DCI: Last Alliance - Open Beta released, NEW: 10 October 2020 new patch released, contains Ents - Wolves - Spiders crashes fix! (and more)

[Ngugi]

The DCI team proudly presents the enchanted features of the Seven Seeing-stones and the Mirror of Galaldriel, as updated by Withwnar..

The Palantiri and the Mirror of Galadriel




Source: https://youtu.be/xB8afzvfI54


Palantiri Lore 00.00
Palantiri gameplay 03:50
The Mirror 20:40

PS: Here's for Withwnar, if you want to give a thumbs up


Best regards

[LittleDwarf]

A hyphen... what could it mean...

Definition of hyphen noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary





hyphen

noun

/ˈhaɪfn/

the mark ( - ) used to join two words together to make a new one, as in knee-length, or to show that a word has been divided between the end of one line and the beginning of the next


BUT ALSO. The hyphen is commonly used in some of the names of characters and places on Arda. Let me think, what could it signify...

Take a look at a sample pool of names from different factions:

Elves:
Feanor, Galadriel, Thingol, Cirdan... Well... we've got one Gil-galad, though, a High King of the Noldor and a prominent leader of the Last Alliance!

Dwarves:
Durin, Thror, Thrain, Thorin, Gloin, Nain, Dain... No hyphens here, it seems...

Northmen: Eorl, Fram, Girion, Bard, Brand, Bain... No hyphens either...

Numenoreans: The King of Númenor (Ad. Âru n'Adûnâi "King of the Anadunians"[1]) was the title of twenty-two rulers of Númenor (there were also three Ruling Queens). Beginning with Elros Tar-Minyatur in S.A. 32, the line of kings lasted for 3,287 years, until Ar-Pharazôn brought about the Downfall of Númenor.[2]

All the Kings of Númenor used either the Quenya prefix Tar or the Adûnaic prefix Ar before their royal name. Both prefixes meant "High".

A-ha! We've hit the jackpot.

Ar-Adûnakhôr , Ar-Zimrathôn , Tar-Palantir , Ar-Pharazôn

It is clear now.

NUMENOREAN KINGDOMS PREVIEW CONFIRMED.

[Ngugi]

Haha, bold reasoning, I tip my hat!
In a sense you're right, hehe, NK will come, but we shall enjoy some other factions and, as it has no been reuploaded and shown above, the Palantiri and the Mirror of Galadriel ^^

[Alekhine]

Hey, I just watched the latest preview (looking good!), and I read a post by Ngugi in the comments section talking about the map. Would you mind explaining a bit more what you meant by "TATW map as it has a better and more correct scale (which has valuable impact on gameplay), is less lore accurate in frame but is more lore accurate in content". Lately I've been thinking about delving in mapping and I'm curious about the rationale behind your design choice.

Anyway, looking forward to the release, keep up the good work!

[Ngugi]

Thank you Alekhine, glad you enjoyed it
No problem to do so. By "less lore accurate in frame" I mean that if you took the LotR Middle-earth map [of equal size] and lay our map over it, there would be differences bethween coastlines and where mountains are (and in relation to them, precise settlement locations), not huge ones for sure but non the less; the frame is the geogrpahical boundries.
However, there follow scale and content. With scale is meant distances between places, and is related to in-game movement. You could say it concern "how far will an army get in a turn". If the map is larger, an army will get less far in a given turn. Now the north-west of Middle-earth (as seen in the LotR map) is a large place, yet its not incredibly huge. If we consider Boromir's trek from Minas Tirith to Imladris it took him almost 4 months; a single traveller ofc would move much faster than an army but it gives us a guideline. Now this can be amended with less months per turn to same result, but as we desire to keep it to a quarter per turn (because of family trees, so not children takes forever to raise) a less large map is more accurate in scale. This also has the gameplay impact that it's easier to travel between significant ME locations. It is for example easier to send a force from say Bree to help protect Osgiliath than had the map been wider, which is not only more accurate time-wise but we also deem more fun according to our goals.
And with a more compact scale also follows content: when a map is broader, it must of course be filled accordingly, as vast space with nothing suffer in entertaining experience. With less distance between the known, lore-accurate locations the need for us to have invented locations, or applied locations from such sources as MERP, that do not exist in the scriptures, decreases. The TATW map of course have a bunch of settlements not based on JRR, in order to offer a reasonable and fun gameplay experience, and we do have added a few settlements of our own to enhance the campaign experience (like decreasing amount of bottle-necks) but it has been our desire to not add more non-lore settlements [content] than is necessary. Again, with scale we have been able to be more rather than less accurate in content.
Now this is not an objective science, this approach will not appeal to all. Some will value a correct frame higher than we have, or appriciate the increased amount of content more than we have, but those are lines of reasoning to why we chose to work the TATW map to fit a Second Age war.
My best wishes with mapping!

