Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

Huge resource cost, capitol-only. Not serious, capitol resources are better spent on wingless.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

I am not arguing that Caelum is under-powered.

But. . .

While the temple guards are indeed capable, they are not that exceptional compared with other sacreds. And they are very resource intensive so are hard to accumulate in large numbers.

The wingless, are really pretty poor. However, when mixed with mammoths they are very effective due to the boost they provide to squad moral. I don't take this as an indication that they are a good unit. Their only role is to facilitate a cheesy exploit (which should probably be closed).

The flying infantry are simply a waste of resources.

The mammoths are very powerful in the early game. But playing a mammoth rush is not that different from playing the monkeys or arco. I would find Caelum much more interesting if they did not have mammoths and instead had more capable fliers.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

Only Caelum has Mammoths don't they? So strip Caelum of them and no mammoths... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif Do you want to make the mammoth extinct, have you never watched ice age, how could you make them extinct again... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Rocks, rocks?!?!? Come on guys, how could they fly carrying a load of heavy rocks!?!? They use ice lances/ice blades because they are lighter then steel/iron presumably.

Personally if its not broken don't fix it and isn't Caelum ok as is?

Although alot of people seem to want to improve the caelum flying infantry which would be good but as already been said the problem lies with flying/fatigue. They fly in, lose formation and become easy targets. Its the losing formation and being open to multiple attacks that makes them weak. Not there stats.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

Flying infantry is NOT a waste of resources.

1.They have magical weapons, and they are effective against a solo thug taking their provinces.

2. They are great siege units with their flying bonus

3. They are effective when set to attack archers or rearmost enemies or large enemy monsters or flying units.

4. When storming a castle, and set to attack archers, they get into the heart of the besieged armies casters and divert the spell casters so that your better ground troops can get through the gate without suffering devasting barages of spells.

Caelum is fine as is if the Elephant exploit is fixed.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

However, the flying infantry isn't infantry. Caricature: they're an advanced siege engine that can also be used against archers and thugs, although it isn't nearly as efficient.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

I would consider MA Atlantis much superior to Oceania on a low water maps. The effectiveness of the troops doesn't carry you for that long, and it won't be long before the almost compete dearth of battle magic makes your armies pushovers for almost anyone else.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

Are they? I wonder how many Iceclads will be killed by a properly equipped bane lord. Probably as many as needed - sometimes a simple vine shield works wonders. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

How come? With so-so combat stats, with no formation bonus, they just attack, suffer losses and rout. May be used as a diversion, and thats it.

Karthage must be destroyed.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

It's not a bad idea, RamsHead. I wasn't thinking that they'd be carrying a large amount of rocks though, just small bags of round pebbles to either release en-masse over a target (sort of a shotgun effect) at great height, or throw. Otherwise, they'd be naked.

Another idea would be to have them just drop chunks of ice, which would be hard enough for impact, from a few hundred feet in the air, and also shatter, causing spray.

Ceramic would work for this, glass would work-both to somewhat greater effect, especially if they were hollow and contained, say, poison caltrops or even ashes mixed with water (to get into the eyes), but ice would be far and away more available and more economical-infact, you could freeze all sorts of nasty things inside balls of ice-gravel would be easy, functioning as buckshot-or poison the ice itself, since sharp objects impacting on targets at great height provide an excellent means of injection, or both.

The ice could come in the form of iceballs, or just icesickles-which should come down straight, pointy end first, or else spin in the air, which is almost as good.

Even pouring water over a target would be effective, I would think, combined with Caelum's lightning spells, or a chilly day.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

I think you are describing ice strike here, Honey... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

They could carry ice javelins. If they were magic weapons, that'd make their infantry quite fearsome, against opponents who depend on shields.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

Ice strike is magical, Meglobob http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif What I'm talking about would probably be as effective, or more so, cost a hell of a lot less, not require any magical training, gems, or resources that wouldn't be available on any significantly high mountaintop or cold enough environment, and carry with it a good possibility of blindness, poison damage, damage to feet, concussions, etc.

Oh I forgot-you could fill the ice with brightly colored dye, which would make the targets easier to track at height.

