree. The mechanics are totally different. For example they can choose to charge one of you mostly. I find myself more annoying that ballistas then standing towers.(I am playing Isengard frequently.)

The main point why people in MP dislike towers is a mentality, which is mostly found at MP players. For us a game is always a test of skill and if you're loosing, it should always be because the enemy played better or you made some mistakes. It's always really depressing, if you loose a game where you know that you played better, but you still had no chance. Now the question is: What is skill?
Skill is combination of multiple things. Mostly it is a combination of quick reactions, good micromanagement, good decision making in the heat of the moment and knowledge about the game and based on that a good strategy.

Building towers are mostly a strategy which doesn't need any work (just pressing the build button).
Building units and managing them is ALWAYS more difficult than building some towers. Also building towers slows down the game a lot.So we have to look at the work-result ratio.
Units die faster than a tower, because they can just be crushed by knights or killed by archers.
Units need to be managed.
Towers just stand there and can't be moved.
So Units die easier than towers and need more work. Therefore towers need to be weaker than units for the same price. If the answer for winning would be "lay back and drink some tea" it gets boring for a lot of players.
If building towers (without any work) is as strong as building units (with a ton of work in MP), noone would build units, because the risk is way higher. And this would lead to very slow games, because noone would attack and everyone would just sit in their bases and wait until their armies are maxed out. If we wanted that, we could just have given every player 100000 ressources right at the start.
It's basically:
Low work (towers) => low reward
High work (units) => high reward
This is also why defensive strategies in general are mostly less rewarding than offensiv strategies.


Zitat
Starting troops. I mean here the basic or cheapest? xD troops so everyone will be able to choose their two. For example if my strategy includes creeping I first go with the pikes or will defend a while I choose archers first. Like that. I understand AI can be problem with random selection or etc but after all AI has a strategy itself so it can be an adjusted choice for AI. And it would be real strategy start.
I think I have answered that already
Zitat
Widecreen issue. Even at current height we can sometimes face with lags but the players who suffer from lagging can zoom up a little bit as we do sometimes with huge CP. It would not be a problem I think. And your + - buttons are quite good idea.
Just because it is already lagging, we don't need to make it even more lagging. :P
We have discussed that quite often. As said, we already have increased the hight some time ago, but we won't do it in the near future. You think that it is no problem to zoom out even more - other guys think that it is no problem so lower the zoom again. We will let it at that high for now, because we think that it is a good compromise.

Zitat
Shortcut for all army except heroes. We want it because It would ease our upgrade task. For example Erebor dwarves they can be upgraded all together. Shortcut is impossible ok but what about an other button like + -  for that?  :)
No, it is not possible that way.

Zitat
And you said that experience and multiplayer. Well I am quite experienced actually although not at degree of you having experience of creating a mod and knowledge of previous versions we played Edain(4.4.1) in multiplayer mod too much to talk about. I personally have been playing LOTR games for a long time. You said playing to win. You know what I hate losing even with rock-paper-scissors. It is kinda life mod for me. Thing is that Edain is a completely different experience I accept that. But things I used to from BFME II can be a little bit leading to me expecting some ability to purse familiar strategy. I mean a good strategy should work everywhere particularly in a strategy game. 

I played Bfme II on a very high level for a long period of time. I trained quite often with the best german players, even though I lost most games against them.^^
If you have played Bfme II, then I don't see why you say that defensive strategies aren't effective enough in Edain. Bfme II was WAY more aggressive than Edain and nearly noone built any tower in Bfme II, because it was a complete waste of money.
Also I disagree with the statement, that "a good strategy should work everywhere".
Even small number tweaks can destroy a whole strategy. In Bfme I Mordor could spam Orcfighters and Orcarchers in the late game. In Bfme II those units were mostly useless.
In Bfme I Rohan and Gondor both started with stables - impossible for men in Bfme II. In Bfme II Gandalf was the first hero right after the knights and all your focus was around that one hero - again completely different in Bfme II.

So Bfme I and Bfme II are completely different and I personally know no strategy which worked in both of them. So why should a strategy of Bfme II work in Edain? Edain is more or less a complete overhaul of Rotw. The whole balance system is a bit different (same as the balance system change from Bfme I to Bfme II) and the whole gameplay is changed (same as Bfme I to Bfme II).