Thanks, we are hard at it! ^^

[aetiusaetius]

Thanks for the preview, it looks awesome! Can't wait for Last Alliance!

[Ngugi]

Happy to, the features are plain fun to share

[ThorHa]

On the plus side, it makes battles important throughout a campaign. If you and the enemy have few armies, defeating one or getting defeated can suddenly have great ramafications. And with great ramafications comes great tension

Finally a submod removing the ONE feature that prevented too many replays of TATW in the last years: The never ending stack spam by the AI? That sounds too good to be true :-).

Hope the submod faires well and will be playable soon.

Regards,
Thorsten

[Ngugi]

Doing our best to

Thanks Thorsten!

[c.ryo]

Probably some form of autism, but Love the sound during Palantiri usage.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ngugi again."

[Ngugi]

Probably some form of autism, but Love the sound during Palantiri usage.

Hahaha - not needed for that, I willingly admit ^^

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ngugi again."

Worry not about that; as long as Withwnar get some love I'm happy

[c.ryo]

Hahaha - not needed for that, I willingly admit ^^


Worry not about that; as long as Withwnar get some love I'm happy

Too much love apparently!

[King Athelstan]

T'is all well deserved

[Jurand of Cracow]

Hello DGM

A fair question, hope we may give some inspiration. The key concept is increased fun through self-discipline. Shackle the economy, as was it a wild beast, and avoid excess.
There is a reason why early game is considered most interesting and fun strategically in about every TW game that ever existed. Because you're yet not so large, so rich and your armies so many that no opposition is of concern, and the game is not yet merely reduced to industrial scale grinding of enemy stacks. DCI has been designed with the aim to secure that this challenge is long term, as fars as we may, without being crippling.
Economy is the key to this, for the player and for the AI.

If you can afford five stacks for two fronts, or have four stacks when the enemy has three, challenge is in question and unlikely. To offer challenge the enemy then won't have only three stacks if you have four though, will it? The AI will have ten, and more coming! But it do not have to end up with no concern for money and grind.
For the player you must make sure that the costs for building is relevant and bonuses don't become so many or so large that money becomes of no concern. In important symbiosis to this is that the costs for holding an army (costs for recruiting but more importantly upkeep) should be significant and balance out: when you field armies you should not be rich (have some money unless you spent ill, but not rich).
The reason for this is that the game will be thrilling when you have one stack but two fronts to protect, or have two stacks but the enemy has four. And if this is fine-tuned then it can scale well, so that the players have to consider their economy and how much forces they can afford to send here or there still at turn 200.
This require tests and rebalancing, certainly, but I'd argue it's worth it (as Earl refer to above, hehe).
For the AI you must think the same way. If you have scripts that give money bonuses to AI factions, keep them limited. However, since you already limited the players economical capacity, it is resonable to decrease unit replenishment rates for all factions so the AI can not misuse the economical edge that it do has, it will not stack spam but still offer a challenge and you can limit garrison scripts and spawns in general.
On the plus side, it makes battles important throughout a campaign. If you and the enemy have few armies, defeating one or getting defeated can suddenly have great ramafications. And with great ramafications comes great tension

This as noted require self-disciplin from us modders. We as a breed seems conditioned to think that "if we can add something we better should", hehe. More of something is always the solution, less of anything hardly comes to mind.
So we might unintentionally boost the problems of low difficulty + grind, instead of designing against it: it is very common in general as modders know we are free to add what's instantly fun (to make for us or from player feedback), resulting in excess and inflation.
Say that we toss in buildings that offer bonuses and money, for the short term fun of instant rewards, because players love things to build and troops to recruit.
Then we reach the situation when the enemy have to great forces to handle. Compensate that with more income and bonuses so you can get more troops! But now its to easy! Boost the AI's ability to muster even more forces! And the circle begins again. The spam grows, while the design do not try to amend the root issue, but makes the situation worse.
When the fun of "getting new stuff" is the point and guiding light at the expense of challenge; then balance is compensated for with the spam, instead of sufficiently designed for.
This is a view point, naturally, I do not claim the have 'the truth', but low spam and long term entertainment is what we aim to offer by this philosophy. Hope folks will enjoy it

This is a great post that should be read by all moders busy with the gameplay-changes.

