Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

What makes MA Argatha great in late game?

Darkvision? Marble Golems?

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

I'm guessing Umbrals.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

"Great" is maybe an exaggeration. Let's stick with good. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Darkvision is nice (especially if Utterdark goes up). You also have:

Decent/good magic varity
Excellent Umbrals
Decent/good national summonable sacreds units
Mages that can take a lot of damage

If (and thats a big if) they manage to make it to the late game I'd say they are probably in as better position than most other equivalent sized MA nations.

However they do suck pretty badly in the early game - which is why don't see em win much.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

I think Velusion and Dr P. have been influenced by how well MA Agartha has done in the mega game, Perpetuality, which has been surprising. Congratulations to atul who has been playing MA Agartha. Perhaps he will share his thoughts on how he has managed to do so well?

MA Agartha is still very weak in the early game however.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

Heh, thanks for congrats, Meglobob.

Perpetuality's just one game, and I've been thus far exceptionally lucky with my neighbours - up until attacking Man&C'tis I've been up against people who've had also their own neighbours to worry about.

At least one thing I've learnt to respect with MA Agartha are the Pale Ones. Abysmal troops - until you cast Darkness. After that, they're the tin can opener that destroys any walls in an instant and actually manages to be useful in a big fight, too.

I agree with Velusion's assesment. Umbrals are good, but they suffer from being 1) on different research path than national statues and 2) requiring Cap-only move 1 mage to summon. But, they're great. My current favorite's GoRed one with Black Heart.

Ancient Oracles are as great as earth mages come, Marble Oracles make surprisingly strong thugs as they're immune to Charm and fear, with actual magic variety you need indies as you get only level 1 on FWD on your mages, barring the 10% on capital-onlys.

But, early game sucked. I paid thousand gold and more in bribes to be left alone, but I guess it was worth it. Having immortal hp100+ pretender might have helped, weak nation suddenly seems a lot less weak when it has a recurring thug of its own.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

CUnknown: It is entirely debatable. Where have you 'shown' that arbalests deal the most damage per combat round of any missile weapon? I'm talking about tests here, not simply saying "look at their damage stat". Several people have noted that the arbalests fire first at extreme range and usually don't do much, then sit around reloading for two turns. Their second volley obviously does a lot better, but by the time they reach their third and fourth volleys crossbows, longbows and composites have put out a whole lot more fire. And yes, generally I believe crossbows are better, because I find the combination of firing more often and still having good AP damage (useful vs mid level prot) more worthwhile than being able to hurt the high prot guys who usually have shields.

It's worth noting that if we ignore body/head prot and just talk about shields, a parry is a parry and ignores the strength of the missile attack (I have tested and confirmed this - shield prot isn't factored in). Arbalests are no better than crossbows if the stumbling block is shielded enemies - indeed they are worse, as they produce less chances to get by the shield.

If they fired at the same speed as crossbows and cost the same amount of resources (the weapons themselves cost 4 as opposed to 3) but had better damage and range, you could say there can be no debate that they are better than crossbows. But that isn't the case. To my mind it's obvious arbalests and crossbows and longbows are all for different things - you can't say that Arbalests are simply the best and there can be no argument, because in so many cases (using fire arrows, against effective shields, against mid or lower prot, against enemies that will reach you before the second volley etc) they are not.

Ignoring all other factors, such as the resource and gold cost of the unit carrying the weapon - I would take crossbows over arbalests. They put out more fire (important for fire arrows, vs mid/low prot, vs shields) and still have the AP to do what I need (kill and injure non uber prot units). Note I'm not saying there can be no argument that Arbalests are better. There can. It will have to point out why the instances where they are better (vs high prot, high hp etc) are more important than the instances where crossbows are better. Actually since you said they're the best ranged weapon, no argument possible, you'll have to compare them with longbows, javs, throwing axes, mind burn etc etc.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

The best missile weapon in the game? Gaze of death! Enslave mind! Theft of Reason! you name it...

I think he meant something like ...'best mundane bow' or something. Even poison bow might be better.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

Yeah, I was talking about 'best mundane bow'.. although Sauromatia's poison bows may in fact be better, I forgot about them.

I did earlier on in the thread:

Shields are irrelevant in this dicussion because they affect crossbows and arbelests equally. It doesn't matter that "they have more chances to get through the shield" since that when arbelests -do- get through, they do more than enough damage to make up for not getting through last time. Just look at the damage numbers.

Fire arrows is a different matter, when that spell is cast, the DPR changes:

Weapon -- DPR (Prot 10) -- DPR (Prot 12) -- DPR (Prot 16)

Shortbow -- 3 -- 2 -- 0
Longbow -- 6 -- 3 -- 0
Crossbow -- 4 -- 3 -- 1
Arbelest -- 4 -- 3.33 -- 2

In this case, you can't really tell which one is better.. Longbows are definitely the best against anything lower than 12 protection with fire arrows up, but arbelests still do pretty good, and are still the best against higher protections. But, admittedly, the lead has shrunk a lot, since even a shortbow has a good chance of damaging a 16 prot guy if it's flaming.

