[en] Edain Mod > [Edain] General Suggestions

What if you could draw simple walls from Settlements?(+ thoughts about stuff)

(1/2) > >>

IgRAzm:
   Settlements are a core of every match, and in multiplayer the games are almost always decided by how the players are able to defend and conquer them. I see a blob of army walking around, destroying/defending together succeed more than any other tactic. In a sense the siege can feel secondary, and even unnecessary, sometimes, as the outcome of a siege seems to be decided before players ever come close to each other's castles, which is unfortunate. So, because of that, I think a most effective way to make players use siege, and also to fight in more different ways than in one big cluster, is to add another way to defend one's settlements - walls!
   While the walls surround castles and camps, I think it doesn't fit to simply do the same for the settlements, so instead I suggest to add an upgrade to the faction's research building, that would have two tiers, each enabling to add one wall hub per settlement. The wall hub would connect with simple (not very durable and not mannable) walls to the settlement (and not to the other wall hubs!). The wall hubs wouldn't go far, in fact at half of the screen maximum. Another restriction is that you can't build wall hubs near one another (like at 15% screen distance around one, I mean), meaning that two settlements cannot create a solid closed wall and must leave a passage in between. The settlement walls would be repaired outside of combat for free, but if fully destroyed, the player must pay to rebuild them all at the settlement. If a settlement is destroyed, the walls fall too. If a player demolishes a wall hub, the wall goes down too, and a new one can be build only after a time. Ofc, not all factions would have solid walls: Rohan and Angmar would have thick palisades in place of stone, while the orc factions would have palisades so bad that they have passable holes every few meters - merely deforming enemy formations, but at least with an additional effect of trample slow for cavalry so that it can't charge at full speed. Lothlorien would be functionally identical in this regard to the orcs, except that the walls would be formed out of living green trees, that let them go stealth, if the sections are at full hp (wouldn't that be cool af btw? :D).
   What this feature adds to the table is a defense against both the large armies moving completely freely to your castles, crushing settlement at a time, troubleless, and versus melee units surrounding these buildings - they would still be able to attack the farm/slaughterhouse/etc, no matter which side they attack from, but with fewer numbers. Other than the meta reasons and thoughts of increasing siege units use in mid to lategame, I just think it would add a bit of interesting complexity to the players movement and choices in both defense and siege. Many factions would start to treat movement very differently, with Lothlorien elves having an easy time walking around the enemy walls to rush a settlement, and to retreat when needed, which is an opposite to the brutal onslaught of the orcs, who can't stand for such obstacles, either taking time to gnaw and scratch them by hand or getting some siege craft. And when building, these walls are easy-to-learn-hard-to-master-type-of-deal, as in order to actually block a decent chunk of area, player needs to use the surroundings, like mountain ridges and gullies.
   Well, I might as well introduce myself in brief. I'm IgRAzm (or IgRA), an english-speaking player, with much experience in a number of RTS's. In fact, BFME1 was one of very first games I played! And I never really turned into a competitive player, despite trying out ladders in both SC2 and AOE2 (with the latter, I started on it pretty recently), watching tournaments and casts for those games a lot occasionally. Instead I have taken the balancing and game-designing aspects of most RTS games I played (of some other genres too, but not as much) with much passion, and thought of them as much or more than played them.
   In fact, I tend to treat the game-designing process the same as when artists search for perfection - it might very well be an unreachable goal, but every step on the road to improvement of a craft has purpose to it. The more one spends time improving the existing piece, the more it gets clearer what are core principles they should apply, as the other ones get sifted out.
   Can I say that I have ideas? That of course depends. Sometimes I have so many, but, you know, only a few actually reach conscious thought, and far from all of them are good enough even then, and on top of it there's not always a mood for thinking things over.
  Well, I guess there was a level of pretentiousness in my previous words, but I can only ask the reader to trust that I'm not wasting their time, as that all lead to my thoughts about Edain.
   In Short, it's Amazing.
   In not so short, it is quite a gem in the modding scene in so many ways. I have played every faction and subfaction multiple times over the few weeks after discovering it, but there's still a lot to get to. So many gameplay elements are so polished and lead to one another, which doesn't always come in tandem with the good visual parts, and in that regard also, this mod doesn't look a mod, it seems like a full modern studio-class game. I'm so looking forward to Misty Mountains, it seems like one of the most unique and detailed factions I've seen in any RTS.
   To be honest, I haven't played BFME for many years, and stumbled upon Edain almost by chance. But it did reignite my long forgotten interest for the buildplot system of the first install, and learning of it's alignment on multiplayer I was filled with much promise regarding that, while slightly getting let down by the fact that the game's AI couldn't be improved very far.
   Was the multiplayer a letdown for me? That would be far from the truth, yet...not completely false. Despite all the qualities of the mod, I don't think the multiplayer gameplay actually gets executed in a way that would do the justice to all the many developed aspects of the mod. Not a large percentage of matches had appearance of a competition with prolonged uncertainty of winner and many options for the catching up player to recover and turn the game. Many still were good, and interesting, and much more than can be expected of a mod with players taking it competitively. With the tournament in place, I do hope for great, preferably prolonged games (though I can't seem to make the replays for them work sometimes..) to come, and most likely there will be, but I can't help but think how incredibly replayable it would be if such games were a commonality.
   Now, I think I got to show my circumstances clear enough, so for whoever who read this far without looking at suggestion, you better do it! It is shorter.  ;)

