The MA Ulm issue.
 

I've been reading these forums for a long time and this one question just keeps on popping up in several threads, and horribly derailing them. Besides, having parts of the discussion separated on 10+ threads makes it very hard for developers to see what is the community stand on the issue.

So, I made this thread for your MA Ulm discussion needs. The three important questions are;

1) Is MA Ulm underpowered?

2) If question1=true, is it so underpowered that it takes out the enjoyment from playing it?

3) If question2=true, how to fix this?

The summarized comments on the question1 on prior threads

For;
1) Ulm's troops (there are numerous arguments about this so I'll devide these a bit)

1a)Ulm's troops are slow (both and off-the field), which limits expansion and tactical possibilities. It also allows for their opponent's to blast them with numereous spells before they reach melee (see argument 1b)

1b)Their reliance on heavy armor and low-MR makes them vulnerable to both armor negating and MR-checking spells, which are numereous and easliy available to every nation. This makes their troops easily counterable.

1c)Arbalests make normally high-prot Ulmish troops vulnerable to friendly fire.

1d)Their high encumberance doesn't synergize with the high protection value since it diminishes the lasting power that high protection presents.

1e) Their troop selection (while allowing different weapon combinations) only consists of high resourcecost, highly armored troops, limiting army construction, and making their armies predictable.

1f) Ulm's troops have average morale (expect for guardians and Black Knights) and few means to boost it (see argument 6), diminishing their lasting power in combat.

2) Their weak mages can't allow them to be succesfull in mid and late-game. They're also borderline old age.

3) Their pretender desing is limited by being "forced" to take Production:3

4) Reliance on resource-heavy troops limits their early expansion since massing their troops early is difficult.

5) Their forging ability is diminished by not having a reliable Thug/SC chassis and their low magic ablity doesn't allow them to summon one easily.

6) No sacreds and priests to speak of.

Against
(I couldn't find too much of these, most posts were like "they're fine, but...")

1) Ulm's troops combination of high protection and high-damage weapons allows them blow through other nation's normal infantry and indepentends in (relatively) small numbers.

2) Ulm's troops are nearly immune to normal short-bows archers and have high resitance to longbows and crossbows.

3) Their forging powers allow them polital maneuvorability and survivalability.

4) Ulm's troops have wide selection of weapon choices, allowing them to choose right weapons for the right job.

5) Since Ulmish troops have Gold cost:Resource cost ratio of 1:2 / 1:3 they have lots of extra cash to crank out forts, which has numereous advantages.

Collected & summarized ideas for question 3:

- Give them low resource cost crossbow (like MA Marignon has) unit to ease early expansion and serve as gold sink.

- I'd like to remind you people that they are NOT getting their MR raised (developer comment).

- Make Ulmish troops generally tougher (more HP, streght, attack, etc..)

- Ease the vulnerabilites of Ulm's troops (higher morale, lower encumberance, higher tactical and stragedic speed)

- Allow for more magic divesity by meddling with Smith's random magic picks.

- Give them new national spells and/or troops to combat other nation's sacreds and mages. "mage/priest"-hater spells/troops seem to have popularity.

That's what I collected. If I missed something, bring it up.

EDIT1: Typo fixing & improved readability.
EDIT2: Added "crossbow"-fix idea

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

Excellent summary Burnsaber. I think the idea of adding a low-resource troop to their lineup so they have a gold sink may have been overlooked in your post though. (Crossbows were my suggestion, but something else could work too)

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

Blade Wind< arrow fend

One way to help Ulm would be to make blade wind unaffected by arrow fend. Typically by the time Ulm gets summon earthpower and Blade Wind other races have arrow fend.

Because the way the game mechanics work, blade wind, because it is not aoe1, is affected by arrow fend.

Maybe a national spell for ulm similar in effect to blade wind-but aoe1.

As I said in another thread, less magical diversity and more earth. Remove extra pick and old age from smiths and give them 3e 1f and a 10 percent chance for 4e. Adding petrify/earth attack would help them.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

One thing that would go a long way towards helping Ulm would be to change the smiths from being 1f 2e +10%fesa to 1f 1e +100%fea +10%bsnd.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

A long lasting debate indeed. I've suggested many different things over the years, including magic weapons, an assassin, high MR on the elites, a 'worker' mage and a standard bearer.

These are all pretty small tweaks. We could always go for broke and give Ulm a Grand Master Smith. 3 earth, 2 fire and one random. The potential of such a mage is enormous, single-handedly turning Ulm into a top-tier nation.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

I don't think that adding any new superunit(s) will be good fixes.