That's not even mentioning that Caelum has easy access to magical ice.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

To fill the ice with dye would not work. Since you colour the ground as well. So if you miss the enemy army you would continue to bomb that spot on the ground. I guess there could be spoters that walked close to the enemy and throw dye to mark where they are for the flyers.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

Anyway, as it stands now, Caelum barely utilises its flight capability. Archers dont stay out of harms way (vice versa - with shortbows they have to stand closer to the enemy than long- or composite bowmen), infantry is suicidal and weak despite rather decent stats and doesnt shield mages and archers as it should.
I am not sure about dropping caltrop-like junk from above, perhaps caelians just have weakish wings and cannot fly high enough (makes sense to me). But why dont they utilise longspears at least? Give some caelians longspears and 'teach' them to fly in tight formations instead of dispersing randomly all over the battlefield, and they will be an ok shock troop. Perhaps even a charge bonus for the first strike is warranted then - after all, when you fall from above you dont have to be very heavy to strike hard. Just point that spear at your enemy and make sure you dont miss. Most likely that will be a one-shot weapon; light spears are likely to break or get stuck after the charge.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

There's one problem with that - lances' damage bonus is based on AP, and flight doesn't help that. In fact, the fliers' AP tells how they can manage WITHOUT their wings, and in the case of Caelum's troops, especially the armored ones, they won't do well.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

It'd be easy to just give them a high base damage instead of modding based on AP, Endo. As long as it's a one-shot weapon it'd work fine. The only issue would be if there was a storm up that prevented flight, since that SHOULD prevent them from being used effectively, but perhaps you could limit the lances to stormflyers (thematic in that the training to use the lance in flight could come at the same time as the training to stay aloft in a storm...both complex aerial maneuvers)

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

That sounds cool to me Micah. Maybe qm's mod hesalt could feature such lance fliers.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

One-use items can't currently be modded. We have a command for AP bonus to damage, though.

I'm also considering a mod with melee-oriented fliers. I've got some thoughts for that, including one-use ranged weapons with short range, aoe and some fitting explosion sprite animation (Gifts from Heavens, brown Falling Frost, something like that) without flight animation. It should look like a big object thrown a short way.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

Endo:

Yes, the Caelum Immolatis mod was quite interesting. My brother spent a lot of time working on that. The Caelian Legionnaire was _surprisingly_ effective.

I preferred to use them to attack, first, then, when the enemy broke, they would fire their javelins and stay back. Also, giving them the Tower Shields seriously cut down on the Friendly Fire issues Caelum normally has headaches with.

(For those unfamiliar with the mod, it changed MA Caelum into turbo-ginsu-undead-killers. They had a DW Sacred troop with 3x damage to undead weaponry, and flying Pythian/Ermorian style legionnaires. THOSE were good flying infantry.)

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

This is going in quite a different direction, but how about giving Caelum an archer that can actually hold its own as infantry ? Something like giving the iron crow a shortbow, for instance.

Then that archer can be put on the front line (or at least in front of the other archers), where he will fire as an archer until the enemy's front line arrives, then hold his own as infantry for at least a few turns. He'll still be at best medium infantry, but the initial arrows he'll have fired should make it worth using, and give Caelum a decent alternative to the mammoth for serious combat.

I'm suggesting the iron crow because it has a reasonable resource cost and decent infantry stats, but the Caelian infantry and the iceclad are also possibilities.

If it works out, then the mammoth can be made capital-only, or given decreased morale in non-cold lands, or turned into a commander only... something to make it less available.

Re: Opinions on Caelum (MA and other)
 

I found this thread interesting enough to try a game as MA Caelum and I must say my first game was absolutely awful. By the second game though, I had them pretty much figured out. They play out a lot like EA Pangaea, but with worse magic paths and better troops (Mammoths instead of Centaurs).

They don't seem terribly weak to me, but you definitely have to diversify earlier than other nations, which may require some luck with magic sites. It's also very important to get the scales right or you have already lost before you started.

As far as the high seraph being capital only, it's not a big deal either way. You have cloud trapeze so it's hardly an issue getting them to where they need to go. I do find that I only recruit mammoths and flying archers which is a little boring, but I think many nations are like that, or at least they are for me. EA Ulm comes to mind, I usually stick to shield maidens and archers even though there are tons of male infantry I care nothing about.