Without flame arrows, arbelests are just better. Now, there may be some issues with the first volley missing due to range (although arbelests have a nice range and precision stat), and that is more a problem with unit placement before the battle than with the arbelest itself anyway.

Here are the total damage numbers with the first volley completely missing (no flame arrows), through 5 combat rounds:

Damage x5 rounds (first missing): (Prot 10) -- (Prot 12) -- (Prot 16)

Shortbow -- 0 -- 0 -- 0
Longbow -- 12 -- 4 -- 0
Crossbow -- 10 -- 8 -- 2
Arbelest -- 9 -- 8 -- 6

This is a little more debatable, since the longbow has a nice edge against 10 protection or below. Also, the arbelest doesn't do any damage whatsoever until the 4th round.. but still, on the 4th round the arbelest catches up in a big way against anything over 12 protection.

I guess the take home lesson is to not put your arbelests in the far back, because they might miss the first round, and then they're much closer in power to the other mundane bows.

Petar\'s \"Range Weapons\" flamebait
 

> Arbelests simply do the most damage per combat round, as I have shown, so it's
> not up for debate.

CUnknown, you are an arrogant prick, but that's not the problem - after all, so
am I. The problem is that you are wrong, and by touting your misconceptions, and
generating as much noise as everyone else together, you may deceive people into
thinking that the community is more divided on this subject than it actually is.

You have not shown [censored]. First of all, your numerical analysis is totally
worthless for every single reason under the sun. I cannot even accuse you of
being deliberately obtuse, because your bad assumptions swing both ways - some
lend power to your argument, some fail to address the arbalest's strengths.
No, you are simply ignorant. And you analysis sucks. I am repeating myself,
and typing slowly, because I know you do not get things right away.

First your analysis reduces everything to a worthless DPR value. According to
you the damage per round of a short bow firing at a protection 10 unit is 0.
When you cannot deal negative damage, and your average is 0, all your values are
zero. And all this time I have been building short bow archers...

Second your analysis shows that you have no understanding of how damage is
computed. You are grossly underestimating crossbows and arbalests. I'll
enlighten you, no worries. Read on.

Third, disregarding precision, range, rate of fire, presence of shields, and
army orders is lame. The assumption that your opponent's as bad as you are
is also unjustified.

And last, production capacity and marching speed does matter. The high resource
cost and low strategy movement devalues arbalests. Real players fight real
battles, and in real battles, you use only what you manage to bring to the field.

OK, I'm almost done with insulting CUnknown...

CUnknown, I once crushed your Ulm with the race you believed was weakest,
in 15 turns, without blessing or tramplers. I am ready to do it again,
with any Dominions II land race. If you intend to answer this post, please
do it by proving my math wrong, or by picking up my challenge. I'm tired
of non-substantiated nonsense.

Now, I'm done. The rest will be worth reading, I promise!

Lets remember how damage is computed. Once a hit has occured, both the damage
dealt and the armour value get two open ended dice added to them. The average
value for such a roll is 8.5 (I will not back up my math here. Anyone who doubts
it will have to bathe in my vitriol in a different post)

Thus when firing at a protection 10 unit, damage 10 short bows will fail to
do damage about half the time. 18.5 vs 18.5 - it's a wash. Now consider a
damage 10 crossbow. The average case is 18.5 armour-piercing (AP) damage versus
13.5 armour. Five points of damage are dealt when the rolls match.

Next I'll throw some numbers at you. I will consider five armour levels, and
examine how four different weapons affect them. I will be tracking kills,
no damage hits, and the average damage for all remaining hits.

Armour levels: 0 (none), 10 (light), 15 (heavy), 17 (elite), 20 (black plate)
Weapons: short bow, longbow, crossbow, arbalest
The targeted enemies are assumed to have 10 hit points.

First case: Unarmoured targets. Remember, we are tracking only hits

short bow (10) ---- Kills: 46.0% -- No damage: 6.7% --- Hits: 47.3%(6.79)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: 68.4% -- No damage: 3.2% --- Hits: 28.4%(7.09)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 46.0% -- No damage: 6.7% --- Hits: 47.3%(6.77)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 74.4% -- No damage: 2.5% --- Hits: 23.1%(7.12)

Once we adjust for rate of fire, it becomes clear that against unarmoured targets
arbalests are simply abysmal - about three times worse kill rate than longbows,
and nearly twice as bad as short bows.