Adding some superunit to magically fix Ulm's problems would just warp all of their available stragedies to that certain unit. I can see a future Ulm stragedy thread;

"How do I play the new Ulm?"
"Dude, just make Unit X accompanied by leader Y. Save the rest of the gold to make new forts for more X's and Y's"

IMHO, currently Ulmish troops have too many weaknessess compared to their strenghts. I think that some of these have to be removed or made less drastic.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

I think two changes could change MA Ulm sufficiently to be worth playing. Add one additional, high probability random elemental (75%) to the smiths and up their cost by 25 or 30 gold. This helps forging potential and direct combat potential. The second is to give the black lord significantly more hit points (25 hp total) using the "great endurance" rationale. This makes these guys potential thugs.

These two changes make MA Ulm a middle of the road nation and possible to play in MP. It also follows thematically with the nation. Of course, I have only played two MP games, neither of which are finished yet, so please take my suggestions with the proverbial grain of salt.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

> [1) Ulm's troops combination of high protection and high-damage weapons allows them blow through other nation's normal infantry and indepentends in (relatively) small numbers.

So so. Fresh recruit infantrymen, maybe. Good national troops, no way. Almost any human nation has defense 13-16 troops, and those often have armour 15-17. And THEY have encumberance 5-7, not 7-10. Good luck killing these with Ulm... you will be crawling exhausted before that.

And anyone good kills indies without dead. Give me principles, longbowmen, defenders... not even talking about vans and centaurs.

> 2) Ulm's troops are nearly immune to normal short-bows archers and have high resitance to longbows and crossbows.

Yes. But so do anyone those with shields. The tower shield helps tons more against a crossbow that armour 20 (Ulm's best) and everyone almost gets tower shields.

> 3) Their forging powers allow them polital maneuvorability and survivalability.

Yup, it's called being client nation (smith *****). Until they decide you've done with utility, being so damn limited.

> 4) Ulm's troops have wide selection of weapon choices, allowing them to choose right weapons for the right job.

As long the job's killing small number, low defense humans - maybe. No high attack weapons, no high defense weapons. Ulm needs rediscover swords and light shields/armour.

> 5) Since Ulmish troops have Gold cost:Resource cost ratio of 1:2 / 1:3 they have lots of extra cash to crank out forts, which has numereous advantages.

Yeah. Ulm gets castles, to make more crap :-)

I am not arguing with Burnsaber, but with the positions listed. Ulm needs help.

And Burnsaber's right, giving superunits is a bad fix. Just tune the existing up, and make smiths smarter.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

As a minor aside, why is there such a fervent love/hate relationship with MA Ulm? It reminds me of my trips to Japan, where everyone believes that they are superior to any and all other non-Japanese, but almost eveybody has a t-shirt on with the logo of an American sports team or some other American product.

No other nation gets anywhere the number of posts that MA Ulm does. I concur that it is one of the weaker nations, but the other contenders for weakest nation honors seldom get mentioned. Was Ulm a favored nation in Dom2 and players still remember that?

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

Ulm is a good 'jump into' nation. As far back as Dominions PPP, its focus on troops over magic and formations over SCs made it very accessible to the new player, and gives it a very different feel than other nations.

Thus, alot of us have happy early memories of Ulm.

As another thing, Ulm is the closest thing to a nation able to just 'make war'. No mutliple blesses, no SCs and hordes of mages, no 'tricks'. Ulm has its core troops as its backbone, rather than a bless rush or a giant pile of mages+clams casting various flavours of 'I win and you all die, and I get gems for it'. Thus, its very different, flavour-wise, from alot of nations, and is appealing to people who like that flavour.

Unfortunately, its a flavour that just doesnt perform well in the current environment, so alot of virtual ink is spilled discussing the problems.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

Besides, MA Ulm is totally badass.

They fight terrible magical enemies with only steel and will. Like Conan the Barbarian, for example. It's just that their troops blow, unlike Conan.

From Dr.Praetorious
"Ulm is a nation of men, with human failings (and then some, but that's a distinct question), fighting against hordes of magic wielding demons, evil animated statues and malevolent warlocks, with only steel and sinew, and some magic available in a limited, supporting role."


EDIT; http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif, stole Xietor's Conan analogy. Oops.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

You stole my Conan analogy!

Here it is from another thread:

I also agree with that concept-but KO does not.