Elendils Cousin 3. Grades:
The idea is super interesting and opens up lots of fascinating opportunities, but I don't think it's feasible or fitting in your iteration. Too many settlement buildings shouldn't have walls in any form attached to them, for various reasons: Being a somewhat stealthy refuge like Gondor's Ranger Tents; fundamentally non-military buildings like the Dwarves' Travel Camp; or special recruitment buildings like the Entmoot, just to name a few. It might be an interesting addition as a special ability of only a few buildings where it both fits aesthetically and from a gameplay standpoint though.

IgRAzm:
Actually you're right. In many instances it really would look off. I think I had half a mind to specify something like that but I think I didn't get decided on which shouldn't work and then I forgot :). I guess that all factions have at least one or two fitting settlement buildings.

Smeargollum:
After only reading the title your post I was rather sceptical but after thinking about the suggestion for a little while I became to like it. I too, like Elendil, think that the central idea behind your concept is very interesting and full of possibilities.

I think it would be best if every faction has only one settlement/”building on an outside buildplot” that can be expanded by a wall or palisade as you suggested. From a gameplay/balance perspective those walls could be used to buff generally less used buildings that could get more attractive that way as they get a new tactical dimension.

For Gondor I’d say the beacon would be best fitting, as it is a military building in which the troops are getting ready for the fight so it would make sense if they try to protect themselves by walls. It could also help keep the beacon safe against early
aggression before you have enough rider to get soldiers.

For Rohan the assembly point would be a good building to give some palisades. While the normal farm and the stud farm are just the houses of poor peasants the assembly point is build for military interaction. With protecting palisades, it can be even better to build it at strategic important points on the map. 

For Imladris I think a tiny wall that protects the Hobbitfarm would be fitting. The Hobbits are peaceful and not very aggressive people that just want to defend their home. In the German forum I also suggested to give the Hobbitfarm a passive ability that buffs the Dunedain defensively. I think those two things could work together quite well and make that settlement building to a defensive option at key points on the map.

For Lorien a wooden palisade build by the Beornings would fit well in my opinion. Here there is a similar reasoning as for the wall around the beacon by Gondor: it could be very helpful to be able to protect it better from early aggression before you can get any units out of it.

For dwarves I think it would be good to make the lumber mill upgradable with walls. This might seem a bit odd at first but since the lumber mill is very weak at the moment as the workers can get easily harassed and killed that would make a lot of sense gameplay wise. When the lumber mills would get protected by walls it might be worth it to build some of them at certain places on the map and dwarves would finally have an alternative to the mineshafts. The only problem I see with that though is, that it could make it harder for the workers to find fresh trees without running around the wall on a long journey with their short legs. So maybe it is possible to allow the workers to go through to palisade so that they can go cut down trees effectively but other units still can’t get through.

Maybe if we imagine the palisade similar to this defences of the Mordor slavefarm it would make some sense that the workers can still get by but heavy armoured soldiers can’t.
For Isengard it would be the same as their lumber mills are just as bad as the ones of dwarves.

For Mordor I could imagine a palisade for the slave farm in the same style it already got some (at least visually) on higher levels. That could also make that farm a bit better, as its discount is – at least in the multiplayer – a bit underwhelming.

For Angmar it would visually fit best to the orc farm. Such a wooden palisade would make it easier to defend the farm and get out the tribute carts safely.

As design the already existing one from the Orcfarm on higher levelswould be appealing.

Those walls would be buildable after researching an upgrade in the citadel that costs between 300-500 resources. In my opinion it would be good if you can get them really early as it might be important to protect some key structures with them. And since the walls themselves would probably also cost some money, it shouldn’t be too strong.

One concern I have is that I fear that, despite how interesting the idea behind little walls for settlements is, it won’t really work in practise with the old engine. Probably it will just mess up the path finding of the units and make it more annoying and frustrating to fight around those places but I guess we would have to see that in game.

IgRAzm:

--- Zitat von: Smeargollum am 19. Aug 2021, 14:52 ---After only reading the title your post I was rather sceptical but after thinking about the suggestion for a little while I became to like it. I too, like Elendil, think that the central idea behind your concept is very interesting and full of possibilities.

--- Ende Zitat ---

Well, thank you, thank you. I am quite excited, now that it turns out that balance testers and experienced players seem to like my idea.

I think I would be happy if the idea was implemented in a way you described. Your argumentation makes a lot of sense. But, as I have gotten some ideas to add to it, I'll write them down too.

Well, I looked at all the settlement buildings of all implemented factions and I think it's possible to make two buildings per faction able to build walls. Actually I think there could be two types of walls per faction also.

What made me think that there should be two is the idea of both military and non-military buildings figuring in your post. And I think I will be going over them in the same order.


* For Gondor, it definitely makes most sense to have the strongest walls for the beacon. To underline the difference from the other factions, I think those should also get upgraded with the quarry upgrades. The civilian-level walls, small stone ones, are for the Farms (same for the Arnor Farms). At higher levels they are already surrounded with walls of a man's height so it seems just organic, + imo people should have a small additional incentive to build them instead of the wall-less Ranger tents.


* For Rohan, the military assembly point definitely should have the stronger palisades, but I think that Stud Farm fits as a building with regular wooden walls (made out of horizontally laid trunks). This underused settlement would be then a better alternative to the everpresent peasant-spawning farm.


* For Imladris, I agree that hobbits should have the small stone walls, overgrown with green. But the more tall and stronger stone walls would be for the Lindon Watchtower (and the Arnor's Watchtower would have them too).


* Beorning Homestead of Lothlorien would have the stronger walls - I think it would make the most sense. I think that Mallorn trees could make those walls with slowing down spaces in them that I had mentioned in the OP. Formed out of smaller Mallorn trees, these walls would enable cloaking, like normal trees when at high hp; if damaged, their golden foliage would be partially removed and the elves nearby revealed.


* Very good idea with the Lumber Mill walls for the Dwarves. I think they should simply have spaces in them. That would fix the issue with blocking, while of course weakening the defensive capabilities of the walls. To compensate for that, I think Mineshafts should get good stone walls. Having high base health and benefiting from the Stonemason bonus, these would be the strongest walls among the factions' settlement walls, only on par with Gondor/Arnor walls. But as a tradeoff they would be more expensive than any other walls.


* Isengard Lumber Mills would have the same palisades with gaps as Dwarves, but the slightly stronger and full walls would be available for the Clan Steadings - not very popular currently other than for quick earlygame economical advantage, those buildings now would have an option to get more protected, and fill an important role as buildings on the borders - the Dunland Wildmen should be created closer to the frontlines to be able to raid enemy buildings quickly and unexpectedly, and defensive walls would empathise the role of expendable meatshield of this subfaction - they are pawns who let the industry grow behind their backs, as they pull the enemy's attention to themselves. Actually I think that many Isengard players would look forwards for additional defensive measures for their faction - their bases seem the most vulnerable of all evil factions imo.


* With Mordor I easily agree. I think those palisades should have slowing down gaps though, just to continue with the tendency of evil and aggressive factions not being so good at defense. And while I don't think Evil factions should generally get strong walls, I think Cirith Ungol barracks may be an exception to the rule - considering that they are made out of salvaged gondorian stone. These stone walls as a tradeoff could be more expensive.


* Angmar is an interesting case, with the castle having proper mannable walls and the importance of the settlements sending tributes to the base. Because of that I've decided on a tradeoff that isn't present with other factions. For Angmar, the both wall types would be functionally identical, only looking different, protecting both the Orc Camps (palisades) and the Barrows (made out of a row of runed tombstones). They would have small spaces in them (3-4 spaces at most), letting through at most a troll, which main function would be as passages for the tribute cards. Because of that, the players would find defensive playstyles more easy to pull off - walking around with a horde of Rhudaur Hillmen would be just as possible, but the barrow wights and more compact battalions would be more easy to use in walled areas, in case of the former even allowing to hold the spaces in walls shut for the enemies.


--- Zitat von: Smeargollum am 19. Aug 2021, 14:52 ---Those walls would be buildable after researching an upgrade in the citadel that costs between 300-500 resources. In my opinion it would be good if you can get them really early as it might be important to protect some key structures with them. And since the walls themselves would probably also cost some money, it shouldn’t be too strong.

One concern I have is that I fear that, despite how interesting the idea behind little walls for settlements is, it won’t really work in practise with the old engine. Probably it will just mess up the path finding of the units and make it more annoying and frustrating to fight around those places but I guess we would have to see that in game.

--- Ende Zitat ---

Yea, I think I feel the same regarding these two points. Would suck if the walls are problematic to the pathing. My hope is that the original second installment did have buildable walls, it couldn't be too bad with them and they could turn there so theoretically they should be functional. But if small spaces can't be traversed well at all, I guess I can live without them.

Navigation

[0] Themen-Index

[#] Nächste Seite