Second case: Lightly armoured targets (armour 10)

short bow (10) ---- Kills: _5.2% -- No damage: 54.0% --- Hits:40.8%(4.07)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: 10.6% -- No damage: 31.6% --- Hits:57.8%(4.67)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 16.8% -- No damage: 20.7% --- Hits:62.5%(5.31)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 38.5% -- No damage: _8.4% --- Hits:53.1%(6.59)

After adjusting for rate of fire, the arbalest kill rate is slightly better
than that of the longbow. But if we combine the kills and hits that did damage,
the arbalest is twice as bad. And the latter is what determines whether most
enemies will break. Furthermore, when you have three times the hits, and the
average hit is 4-5 points of damage, the kills add up. Thus, longbows and
regular crossbows soundly beat the arbalest in this case.

Third case: Heavily armoured targets (armour 15)

short bow (10) ---- Kills: _1.5% Misses: 83.2% Hits: 15.2%(3.80)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _3.2% Misses: 68.4% Hits: 28.4%(3.93)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 10.7% Misses: 31.6% Hits: 57.6%(4.17)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 25.6% Misses: 13.4% Hits: 61.0%(5.52)

Finally, the crossbows start to shine. Even adjusted for rate of fire, the
bows cannot compare. But the regular crossbow still has a much better combined
total for kills and hits than the arbalest.

Fourth case: Knights, elite infantry (armour 17)

short bow (10) ---- Kills: _0.9% No damage: 89.3% Hits: _9.8%(3.73)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _1.9% No damage: 79.2% Hits: 18.9%(3.85)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: _8.4% No damage: 38.5% Hits: 53.0%(3.92)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 20.7% No damage: 16.8% Hits: 62.6%(5.18)

After adjusting for rate of fire, the crossbow's combined total is still higher
than the arbalest's. The arbalest may be better in this case, as even when the
crossbow does wound, the damage is lowish, and even multiple hits will not result
in many kills. But it's close. 4.2% kills vs 6.9 and 26.5% wounds vs 20.9%.

Fifth case: Black plate of Ulm (armour 20)

short bow (10) ---- Kills: _0.4% Misses: 94.8% Hits: _4.8%(3.67)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _0.9% Misses: 89.3% Hits: _9.8%(3.73)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: _5.2% Misses: 54.0% Hits: 40.8%(4.08)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 13.4% Misses: 25.6% Hits: 61.0%(4.98)

No argument here. The arbalest has no equal for shooting (in the back) those who
wear Umlish armour. The crossbows may inflict a few wounds, but only the
arbalest will get rid of those pesky Black Plate infantry.


So far we have established that even when we oversimplify the analysis, the
arbalest may be better than the crossbow only against armour 17 and higher.

But everything else plays against the arbalest.

Its higher range results in a badly aimed first salvo, and by the time they have
reloaded, the enemy is either in melee with other Ulmish troops, or engaging
the crossbowmen themselves.

The high resource costs mean that one cannot produce many arbalests in the first
few turns, and that gold gathers unused until more castles can be built. Once
those go up, the low strategic move prevents the crossbowmen from being where
they are needed.

When "Flaming Arrows" comes around, arbalests benefit the least from it, due to
their abysmal rate of fire.

And of course, if your opponent is worth anything, he will draw the enemy fire
with low resource troops with shields. Pythium and Ermor's Velites, Tien Chi's
footmen, Machaka's warriors, etc, etc, etc... all of these are cheap and are
best dispersed with a higher rate of fire which the arbalests lacks. The
arbalest's high damage is perfectly unnecessary here. Once again, its only
purpose is to kill friendlies.

And now, if any retard comes and tells me that the arbalests are the best ranged
weapons and that it's not subject to discussion... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

Re: Petar\'s \"Range Weapons\" flamebait
 

I should probably backup why I view MA Argatha and MA TC as "weaker" than MA Ulm. Assuming all equal player skills, MA Ulm doesn't share several notable problems with MA Argatha/MA TC. MA Ulm can effectively research only evocation to help with its military. You can branch off into construction for diplomacy but for the most part, they have a very straight forward approach when it comes to preparing for war. Its early game, while not spectacular due to the lack of archers, is decent since most of its troops match well against indies in MA. (Xbows/Cavs/Knights are rare in MA) You get a decent amount of free points from Drain to spend on your pretender and you don't need to make him a thug right off the bat since thugs are often used to help with fast exp/harrassment. Also smiths (if I recall) can take an arrow better than most mages. This lets you shuffle them closer to the front lines which is important to help aiming spells.

MA Argatha does have strengths in umbrals and golems but as you've already mentioned they're in seperate skill trees. Worse Umbrals require death gems and you don't start with any of them in generation not to mention your only death gem searcher has d1 AND costs 400g's. Very hefty and deftly not something that lets you flow in death gems early game. Statues are great but slow to acquire. Thus your initial few turns generally will feel very clunky especially due to the subpar attack/precision on your troops. This means in most games, you feel the heat pretty early on as the first few turns are often the land grab turns and you'll be left behind if you don't invest in an awakened pretender. Which is even less points for you to have especially since you are mostly likely going with magic 3 to get your summons up asap. I'm not arguing against what results you may have encountered, I'm simply stating my view of the situation. I have seen MA Argatha do decent and I have seen them flop. But the same I could say for MA Ulm.

