Author Topic: TLD: Suggestions  (Read 781604 times)

Offline GetAssista

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
  • TLD Dev team
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2325 on: June 20, 2011, 03:58:36 AM »
Is this doable? Is it worth the effort, at least?  :D
Doable - we can arbitrarily set whever particular party sees particular party, so can make ranger parties invisible to the enemy unless very close.
Ambushing mechanics was discussed quite a bit. Not implemented yet, as we are pushing for release.
The one you suggested (if in forest tile + if many rangers in party = you get some bonus) is pretty easlily doable. Boosted tactics might not be a perfect solution, as it does not matter for small parties and big battlesize (and ambushing is mostly relevant for relatively small parties), but we will certainly think of it more after the release

Offline Stryder

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2326 on: June 20, 2011, 05:44:00 AM »
Cool, as for the Tactics boost I thought myself it would not be much relevant in battle, but it was the only thing I came up with. Maybe (since you can't - I think -  edit how the armies spawns into battle, e.g. change the starting positions,) you could make that whenever an "ambush" occurs, the battle takes place in a landscape wich gives the attacker some vantage such as a dense forest area with streams and relatively hard-to-climb cliffs.

But it's just speculation.  :D

Offline GetAssista

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
  • TLD Dev team
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2327 on: June 20, 2011, 06:52:23 AM »
Maybe (since you can't - I think -  edit how the armies spawns into battle, e.g. change the starting positions,) you could make that whenever an "ambush" occurs, the battle takes place in a landscape wich gives the attacker some vantage such as a dense forest area with streams and relatively hard-to-climb cliffs.
It can be edited just fine, we are not decided on the type of advantage yet. Natural one, visibility, is not an option cause AI does not care, contrary to the player, who would suffer a lot when starting in dense forest in an ambusher party.
Believe me, a lot of thought went into possible ambushing mechanics already.

Offline Conners

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2328 on: June 28, 2011, 12:59:07 AM »
Here's something fairly important, if you want cities and fortresses to be anything more than spawn-points.

Cities/fortresses should have an area of sight. When an enemy comes into view, they may spot the enemy.

So, what does a city do, when a small band of troublemakers comes near? They dispatch a larger party of their own to wipe out the trespassers. This would especially be the case with Enemy Caravans and the like, which are more lightly armed parties that, none the less, are important to the war effort.
Notably, you might want to base the type of party sent, on the speed and size of the enemy group. So, if it is a mounted Rohan caravan, Isengard would send out swift Warg Riders to attack them. And if there are 30 enemy intruders in the party, the city would send out 50. Etc..

As for large parties, if they don't attack the city: Now, let's say they're too large for the city to consider attacking (after all, emptying out their garrison for one enemy party is risky). None the less, when the enemy party is passing, the city sends out a smaller party to follow.
-------
Why would they do this? Quite simple: It allows the city's faction to keep tabs on the large enemy party, alerting nearby allied parties of the enemy.
Also, let's say the enemy party was a Great Host of Mordor, which got into a fight with a Great Host of Gondor? Well, then the city's party would join in on Gondor's side, tipping the odds to their favor.

And, if the Great Host should try to attack your city's party--the city's party would merely run away, back to the safety of their walls if need be.


This is the main reason fortresses were of importance. If not for this.... they're just big pieces of scenery that don't bother the enemies raiding your lands. Heck, that's why castles tend to be of no importance in mount and blade, since they never send out parties to defend nearby villages or the like.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2329 on: June 28, 2011, 10:25:04 PM »
Uh ... actual line of sight from a city would be pretty minimal, unless the enemy sent out a horde so large that the column of rising dust could be seen for miles around.  Even then, you're only talking very limited warning - how long does it take to march a couple of miles?  Smaller raiding parties would very likely escape detection from the city walls, until they were within a few hundred yards of the perimeter.

But local patrols are a good point, and one that was in earlier TLD versions but was used to a limited degree and effect.  The patrols could seemingly only engage or flee ... there was no "shadow the enemy force and collect recon intel" function, nor was there any particular "converge patrols on intruders".  Armies seemed to wander about a lot, rather than camping out somewhere until they had a target to march against... so collecting intel about enemy movement was sketchy at best.  ("Sir, scouts report the enemy force is wandering around randomly, trying to ambush anything slower than they are, just like we've been doing for weeks!")  Such is the problem of a game world where overall tactics are based on pretty simple stats.

Then again, M&B (native or any mod I've ever heard of) doesn't really try to model the economic and social effects of a hostile force moving across the area, looting and burning, and harassing locals.  Historically, castles and walled towns were heavily used as shelters for the local population, and patrols would be sent out to discourage hostiles from hanging around on local farmland and such.  If the economic and social impact of letting armies tromp all over your territory is absent, then the motivation to harass them is similarly absent ... defender's advantage goes to whoever stays closest to their own fortifications.  If an enemy doesn't burn a bridge or leave a garrison there, then why do you care if they cross it?  If they do take some action that prevents you from using it in the future, then you need it back.

That kind of economic model is probably beyond what could be effectively put into an M&B mod.  Not sure it would add to game play if it could, unless the mod was based heavily on social, economic and political turmoil.  (ONR was planning a complex economic model like this, before Fujiwara got sidetracked ... but that was because the historical setting of the Onin War really was a lot more of that kind of trash than it was a stand-up battle.)  Tolkien never really made much of the potentially complex economic issues tied to raids by orcs - it was just sort of assumed that the point of the war was total genocide and/or enslavement (the orcs kept human slaves ... Frodo had to go around a couple of slave-labor farming villages while crossing Mordor), and that local economic disruption was subsequently not their biggest problem.