Offline ElessarTelcontar

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 8
Re: Our Suggestions
« Antwort #4 am: 31. Jul 2017, 01:44 »
Hello again sorry for late reply,

What I understood from your saying that I should discuss tower's vision issue in the balance section then may be I can learn your opinion about what distance tower should see.  :)

I don't think that towers vision capabilities have anything to do with your described type of gaming. Neither do ally deployment ability I mentioned. It is even not an huge strategy actually, if their locations on the map are predetermined. So anyone has a stronger army can hold the place with "increased stability" this is what we ask for. We are not obsessed with the towers. Stability - fast game trade can be done. This not dota or LoL this is middle-earth based game.

I guess you understood that our defence mentality is just about waiting in our base while we are trainining a huge army protecting with strong towers. It is not. Personally I don't like this type of gaming neither rushing. We don't play like this or don't play with people who plays like this. (BFME II and ROTWK) When I say that strategic points I mean large passages or wide areas like middle of tournament hills. I did not mean the base. If you choose to wait your base you already lost your chance to improve your economy it is nonsense and eventually you will fall so towers can not do anything for that. I hope this explanation helps you to understand my point of defence.

You are basically talking about tactics in other words what you describe is being good at tactics. Yes, and I couldn't have agree more. But you are misprising or underestimating using towers as part of tactics. I don't agree with this because it has a purpose to be builded and it is hard to holding it and it should be but a tower itself has problems as I described and it is not the issue with their health points or their damage at distace it is the issue with their vision and ally deployment abilities so I did not think it is about balance. And I propose a thing about maps that concerns about gameplaying. And progressively, if you played good then economy will not be an issue and as you said one can lose if one mistake done. Anyone playing with Isengard can build ballistas (there is no work required) and multiple of them out of your sight can destroy everything so you should say same thing about ballistas then. They are not posing danger only towers but soldiers also. If you read that part again you will understand. It is not being good at tactics or it is not a skill that your kind of saying lay back, wait them destroying, wait their soldiers come to you then easily weaken their army and gain some powerpoints. It is just exploiting the ballistas. So why you are saying that we want to lay back?

As I said before I respect you but I feel some underestimating and teaching what I already know in your words. I know all what you wrote. But saying that building towers in BFMEII "complete waste of money"? Come on. According to what? Which faction against which faction? Basically not. I am from a country had internet cafes(there are computers which have nearly all current games) all around at BFME II  times and there were paid tournaments between 20+ years old people(mostly university student or jobless people). At that times we were skipping school occasionally to play the game with that people at their free time :D After there is no one to organize a tournament for middle earth so we continued playing with remaining people which already has decent knowledge and experience. Still sometimes I edit maps to increase gameplay after a hard match or just to fun. Honestly these are just a little bit of my middle earth madness. We are also in the MP community not to say being old hand.

In addition, I worked on things I am the wisest one in the room so I know the feeling when someone trying to meddle in your job. But please do not get me wrong. As I said before you are the boss I am just giving our opinions but do not underestimate us for just what I've wrote that not in my vernacular. You are the makers we are the players.

I didn't said at least I did not mean that exact same thing should work on Edain which works in BFMEII or ROTWK. Strategy is a broad thing. Once your strategy is formed it is not wise to change it during an event but you can change your tactics anytime you want or according to case. What I've said is I am accepting Edain is completely different experience than any other middle earth game. So something must be different so I used the word familiar. I guess I should have said that a type of strategy if one is good at it should work on strategy games like defensive strategy or offensive strategy or balanced strategy. Strategy games should provide that freedom of choice that is what I mean.

As you talking about mostly skills and tactics I should say that these game(middle earth) in nature lacks to provide managing and performing ongoing tactics every seconds. With your saying it is already a "slow" game. For example one can't use the emplacement factor or geographics to win the hand(yeah there are trees) most of the time. So it leaves us things like being quick, doing right things, mathematics and deploying right. It is mostly skill that about mostly one's knowledge but certainly not up to the hilt tactics like placing your forces to higher place(most of the time it is impossible) or form your riders as crescent. When we have limited choice of tactical movements making things extensive would help that. A game should not about just being offensive. And I do not agree with your correleation between defence is less effort and they are equal to less award thing. To contrary a good defence should pay because you already miss some powerpoints not being offensive.

I think making height is higher is not equal to lag to everyone if anyone wants continue as before one can zoom in. As far as I know gpu is rendering what you see on the secreen. Is making height higher also creates lag even if you zoom in? That question's answer would be the right answer.

To be honest I liked that civilised discussion so I am not intented to prolong it too much. I hope I could clarify myself well about topic.

For whom reading there: please do not forget to comment.

Peace.