MA TC is already realized by many to be problematic so I won't go too indepth with it. While they may look magically diverse, they are actually not very. Their path synergies to almost nothing useful at all especially since their best capital only mages are easily astral dueled away AND often the main things you're hoping for is the A3 thunderstrikers which are pretty damn rare. Summon wise, they are also pretty poor since they lack death magic and only possess minimum nature magic. They can craft nice items with their skill tree, which is decent since you're going to need a SC chassis with them. Sadly enough, MA TC's main strat is consort spamming and that simply doesn't suffice for the mid => late game scenarios where call of the wind is cheap and easy.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

Judging from the shortbow damage, you have not considered the random number. That's bringing a fault into the calculation (through it obviously makes the calculation a lot easier. - I'd say calculateable. I have no idea, how one can calculate the distributions of open ended d6s.)

I'f used Excel to calculate it and the result was as follows:

Damage per hit:

Prot 10 -- 12 -- 16
Shortbow -- 1.37 -- 0.593 -- 0.043
Longbow -- 3.35 -- 1.93 -- 0.353
Crossbow -- 5.1 -- 4.19 -- 2.59
Arbelest -- 9 -- 8 -- 6.04

Multiply this with the number of shots per interval of your choise.
...
Okay, I do and see, that the DRNs don't make to much diffrence. The open-endedness comes on top of this but should not chance that much more.

Well, at least, it shows, that at Protection 12, the Longbow is still quite en par with the crossbow but nobody can argue away the heavy loose in damage once Prot>Damage



Of course, this was in reswponse to CUnknown. Tuidjy has given more important points.
I would not value hits as high because routing enemies will often come back again but one should definitly not ignore this point, too.

Oh and of course one thing you can put into a formular even less well:
If you shoot fast enough, you will more likely catch the opponent in the ideal distance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Petar\'s \"Range Weapons\" flamebait
 

I'm sorry, Tuidjy, you're overcomplicating things and for all that not even calculating damage. All "hits" are not equal. It's better to keep it simple and leave out the random numbers, imo. Against 14 protection and over, the arbelest is the clear winner. Even against 12 protection, it is better than any other as has been shown.

Although for sure, the community isn't divided on the Ulm issue, I know and will admit that. It's just that the common knowledge is a little off in this case. People seem to think that Ulm is some outlier, as if it's horribly underpowered. The truth is that it's very similar in power to any other faction in the bottom tier or two (that is, like almost half the factions out there).

Re: Petar\'s \"Range Weapons\" flamebait
 

Yeah how silly of him to overcomplicate things by using the same factors the game does to calculate damage. Let's just forget the game, it makes the math too complex.

Your argument that arbalests are hands down the best mundane missile weapon now appears to be "Arbalests do the most damage per hit". Great. I think we can safely say that this is no longer up for debate, because you're the only person arguing that Arbalests are the best and your argument doesn't deserve a sensible reply (you'd ignore or dismiss it anyway, judging by your response to Tuidjy).

I was going to run some ingame tests with crossbows and arbalests, behind a wall of Ulmish heavy infantry, vs various enemies to see which one was generally more useful. But now I can see there would be no point, because Arbalests do the most damage per hit. Heh.

Re: Petar\'s \"Range Weapons\" flamebait
 

> All "hits" are not equal.

I know that, which is why I have divided them into kills and damaging hits, and
have displayed the average damage.

> It's better to keep it simple

We have computers so we can crunch the numbers. We have brains so we can
analyze results. This is simple.

> and leave out the random numbers, imo.

No, we should not, because the spread is very significant. I know that my
intuition misleads me when I think about open ended dice. I am pretty sure
yours is no better.

> Against 14 protection and over, the arbelest is the clear winner.

Did you bother reading what I wrote? How the Hell can you say that it is a
clear winner when pure numbers are ambivalent, everything else favors the
crossbow, and protection 14 units are not the what the arbalests will most likely
be shooting at, unless you count your own troops?!

> Even against 12 protection, it is better than any other as has been shown.

What has been shown? Against an enemy of infinite health and protection 12 the
freaking longbow has three times as many landing hits, and 54% chance of dealing
an average of 5.49 points of damage. The arbalest hits have a 89.3% chance to
deal an average of 9.39 points of damage. The hard numbers slightly (6%) favor
the longbow, and every single assumption, including the one about infinite
health, favors the arbalest! Math and English, do you read them?!

> It's just that the common knowledge is a little off in this case.

