.com.unity Forums - MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 3: The Awakening (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=138)

- - MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=47824)

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

Hmm interesting idea, I did not really try that yet as I usually wanted my heavy infantry to close in ASAP with minimal buffs.
However, the range differential between most mages (30ish) and Arbalests is 15, it may be difficult to squeeze in the infantry into that.
Also, Ulms Mages are not neccesarily longer range, although the first 2-3 turns can be spend on buffing.

But thanks, I did not truely consider long range shootouts with Ulm yet.

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightypeon (Post 785222)

As an actual change for the next CBM, at the moment, Sappers are by far better choices than Arbalests for nearly everything:
reasons:

Arbalest fires every 3 turns, does 14 AP damage, range 45 precision 1.
Crossbow fires every 2 turns, does 10 AP damage, range 30 precision 2. It also has 2 more shots.

Already here, the Crossbow is imho a better weapon, after 6 turns, the "total damage" of the Crossbow is already better (since 3 Crossbow Bolts likely deal more tha 2 Arbalest Bolts), the crossbow is more precise which is usefull. The Arbalest has some uses when it comes to strong alpha strikes, and against masses of units who are resistant to 10 AP. Which is not a lot of units.

But the most important things in favor of the Sapper:
Map Move 2 and Siege Bonus of 5.
In Sieges, each Sapper is worth 5 Arbalest guys. A modest amount of 40 Sappers (something 2 normal forts can get in a single turn) is enough to instapop most 150 def forts, a main army with a contingent of 100 sappers will blow through any non Pan fortification in a shockingly quick way.

Imho, increasing the precision of the arbalest and or reducing the Siege Bonus of the Sapper would be nice for internal balance.

The sapper is a great unit, no doubt about it, but you might want to look over your calculations again.

As Soyweiser mentioned, the massive range of the arbalest opens up for some interesting tactics. When it comes to ammunition, arbalests fire every third round, so they are good for 30 rounds as opposed to the sapper crossbow, whose ammunition make them good for 24 rounds. Contrary to what you seemed to imply, the arbalest comes out ahead here.

When it comes to damage, the arbalest lower fire rate means that it must do half again as much damage as a crossbow per shot to be on even ground. The break-point is at 4 protection (12 and 8 damage respectively). Higher protection than that and the arbalest comes out ahead. Protection values over 4 are not exactly uncommon.

Now, the crossbow higher fire rate makes for a better damage distribution, which is a point in its favor, but as protection rises, the extra damage of the arbalest makes up for that in spades. As protection creeps upward, the extra damage of the arbalest will be an ever larger part of the total damage done.

Consider some 10hp infantry with 14 protection (not exactly uncommon in MA). Crossbow and arbalest damage, not counting DRN, would be 3 and 7 respectively. If you do consider DRN and the resulting distribution in case of a hit, you see that about 1/12 of the crossbow bolts will kill the unit instantly, while about 1/4 of the arbalest bolts will do the same. The numbers for a unit emerging unscathed is exactly the opposite.

On top of this you have the price difference of the sapper and arbalest.

If you want to take out heavy infantry or infantry helped with protection increasing magic - wooden warriors perhaps - arbalests are clearly better at it than crossbows.

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

The point about interesting tactics opened by improved arbalest range is well taken, yet I do have to add something else:

There is another important breakpoint:
At Protection 20, Crossbows do an average damage of 0 (no bonus to the DRN rolls), while Arbalests still do a damage of 4.
Protection 20 is nearly exclusive to Plate units and heavy cavalry.
Many of Ulms mellee troops (everything wearing Blacksteel) have Protection ratings in this area (21 to be exact, meaning that Damage is DRN comparison -1), and are thus "resistant" to Crossbows but not Arbalests, which is also a reason to favor them over the protection 17 troops under most circumstances.
So, while the Arbalest does more damage to Protection 10 troops tangling with Ulms mellee, the crossbow does a bit less damage to those enemies, yet nearly no damage to Ulms own forces. Against enemies engaged in mellee with Ulms national troops, Crossbows are better.
Due to range, and the fact that an Arbalest will propably one shot archers with 10 HP and less than 8 protection, Arbalests are better for targetting archers, but Sappers do this job quite nicely too.

Friendly Fire from Crossbows is further reduced by crossbows beeing 1 more (actually 2 since precision above 10 counts double) precise.
Also, Crossbows are better point blank weapons with a "no deviation range" of 5 squares.
Now, if I had the choice of Sappers with Arbalests or Sappers with Crossbows, I would pick the Arbalests in many cases, and the crossbow in other cases.
But if you add Map Move 2 (which is rare and thus highly usefull for MA Ulm) and the Siege Bonus to the bargain...

Also, in my opinion the gold cost difference (iirc 10 for the arbalest and 14 for the Sappers) exists but both of those troops only cost 1 upkeep. And the lower resource cost on the Sappers allows you to buy more superior Blacksteel heavies for your mellee line.

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

Mightypeon, I think upkeep keeps fractions. So 10 is actually 10/15 gold in upkeep. Not 1. But I'm not sure. (Easy to test btw). Brb.

Edit: Done, upkeep for 10 10 cost units: 7 gold per turn. Upkeep for 10 14 gold units, 10 or 9 gold.

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightypeon (Post 785329)

Soyweiser covered the upkeep well. As for the rest, your argument leaves out a few important things.

I specifically pointed out heavy infantry or infantry with heightened protection as reasonable targets for arbalests. A protection of 10 does not fall into that category. Again, look at my earlier example of 14 protection, which is quite common in MA. Smack on protection and you have 21 protection here, as well. Even without magic, plenty of nations can field troops with protection in the 16-17 range (frequently with even better head protection). These same units frequently have 11-12 hp, meaning you need an average of 5-6 crossbow bolt hits to kill one unit. You need 2 arbalest bolt hits to do the same.

Friendly fire from arbalests hurt more, that is true, but if that is the only thing you are after, you should not field any sort crossbows, at all. You also have to consider what the opposing army does while you are attacking its front line to rather little effect. Presumably that player has some sort of plan. And since that player is not playing Ulm, but against it, you can be pretty certain that the plan is not to just throw masses of Ulm-inferior heavy infantry at you and hope for victory. You need to go through the opposing infantry as quickly as possible.

To protect yourself from the arbalest bolts that manage to do this reasonably well, you do not only have better protection, you also have towershields.

I hope that it is clear that I am not trying to say that the arbalest units are always better units than sappers, but instead that arbalests fill an important niche in the Ulm roster.

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

I think we may be partly talking past each other here.
Yes, the effect that crossbows have in a battle can diminish greatly with Protective Magic, yet in my opinion, the same happens with most if not all national units.
Movement 2 and the Siege Bonus are never truely outdated however.

But then, I have not been in the situations where Arbalests are most heavily desired yet and I cannot comment on the full scape range 45s tactical abilities so it is well possible that I underestimate Arbalests.

Would you agree with the statement:
If you wish ranged fire support as MA Ulm, usually go with Sappers unless there is a direct reason to go with Arbalests?

I also want to thank Soyweiser for correcting me about upkeep.

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

The biggest problem imho with the Arbalest is the same as with all expensive crossbowmen. They are not spammable! Ranged units rely on getting critical mass and then maybe back up numbers with some buffs. Arbalesters cost as much resources as Ulms normal infantry! (21?) Compare that with say Marignions Crossbowmen at 11 resources and you'll see the problem. Not to mention LA Ulms rangers at 8 res.

Outside of PD you'll never have enough of them to mater.

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

Higher liability to friendly fire and inability to mass effectively: two reasons why the arbalest unit is bad that have already been identified.

Also: flaming arrows applies to crossbows but i'm reasonably sure it doesn't apply to arbalests. While the 'ap' bonus won't matter, this does make the weapons magical (+2 to avoid shields), and does add bonus fire damage. Just a little bit of magic makes crossbows much more effective than arbalests.

Re: MA Ulm in CBM 1.9x

I'm telling you, repeating crossbow/scatter shot FTW.