(btw, the Thrones limit the snow-ball effects a bit and they set the Short victory just as it's kicking in. But the victories are still not so felt as in the M2TW engine)

[Ngugi]

Thank you Jurand, guess it would need some clean up and clarifications before I can call it a manifesto, haha, but it do have valid points that I hope some fellows will consider for the benfit of their game.

An interesting read, not got Thrones due to its weak empire-building aspect, but always appriciate strategic analyzes like that.
As for "sniping" btw it been my standard slacker strategy since R2 up till WH2, as auto-battle is quite broken and auto-replenishment made warfare in vanillas mostly an 'aracde' experience.

[LittleDwarf]

I have a couple of questions about the MASTER RACE of bearded fellows with an axe to grind and a possible hoarding problem:

1. Will they have some kind of archer merc to recruit? Not necessarily exclusive - ARE THERE any archer mercs at all? I understand they are not a ranged faction by design, but having at least one longer ranged missile unit (as opposed to the two with shortbows) would open up some tactical possibilities, and the balance could be maintained by making the human mercynary unit very weak in close sombat and with crappy morale or something - with them being mercinaries and MANLINGS after all.

2. Any particular reason why you didn't feel like giving Dwares an axethrower/javelin unit? I feel like it goes without saying that if you're stocky, but strong, a throwing weapon my be even preferable over a shortbow - the later isn't even THAT much better in terms of range, while the dwarven strength give you a big advantage with throwing. I feel a lightly armored skirmisher unit could be interesting.

3. Will the artillery pieces differ at all among the factions? I mean I understand that they will all have catapults + ballistae, but will they work any different? Different accuracy, maybe differenty projectiles? How will it reflect the SUPERIOR DWARVEN CRAFTSMANSHIP? (Though I must admit, in terms of innovation the Numenoreans may have an advantage - if I remember right, nobody thought about the steel bows before them. But that may be also due to the fact that a middle-man would probably not be strong enough to actually use them. xD)

4. Also: I know you will be using the battle event voices ("our general died" etc) from lotr-tw for the dwarves, which is very cool because they are superb. ("Our enemies have been mauled and crippled on this day. Our axes have swept through their lines. Durin the Deathless smiles upon us all!" - I always feel so proud of myself when I hear that <3) Any plans about the other factions, though?

I'm looking forward to making Middle-Earth bearded again. The best of luck in your work.

[Ngugi]

Sure, can elaborate:

1) I presume you have the previewed roster in mind, with the Khazad Archers and Orocarni Archers, so we'll focus on mercs proper. In northern parts of Rhovanion the Dwarves can recruit mounted archers; I refer to this post from earlier this year: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...1#post15533280
Also, if the player [the AI can not] is allied to Alliance-factions so it can, and if it do, join a Tôl Acharn, there will be archer mercenaries around in the world that the Acharn-army can recruit along the way to the target.


2) Missile weapon is not the Dwarves preferred area. To quote Bard, when the Iron Hills-force went under hights where archers lay ready, before the Battle of the Five Armies: "They do not understand war above ground, whatever they may know of battle in the mines. There are many of our archers and spearmen now hidden in the rocks upon their right flank. Dwarf-mail may be good, but they will soon be hard put to it."
To throw a javelin it is advantagous to be both tall and have long arms. Neither favours the Khazad in this regard, I'm afraid hehe. A short bow can be operated none the less and compensate, even if they are no marksmen. Throwing axes could be an alternative (a fair idea added by the films), but we decided to diverse from TATW's and other mods rosters by going with such missile weapons known were used in the books [they made composit bows in Erebor, ergo the Orocarni outfit].


3) There are only small differences. For all renown of Dwarven engineering there's actually no example of them making war machines in the relevant post-LotR lore; that's the domain of evil folks*, hehe. But as skilled artisans, they would presumably do quality work, did they decide to, so...
Ballistae normally do 55 damed, the Dwarven one does 65. Normal range is 230, Orcs have 250 and Dwarven range is 270.
Same damage for their catapults while other factions do 60. It has a range of 270 while other factions has 250-260.
Finally the replenishment rate of Dwarven, and Orc, siege weapons are slightly faster than that of other factions.