And you know this because the Pantocrator has spoken to you? Players that are
much better than you think otherwise, Ulm loses in duels no matter how well
you stack the deck in their favor, has no answer to heavy blesses or tramplers,
the numbers speak against them, no one has any suggestions for any late game...

But YOU know the common knowledge is off? I do not have a beef with
people who point out that MA C'tis and Agartha need help. But you keep talking
and talking, and have not advanced any arguments but bad math.

Some more tests.
 

I decided to test all this crap in game. Here's what I did.

80 Marignon crossbowmen,
80 Ulm crossbowmen,
80 Man longbowmen

vs

80 Tien Chi footmen (shields, low armour)
80 Tien Chi inperial footmen (armour 14)
20 Tien Chi footmen, 60 Tien Chi imperial footmen (footmen draw fire, IF flank)

I positioned the infantry as far back as possible, except for the last
combination, where I positioned them in a half way decent manner. Not in my
favorite arrangement for drawing ranged fire, mind you. I ran every combination
at least twice. The attachment is a setup which you can use to fight Man, Ulm,
Marignon and Tien Chi armies. I am too sick and sleepy to actually bother typing
it all, but basically, the longbowmen win all matchups against the infantry.
They lose to the arbalest guys, but that's because of armour, not shooting skill.

The regular crossbowmen consistently lost to the mixed squad, the guys with the
arbalests lost two and won two. They did very poorly (worse than crossbows)
while shooting, but managed to steal a victory in hand to hand. If Ulm
crossbowmen have a saving grace, it's that they are OK infantry.

Afterwards I ran a few fights with Ulm against tower guards... the tower guards
wipe the floor with any combination of the same gold cost of Ulm melee/ranged
infantry. If Ulm has arbalests, they break earlier - fewer fighters, and the
arbalests kill friends and foes indiscriminately.

Imperial guards beat Ulm even easier, and tie with tower guards - win some, lose
some. Marignon's men at arms slaugter Ulm as well... basically Ulm's 10 gold,
resource 30+ infantry loses to any gold 12-14, resource 24+ infantry, even if you
match them in cost, as opposed to numbers. By the way, heavy infantry with
shields destroys any unsupported ranged troops, but that's only normal.

Hell, try it for yourself. The mighty men of Ulm cannot beat anyone in hand to
hand combat. Their only excuse for infantry are the arbalest guys, whose only
saving grace is their heavy armour, that allows them to fight OK in hand to hand.
If they had a buckler and a crossbow instead of an arbalest, they would be quite
the soldiers... but obviously they are too dumb to understand what gear works.

Re: Some more tests.
 

I took some time today to make some experiments regarding Ulmish Infantry. I wanted to test how they fare against the current heavy infatry favourite (Pricipe) mano'a'mano.

I bidded 20 Ulmish Black Steel troops with different weapons against 20 Pythium Pricipes. The Pricipes lost most of the fights (expect against shielded infantry), but when the Pricipes lost they inflicted heavy (7-9) casualties, and all Principes that fled, survived (expect a couple of cripples). Losses were usually 5-7 Blacksteels to 10-14 Priciples.

Then I made a bit more "realistic" test of 30 principes against 20 Blacksteel (due to resource cost you can build 1,5 principes for each blacksteel guy, gold cost is *much* less limitng factor when building troops than gold). It was brutal, not even Guardians had anything against Priciples in this case. The losses were usually 13-17 blacksteels to 8-12 Priciples.

So what does this mean? Ulmish Infantry doesn't *suck*, exactly (they have some results against *the heavy infatry*, but only when magic and resource complications are stripped) , but they're nothing too amazing either. Personally (I have nearly zero experience with Pythium/MA Ulm previously) from watching the fights, I'd take Principles over Blacksteels anyday -> They don't run away so easily, you can make more of them, they move faster, have javelins..

And I think that this is wrong. Ulmish infantry should be awesomely good and badass, since it's pretty much all they've got outside capitol. Not medicore, especially with their magic weakness. While I look at their stats I see base attack & defense 10, they're just your regular infantry in extremely heavy armor. I don't think that it would be at all unbalancing nor unthematic to give them some training bonuses. a mere +1 attack, +1 defense, -1 encumberance, +1-2 action points and +1-2 morale would proabably go a long way to make Ulmish infantry something to actually mention when talking about Ulm's strenghts.

And about Master Smths. CUunknown has a point. They don't excatly *suck* as mages. They're just not enough to give anykind of late-game power (and late-game power is the power you need to have to have chances at winning), taking a heavy-magic pretender can only take you so far. There have been many suggestion regarding twiddling with their randoms and I wholly support them.

Hmm, I just had another idea. How about giving them a slighly tweaked LA Ulm's fortune teller (without the blood pick, perhaps)? Ulmish people are a superstitious folk, afterall. It would allow a lot easier diversification.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Tuidjy, it's as if you've done your best to be misleading with the analysis you've chosen..

