Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 76

Thread: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Increasingly, I find myself looking lovingly at screenshots of the game and loving all it's content, but being underwhelmed by campaigns that lack entertainment, longevity or possibilities.

    It seems the map is incredibly noisy in certain locations and lacking in others and factions too often positioned far away from any fun conflict, or near to neighbour it is unfeasible to attack. There are vast expanses of space that are impractical to cross and little to no naval possibilities. Everyone being on the mediterranean in medieval means that it is easy to interract with almost every faction in the game, even if that is just sending a diplomat or fleet to blockade.

    For example

    - The gondor campaign is unquestionably the heart of the game, as they are in a position to fight all the evil factions, and see all the cool locations
    - The evil factions are too nearby and this limits who they can attack
    - Harad can basically fight no one but Gondor
    - Rhun have little to do once they beat Dale and the Dwarves
    - High elves have almost nothing to do other than dealing with orcs attacking imladris. Attacking Eriador isn't really fun.
    - The dwarves also start divided and this isn't that fun.
    - Eriador isn't exciting at all to play unless you can become Arnor.

    This isn't a criticism of TA, I just think the map of middle earth was created more to document the hobbits travelling overland to the east and south than as an interesting strategic situation.

    Do you agree? Is there any possibility of an alternative map , completely different map with better distribution of detail, more waterbodies and maybe Arnor as a default?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    What's your point exactly? To change the TATW map? The game is created to be as close to lore as possible. The LOTR book is the Bible of the mod. We can't just place factions wherever we like them to be, exactly as you can't do that in M2TW. Both factions and their locations are specific.

    The only difference that can be made is by using some of the submods that are provided in this forum (FROME adds more factions, so it will make the game more interesting).
    Last edited by NickTheGreek3; August 28, 2011 at 04:15 PM.


  3. #3
    Moneybags14's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    709

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Me and my friends have noticed this also, unfortunately the game map cannot be altered because this is about middle earth and thats what it looks like. BUT, the campaign can be made more exciting for ALL factions with scripts. But it would take alot of them...

  4. #4

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    I agree it's completely accurate. It's just all land. Miles and miles of miles and miles and so many factions have so little to do, or play the same way every time.

    How difficult would it be to make a submod of TATW on the original medieval (or stainless steel) map? With Gondor as Byzantium, Harad as the Moors, high elves in italy; and give the settlements their middle-earth appearances and names?

  5. #5
    Ciloron's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,521

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Or expand the mapmore to the north were is old beleriand and angbad. Or to the south or east to the avari elves

  6. #6

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Beleriand was in the west of middleearth and it's under water. I read somewhere that there was a prophecy that it will rise up from the bottom of the sea again but nobody knows when.

  7. #7
    Ciloron's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,521

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Quote Originally Posted by Largon View Post
    Beleriand was in the west of middleearth and it's under water. I read somewhere that there was a prophecy that it will rise up from the bottom of the sea again but nobody knows when.
    Most of it sank yes but a small part remained

    Probahly u read the silmarillion

  8. #8
    Dutch-Balrog's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    2,188

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Quote Originally Posted by xIN1C0 View Post
    Most of it sank yes but a small part remained

    Probahly u read the silmarillion
    that small part is lindon (High Elves territory) so it's aready in the game

  9. #9
    Ciloron's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,521

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch-Balrog View Post
    that small part is lindon (High Elves territory) so it's aready in the game
    U re right


    Smeagol hates nasty balrog..

  10. #10

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?



    Or perhaps something like this??? Add more factions to add depth to it? Conquer way more than Middle-Earth. Except I guess the map would have to be more compact.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Quote Originally Posted by Helmuth von Moltke View Post


    Or perhaps something like this??? Add more factions to add depth to it? Conquer way more than Middle-Earth. Except I guess the map would have to be more compact.
    Except you run into the problem that the Factions In valinor have no one to fight. Also, see where it says Lindon, Forochel and Forodwaith? trace a line slightly north of those words, almost everything north of that line was devastated/destroyed in the War of Wrath, and is unuseable now. Numenor has sunk beneath the Sea by the third age as well.

    And as was pointed out to me earlier, that map is also innacurate due to trying to cram several different ages worth of geography into one map

    Please rep me for my posts, not for the fact that i have a Pony as an Avatar.