So yeah, it's certainly true that military units roam around much too freely in M&B.  Local resistance is generally missing.  Armies don't camp at choke points (river crossings, mountain passes, whatever) to keep hostiles out of their territory, nor do local settlements seem to do anything tactical.  That was certainly not the kind of military action Tolkien wrote about - he was very specific about certain places needing to be held and/or taken for strategic reasons.  But could this find its way into M&B?  Could this kind of strategic thinking be done in an organized manner, and not just piecemeal?  I don't know, personally, but it's worth asking.  Adding this sort of thing piecemeal can get funny in a hurry.

Just a thought to keep everybody thinking, before "Hey, that's an idea" thinking gets out of hand.  One thing tends to lead to another, so it's better to decide, in advance, exactly what to try to implement and what is beyond the scope of the project.

Offline Triglav

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2491
  • I'll bite your axe off!
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2330 on: June 29, 2011, 03:32:22 PM »
Just a thought to keep everybody thinking, before "Hey, that's an idea" thinking gets out of hand.  One thing tends to lead to another, so it's better to decide, in advance, exactly what to try to implement and what is beyond the scope of the project.

Words of wisdom, Ron. :)
"Of course, just by reading this forum you get a geek point. If you post you get a lifetime membership card.
If you contribute to the mod your praises are sung by the lords of dorkistan for an age and a half."
-Ancientwanker

Offline timhavens

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2331 on: July 16, 2011, 07:05:59 AM »
Is one of the start options with the Rivendell faction going to be starting as a Dunedain ranger? I know they're meant to be quite rare at this time period in middle earth, but then, so are elves, and I'm presuming we'll have the option to play as one of those. Wouldn't be too difficult a template to start off, probably decent skills in bows, spears, and swords, with riding and tracking skills thrown in.

I suppose if certain texts etc. in the game are coded to acknowledge that your are an elf based on belonging to one of those factions, then this does create for those instances, but the Dunedain were supposed to resemble elves anyway, and I suppose it'd be an easy mistake to make. Anyway, just curious if this would be something worth having.

Offline Triglav

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2491
  • I'll bite your axe off!
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2332 on: July 17, 2011, 03:38:20 PM »
Is one of the start options with the Rivendell faction going to be starting as a Dunedain ranger?

Yes.
"Of course, just by reading this forum you get a geek point. If you post you get a lifetime membership card.
If you contribute to the mod your praises are sung by the lords of dorkistan for an age and a half."
-Ancientwanker

Offline timhavens

  • Apprentice
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2333 on: July 17, 2011, 05:49:50 PM »
Is there an emoticon to express "ecstatic nerd dance of joyousness?"

Offline thecalaquendi

  • Craftsman
  • **
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2334 on: September 08, 2011, 04:16:06 PM »
Since we will now be able to siege and take settlements, I would suggest an option to be able to change the names of settlements once they have been taken.  Alternatively, there could be some kind of script for that to happen automatically.

For instance, if conquered by the 'good side', "Minas Morgul" could become "Minas Ithil." Similarly, "Orc Encampment" could become "Gondor Encampment" and so forth.

You've probably already thought of this though...

Keep up the hard work!

Offline Merlkir

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5742
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantArt online Gallery
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2335 on: September 09, 2011, 01:56:26 AM »
At the moment successfuly sieged settlements don't change sides, they become ruined.
Here's my gallery: http://merlkir.deviantart.com/

I'm now painting and drawing commissions. I'll paint portraits, pets, girlfriends, favourite characters..you name it. Send me a PM if interested ;)

Offline thecalaquendi

  • Craftsman
  • **
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2336 on: September 10, 2011, 05:02:43 AM »
That seems like a realistic approach.  Perhaps the ruined settlements could release small bands of ennemy troops until that faction is defeated? Or perhaps even small bands of allied troops to indicate that a conversion of the area is being done.

How does the current system play?

Offline Conners

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2337 on: September 12, 2011, 03:24:48 AM »
Here's half a suggestion and half of a question: Are there going to be easter eggs in the game? Not literal ones, of course--just in-jokes, references for humour or for furthering the lore in an unexpected way. Special secrets that take some playing to find and have neat benefits are also very fun.

What's I'm asking is, are there going to be a number of lovely easter eggs to find? If not, when possible for a future release, please add the occasional one.

Offline Merlkir

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5742
    • View Profile
    • My DeviantArt online Gallery
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2338 on: September 12, 2011, 04:29:38 AM »
There already are quite a few. Some are in plain sight, really like references you might recognize. Some are hidden and not so easy to be found.
There's a whole mechanism about talking to walkers in settlements, which is related to finding cool stuff. ;)
Here's my gallery: http://merlkir.deviantart.com/

I'm now painting and drawing commissions. I'll paint portraits, pets, girlfriends, favourite characters..you name it. Send me a PM if interested ;)

Offline Conners

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 533
    • View Profile
Re: TLD: Suggestions
« Reply #2339 on: September 12, 2011, 05:14:34 AM »
Awesome :D! I knew I could count on the TLD team for this.