But why even bother dividing it up in this way, unless you're trying to obscure the fact that the arbelest does the most damage against a range of common protection values, even adjusted for rate of fire?

Re: Some more tests.
 

Principes are one of the best national flood troops in the game. Not to mention, they counter Ulm troops pretty solidly since their main strength is their high defense. Ulm troops are more or less used to be fast expander, walls for your indie archers/xbows/master smiths. Granted they aren't as uber as Principes, it's not too fair to match them like that.

Re: Some more tests.
 

I by no means want to get into this discussion.
Just going to add my own simple opinion, and that is that MA Ulm does not suck.

They are one of my favorite nations and easy, early expansion is one of their strengths and not a weakness. I don't have much use for arbalests myself as I tend to recruit independent crossbow/bowmen instead and I have had no problem supplementing my beloved smiths with indy magi to good effect. My experience is limited to many single player games and a handful of multiplayer games which I am sure has shaded my own view just as each individuals view has been shaded by his/her own game experiences with them.

That is my two cents. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Some more tests.
 

On the other hand, principes use shortswords and javs, which aren't the best for overcoming Ulm's armour. There are plenty of other national troops which would mangle them more in a fight.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Why shouldn't Ulmish infatry be as uber as Priciples?

Pythium has Uber-magepower, extremely good national summons and Principles.

Ulm has a *much* worse magepower, no national spells to speak of and infantry that sucks when compared to Principles.

[sarcasm]Yeah, Ulm is fine as it is[/sarcasm]

Ok, I admit that might have been a bit overly-dramatic comparison since Pythium is a major MA power, but there is a problem when two nations in the same age cannot even be compared against each other. But the thing is, Ulmish Infatry should be able to do more tha just die slowly and "buy time". They need to be strenght of Ulm in itself. They have a huge weakness in sucky mr, they should get something to "balance" that weakness (being extremely good in non-magic battles sounds like a good strenght). Their high prot is already balanced by high encumberance, high resource cost and low def.

Re: Some more tests.
 

> > I know that, which is why I have divided them into kills and damaging hits, and
> > have displayed the average damage.
>
> But why even bother dividing it up in this way, unless you're trying to obscure
> the fact that the arbelest does the most damage against a range of common
> protection values, even adjusted for rate of fire?

You troll. Read the post that you are quoting. It answers your question. It shows
that once again, your 'facts' aren't. I'm done talking to you, retard. If anyone
still believes that you know anything, or that you can be made to understand
anything... Well, that person is on his own.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Tuidjy, if you think that CUUnknown is a troll, you don't know what real trolling is, m'kay?

Re: Some more tests.
 

Isn't the worst ennemy of mid ulm its morale, especially on commanders (10 for the basic one ?).I currently use CBM versions, and found their troops to be interesting, if they have a decent commander.
Heavy weapons can come handy against SC or big summons.Or giants.
And shouldn't we all be like a big family...Uh?..Were not on disney chanel...OOoops..

Re: Some more tests.
 

One can be a troll without being the worst troll in existence.

By the way, I am stuck at home, sick as a dog. Anyone of those who think
that Ulm is "not that bad" wanna play a quick one on one? I'll take any
human race. Ermor, Man, Pythium, Marignon, the rather underpowered Tien Chi,
you name it.

Re: Some more tests.
 

I...Well I would...But...Some work you know...Stuff and the like....May you recover promptly.
Ah, I know...I have an enormous map to test!!! Yeah this one is THE excuse.

Re: Some more tests.
 

If you knew what a troll was, you would know better than to attack one while having personal information stored under this handle on other sites.

One might call such an action retarded, especially for a programmer.

However, since I am not in the habit of calling people who disagree with me retarded, I won't.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Petar Ivanov, MIT alum, IT Director of a company for which I do not speak,
Bulgaria People's Army hand to hand combat vice champion for 1989, twice a
world finalist in the ACM programming contest, Volvo modification enthusiast,
computer game fantatic, amateur kickboxer, archery nut, ... which one of these
should I be ashamed of, and how could you use it against me? Buddy, if I had
cared to remained anonymous, I would not have used the same handle since 1993.

Re: Some more tests.
 

I'll try to stop myself from posting anymore after this one.. We are getting angry, on a topic that's sort of a side issue anyway. I just want to be on record for a couple of things, then I will shut up.

I know that Tuidjy would kick my a$$ in a duel, especially since he's done it before. If I chose Ulm as my faction, it would probably not help my chances one bit, admittedly.

I'm trying to defend Ulm as "not being that bad" but I know just like anyone that a small boost to their infantry, mages, or whatever couldn't hurt a thing, because they still wouldn't be in the top tier of factions even then.