  12. #12

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    I think that Eraidor is very fun, even without the Arnor. Same for OoG.

  13. #13
    usmarine2be's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Great US of A
    Posts
    330

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    In Regard to the High Elves having nothing to do--> In my current campaign, I've destroyed Isengard and the OotMM and close to finishing off the OoG while beginning a push into Mordor. Meanwhile, I've sent a small party of raiders in a large stack of ships to assist Gondor (who aren't doing too good atm) in retaking their lands. Most of Harad's stacks are in Gondor territory, leaving the coastal cities they just took from Gondor relatively undefended. After I take the settlements, I return them back to Gondor and continue on my merry way. It's actually quite fun Anyways, all I'm saying is it just takes a little RPing and imagination for the game be a lot more interesting.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Is Middle-Earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Yes.




    Are vanilla TATW regions and factions really suited for a strategy game? No, I don't think so.

    Also I think a lot of height limits need to be lowered in certain places. A lot of battlefields you have to climb up the side of a massive mountain, if there is a path up even, some don't even have that in areas around the Misty Mountains. They are just too steep so you can't actually reach your enemy.
    Last edited by alreadyded; August 28, 2011 at 05:26 PM.

  15. #15

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Quote Originally Posted by alreadyded View Post
    Is Middle-Earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Yes.




    Are vanilla TATW regions and factions really suited for a strategy game? No, I don't think so.

    Also I think a lot of height limits need to be lowered in certain places. A lot of battlefields you have to climb up the side of a massive mountain, if there is a path up even, some don't even have that in areas around the Misty Mountains. They are just too steep so you can't actually reach your enemy.
    Can you tell me what submod is this? pls

  16. #16
    Dunedain Ranger's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Switzerland, Europe
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scythion View Post
    Can you tell me what submod is this? pls
    Look here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=355651
    Its his great Perillicious Compilation Pack. Alreadyded added a lot of stuff and creatures.

  17. #17
    Dutch-Balrog's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    2,188

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    i can only say 1 thing, if you dont like it, then dont play it

  18. #18
    Dustindesrctin's Avatar Decanus
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana, United States
    Posts
    512

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch-Balrog View Post
    i can only say 1 thing, if you dont like it, then dont play it

  19. #19
    AJenny58's Avatar Miles
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    324

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    I disagree with almost all of your points.

    - 1. The gondor campaign is unquestionably the heart of the game, as they are in a position to fight all the evil factions, and see all the cool locations
    - 2. The evil factions are too nearby and this limits who they can attack
    - 3. Harad can basically fight no one but Gondor
    - 4. Rhun have little to do once they beat Dale and the Dwarves
    - 5. High elves have almost nothing to do other than dealing with orcs attacking imladris.
    - 6. Attacking Eriador isn't really fun.
    - 7. The dwarves also start divided and this isn't that fun.
    - 8. Eriador isn't exciting at all to play unless you can become Arnor.
    1. They are not the only one. Many factions can see the cool locations and fight everyone.
    2. Are too nearby to what? They are all near at least two good factions, except for Harad.
    3 Unless they push through them and take on Rohan. Or sail to the High Elves and start a war up north.
    4. Unless you want to fight anyone else after that.
    5. Why do you assume that everyone will just take up a defensive stance as High Elves? They can expand from Imladris in three directions and have the ability to attack Harad with a naval invasion.
    6. Why not?
    7. So do the High Elves and Mordor. It gives you a challenge to get reunited. I don't know why it wouldn't be fun.
    8. I'm on turn 134 with Eriador right now, and I'm having a blast. I haven't turned into Arnor yet. Battling through the Misty Mountains is great. Knowing that Mordor is lurking around the forrests is exciting. Preparing for an innevitable war with Isengard is nerve-racking.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Is middle earth geography really suited for a strategy game?

    I love how some people seem to get rather personal about this. The maker of this topic did say he knows it is not TATW fault or anything and just something he has noticed. You can not hate someone for an personal observation he has made.
    Personally, I think it could work and is not that bad of a problem, but much rather the fact that the AI does not support allied factions.(which makes the scenario a little pointless, and makes the map feel that much more drawn out)

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •