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.