I grudgingly admit that the power of arbelests is debatable.. since we've been doing just that. I thought that my simplistic analysis of "how much damage does it do?" when adjusted for rate of fire would convince people, apparently I was wrong. Tuidjy's more complicated analysis is probably more accurate for many in-game situations. But.. it subtracts away killing damage from the average damage of non-killing hits, so I think it is weighted against arbelests (since arbelests have a high % of killing hits), and I think this was done on purpose. But... yeah... if you start doing some complicated analysis and looking at it in depth, it is debatable. But certainly the arbelest is a good weapon, the best against heavily armored foes.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Why would you think I would use it against you? If you think I threatened you somehow, I apologize.

Edited to be less flamey.

Re: Some more tests.
 

> But certainly the arbelest is a good weapon, the best against heavily armored foes.

That I will agree with 100%. But you see, the problem is that you do not
necessarily want this with Ulm, and you definitely do not want just that. A good
player will make sure that your arbalests first shoot at a smallish (10-15) group
of shielded, lowish armour infantry, and in that case you want something that can
break them quickly.

I would be surprised to learn that most players do not jump of joy when they get
independent crossbows or, even better, longbows with Ulm.

> I'm trying to defend Ulm as "not being that bad" but I know just like anyone that
> a small boost to their infantry, mages, or whatever couldn't hurt a thing,
> because they still wouldn't be in the top tier of factions even then.

But you see, by arguing that they have "the best missile weapon", and that their
infantry "plays its role" well, you make it that much unlikely that they will
receive that much needed boost. MA Ulm and Tien Chi need help. Maybe
Agartha does too, I do not play them. But the help comes from the devs, and
they would are more likely to listen if the players agree first.

Re: Some more tests.
 

We have learned not to trust players long ago http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Getting asskicked in an MP game is way better. I got trampled by elephants as Ulm a month or two ago. I designed a god with a nice blessing, only to discover I didn't have sacred troops. Thought I was playing some Iron faith version of MA Ulm http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Some more tests.
 

I did my own tests with Ulmish infantry against Principes. 40 units on each side. First Pythium attack and lost 19 units while Ulm lost 2. In the second battle Ulm attack and lost 9 units while Pythium lost 36. Both battles was in neutral dominion.

The Infantry of Ulm costs 24 resources while principes cost 21 resources. Given that Ulm have a resource bonus and principes costs 15 gold I find the battle fair if not a little edge to principes given that thay had 50% more gold in the field.

Ulm allready have a national spell that increase resistance to thier troops. That should be enough to counter thier low MR.

In general Ulm have very potent infantry and I guess that whoever tried these battles earlier only tried the black plate variaty who I consider are just inferior to the ordinary infantry of Ulm.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Surely black plate infantry being inferior is something of a design flaw? They are meant to be the awesomeist.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Lower encumberence of black steel full armour to 3 should make them much better. At the moment they are sitting duck, but the other infantry of Ulm are still great.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Yeah, I used the Black Plate Infantry, since most complaints seemed to be directed towards them and it seemed inituative that more res.cost = more power. By the way, what weapons did your Infatry use? (I'm guessing the 2-h flails, they're very nice against high def-troops).

It really doesn't seem right to have Blacksteels suck when compared to the regular infantry (especially against elite troops like Priciples, what use are your national elites if they can't smack around other elites?). Sure, they probably can smack around low-def, low-damage troops better, but so can everything worth its salt in battle. Almost every nation gets heavy infantry (Ulm just has more options on armament), but only Ulm gets Blacksteels. They should be something special. I'm still in favor of giving them some training bonuses. I mean Ulm really can't supply Blacksteel Armors to some basic run-of-the-mill soldier who just requests for them?

Re: Some more tests.
 

What makes MA Ulm really inferior to the other 'heavy' factions, is their mages. Smiths can't compare to MA Aby mages in no way but forging, and their arbalests aren't precise enougth to balance it.
You end up crawling on the battlefield, expecting a miracle with your arbalests (prec 10 ?) or your magma bolts !!
As arralens mod has shown, they do not need massive improvements before becoming viable.

Re: Some more tests.
 

I'm thinking of doing a MA Ulm variant mod at some point. Same way I did Ulm Reborn as a variant of LA Ulm.

I'm thinking I'll go with kind of a semi evil Teutonic, WW1/2 germany sort of influence where religion is replaced with faith in steel (technology) and pure Ulmish stock. It is not magic so much as ritual and superstition which is hated and considered a crutch of the weak. Smiths of the Dark Forge are your main guys and are drain immune, while a special force of magic hunting anti-occult troops has been established, with good MR and resistances. Darksteel of Ulm is only granted to those who can prove the purity of their warrior heritage - perfect specimens of Ulmish breeding who emulate the warrior heroes of old, but have replaced berserk ferocity with willpower and discipline. The nation has learned much from the declining empire of ermor and deploys standards reminding the Ulmish of their superiority.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Sounds excellent Sombre. And very creepy.

Re: Some more tests.
 

It seems that increasing the precision of arbalests would really increase their kick. Since their arbalests throw bigger bolts that have a straighter flight path at the same range as normal arrows, giving the weapon a higher precision than crossbows is reasonable.

Arbalests could be given +1/+2 to gold cost to reflect "Do Not Kill Your Own Men" training and a corresponding boost in Precision.

I've heard that it doesn't take a big boost in precision to really cut down on the friendly fire losses.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Sombre, it looks like your ideas around Ulm are excellent, giving their priests a personnality, and solving the problems of morale ulm has. (en aparte : will he rest one day ?)
Could give them normal crossbowmen/archer at 10 gold, and make the arbalest an elite sharpshooters unit.

Re: Some more tests.
 

I've been having a lot of fun with MA Ulm in SP... their mages are very entertaining to use early-game against the AI's chaffe hordes. With only Const-4, Evoc-4, and Conj-3, you can do the following:
1) Have each mage give himself a pair of earth boots
2) Script "summon earth power" for his first spell
3) watch Blade Wind consume his helpless armies
Is there any other race/age combo which allows so much devestation for so little investment (140au, 10 earth gems, L4 research in three paths)?

also, how effective would this be in MP?

Re: Some more tests.
 

In MP I find that magma eruption is more common. It works better against armoured opponents.

Re: Some more tests.
 

I don't know, I think I'm in the very small minority that doesn't think MA Ulm is bottom of the barrel. Top tier? Certainly not. Unplayable? Far from it.

I'm not contending their weaknesses, a huge laundry list of them has been pointed out and they are mostly spot on. What I'd like to point out is some strengths that people tend to overlook.

1) Best forge bonus in the game and consequent diplomatic edge. The people calling "forge *****" need to work on their trading skills.

2) Their smiths are pretty cost effective in combat early on and just get better. Destruction + blade wind is pretty ugly. Legions of Steel & Strength of Giants grow into weapons of sharpness and marble warriors ending up at army of lead. Magma bolts is not terrible in a pinch, and magma eruption is one of the best mainline evo spells. Its not hard to forge a few blood stones and your combat mages should all have earth boots so you end up with pretty stout little casters once you throw in a summon earth power - on a 140 gold unit.

3) Gold cheap troops mean more castles, which mean more smiths. People complaining extra castles just gives you the ability to churn out more crap are not using the strengths of Ulm to their advantage. For the cost, you have a hard time having enough smiths, from forging cheap stuff for your thugs and forging goodwill for your neighbors, to researching and combat effectiveness, it's a very versatile unit for its cost. Have lots of smiths helps a bit with their magic diversity as you'll have S and A forgers as well as double F and triple E (real good combat mages).

4) Because of the excess gold, Ulm should have more castles than average, which lets you crap out loads of 30gp spies when you feel like taking a break from massing smiths. This should not be underrated, crapping out 10+ spies per turn mid game can be crippling. Spare gold also lets you bid well for mercenaries, which can help with your magic diversity.

5) The recruitable units are fairly good for indie expansion, and can hold their own against most other recruitable units until a bit of research is done. Once they start laying down poison, lighting, etc. you better damn well have your own research done and start hitting back with your own combat spells and cheap thugs outfitted to be immune to whatever they're throwing down. Screw lighthing, my favorite AN spell is destruction.

6) Ulm managing to get the FOTA up is just scary. Lightless lanterns, forgable by every one of your smiths cost just 1 fire gem apiece - crap 50 of them out the turn the forge goes up and you've made back your investment even if it's immediately dispelled. Manage to keep it up and fire brands, shields of beaten gold - 1f 1e. Amulet of Antimagic, luck pendants, rings of fire/lighting all one gem. Who cares if your black knights aren't invincible, at these prices they're expendable! Use that trade income you've got to crap out golems, use the quarter price blood stones your minting to crap out mechanical men and iron dragons playing linebacker for a hoard of phoenix rod wielding scouts and 5e righteous combat mages.

Re: Some more tests.
 

God. Now I have to go play a game with MA Ulm. Its all your fault, everyone who posted on this thread. I have bettre things to do...grumble grumble

Oh and Baalz,there is way too much crapping going on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Some more tests.
 

I propose in the next team game, we put EA Ulm on the same team as EA Niefelheim, and see who's laughing now http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Re: Some more tests.
 

someone who thinks ma ulm is "not so bad" sign up to play them in the Evermore game.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Note that there is another variable too. Even the most pathetic race, if played agianst, say, me, would win easily.

Re: Some more tests.
 

Well you could argue that forge is actually less useful to ulm because they are actually saving less gems off of the global than another nation would....

Re: Some more tests.
 

Hey i played MA Ulm in Perpetuality, and i managed to be the second eliminated. Not the first!
A real victory.