* Lore;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hammers, axes, swords, daggers, pickaxes, tongs, and also instruments of torture, they [Orcs] make very well, or get other people to make to their design, prisoners and slaves that have to work till they die for want of air and light. It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them...
- The Hobbit


Busy as ants hurrying orcs were digging, digging lines of deep trenches in a huge ring, just out of bowshot from the walls; and as the trenches were made each was filled with fire, though how it was kindled or fed, by art or devilry, none could see. All day the labour went forward, while the men of Minas Tirith looked on, unable to hinder it. And as each length of trench was completed, they could see great wains approaching; and soon yet more companies of the enemy were swiftly setting up, each behind the cover of a trench, great engines for the casting of missiles.
- RotK

...Morgoth sent great strength over Hithlum and Nevrast, and they came down the rivers Brithon and Nenning and ravaged all the Falas, and besieged the walls of Brithombar and Eglarest. Smiths and miners and makers of fire they brought with them, and they set up great engines; and valiantly though they were resisted they broke the walls at last.
- Silmarillion

4) That's the intention for Dwarves, yes. As for others nothing is decided.


Thanks

[King Athelstan]

If I recall correctly, Tolkien was quite against industrialism and the great black clouds brought with it. It makes sense that evil-doers bring technological machines of war, worshiping industry and the pollution, thus having machines of war. Meanwhile the good guys, especially hobbits and elves are more down to earth, loving the nature and the like. Not 100% sure this is true, but I can recall having read it somewhere

[Ngugi]

That's quite the gist of it aye ^^

As for the topic of siege weapons/war machines I know only of two examples of it in the hands of "good" peoples (in the former example they were alreayd evil, so...).

When the majority of the Númenóreans had fallen to their vices and made Sauron their lord in all but name, engines were devised:

Nonetheless for long it seemed to the Númenóreans that they prospered, and if they were not increased in happiness, yet they grew more strong, and their rich men ever richer. For with the aid and counsel of Sauron they multiplied then: possessions, and they devised engines, and they built ever greater ships. And they sailed now with power and armoury to Middle-earth, and they came no longer as bringers of gifts, nor even as rulers, but as fierce men of war. And they hunted the men of Middle-earth and took their goods and enslaved them, and many they slew cruelly upon their altars.
- Akallabeth

(some drafts propose quite interesting ideas what engines could be, but as that was dropped its deemed limited to the same meaning as applied elsewhere in the legendarium)


Then there's debate if there were siege weapons in Minas Tirith or not:

And as each length of trench was completed, they could see great wains approaching; and soon yet more companies of the enemy were swiftly setting up, each behind the cover of a trench, great engines for the casting of missiles. There were none upon the City walls large enough to reach so far or to stay the work.
- RotK

I belong to those that argue the words "There were none upon the City walls large enough to reach so far" must be a direct respons to "great engines for the casting of missiles". Ergo "There were no siege weapons upon the City walls large enough to reach so far".
Not all accepts this, but argues it concern archers (I presume).

[LittleDwarf]

Yeah, that's something I noticed as well - that industrialisation seems to be portrayed as a hallmark of evil in Middle-Earth. The good guys are craftsmen, not industrials. They create weapons, sure, but they do it in a form of art. Each weapon is unique and detailed, a work of love for the craft. That's something the movies portrayed quite well in my opinion with Isengard - they went for "ugly but practical" armor, weapons not smithed but cast by the dozen.

And one should not forget Saruman himself devised what can reasonably be called gunpowder, though as far as I remember the book was never as clear on that as the movie was (where we seen the black powder that Saruman warned Grima not to wander with a candle around) - it was just called "the fire of Orthanc" something like that. And it was like... an ultimate subversion of an honorable weapon of war - created not with respect for the craft in mind, but devised for brutal efficiency and for killing in a mass, undiscriminate ways in a sudden strike that one cannot defend from.

That's why while I am usually against putting crossbows in lotr mods, as they were never mentioned, I am willing to make an exception for Isengard. Because it fits.


@Ngugi

Come to think of it - did you check out the ORC voices from the lotr-tw mod as well? Maybe they will be to your liking. They are in my opinion definitely better in quality than the Gondor ones, but weaker than the Dwarven ones. But that may be my dwarven bias talking. xD