I think mr should go to magical races like Pangaea-and to races that "shun" magic. Maybe their god is the god of war-the god of steel. Think Conan the Barbarian and Crom. Crom favors his people with great mr, morale in battle, prowess in battle-in return for not delving into magic. The forge ability ties into strong earth magic with a touch of fire.

A boost for Ulm could include limiting their magic diversity to 3 Earth 1 fire only, with a 10 percent chance to get 4 earth(petrify, earth attack), remove old age for smiths, increase hps, mr, and morale. This limits their diversity even further, but makes them stronger in Earth-which is thematic.

The nation of steel should not be subpar in combat to almost every other nation. I would give their black knights a 1h sword of sharpness as well. MA Ulm's warriors should be feared-not ridiculed.

The resource cost to make these units, and their slow speed, keep them from being overpowered.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

Oh, Xietor, I like the sharpness idea, it's also completely thematic that semi-magical high-quality steel could be sharp enough to give AP. I'd much prefer to see the swords on a new unit instead of the knights, since they're still too expensive for their MR fragility, but the idea is excellent.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

The dom2 history is worth a lot - people have a lot of affection for the nations that were in previous games. Also, people like Ulm for the schtick - which I think it is important to preserve.

Marverni is probably even more troubled than Ulm, but it is a strong magic nation, so the fix (better magic) is less controversial.

There is general agreement that other underpowered nations *exist*, but not what they are. I myself vascillate a lot:
- I used to think Bandar Log and MA Agartha were underpowered. In MP games I feel that I have been proved wrong IN THE FACE, which is the best way to be proven wrong, no question.
- I've lost a lot of respect for Patala. But it's in the late age, and I don't play in the late age that much.

That said, I think that Ulm and Marverni are the only nations so weak that some kind of fix is needed. There are other slightly weak nations, but good luck with a slightly weak nation puts you in a better position than average luck with a decent nation, so they are close enough to balanced.

For MA Ulm, I propose:
* A national version of Legions of Steel that benefits the entire battlefield - both sides. This punishes summoned units (natural Prot isn't boosted) to some extent, and is a good combo with...
* A national version of Weapons of Sharpness that benefits your entire army at once.
* A national version of Haste for your entire army at once.
* A spell that removes fatigue and possibly heals damage from your troops. I'm not sure how well the computer would target it so this needs experimentation.
* Efficient single target damage spells to deal with raiding supercombatants (and supercombatants generally).
* National spells that inflict feeblemind, to deal with enemy mages, evening the field in that respect.
* National spells that inflict detrimental conditions on hostile sacred units, so that they fight on an even field with your national troops.
* A national spell that puts up a City, lower research level and easier to cast than Wizards' Tower.
* "Mechanical" national summons for *non-combat roles* - ritual spell-casting, preventing bad events, protecting stacks from mindhunt, etc.

With this arsenal of spells (all located in Constr and Thaum), Ulm remains a nation of Men, but has the resourced needed to, at least theoretically, fight all the monsters and sorcerers on something of an equal footing, and with no changes in the army list *at all*.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

What if, instead of wholesale changes, we just give Ulmish troops some reinvigoration? This would refelect their super increased training since they shun magic. Or, alternately, give them a national spell that removes fatigue from the troops.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

Hmm. Those are not certainly bad ideas, but I really think that Ulm shouldn't rely on his mages in order to have his troops "not suck". It'be like this;

Ulm soldier: Damn we hate mages. They're like vile and stuff.
*enemy attacks*
Ulm Soldier: Where are our Mages? We need buffs to not run away/ die to exhaustion/to hit opponents! We are DOOMED!

Besides, I don't that AP weapons are necessary. Ulm troops already have high damage weapons and good strenght. They just need to actually hit troops.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

I think messing with Ulmish base stats is not something KO would go for. He likes only a slight difference from other humans - see Firbolg - bigger but only slightly better stats. Same deal with Ulmish - they get an extra 1 hp and that's about it :]

On the other hand, I think their special blacksteel armour could justifiably be 1 or so less encumbering, or even stronger, because it's supposed to be special and because the troops would clearly have trained in it often, building up the muscle needed to carry it around without tiring instantly.

I like Dr Ps idea to give them spells themed on legions of steel and weapons of sharpness (though not necessarily the exact spells he suggests). You could also give them a construction school spell which reduces enc, removes fatigue or gives reinvig, explaining that it reminds the Ulmish of their proud heritage and lightens the weight of the armour. Of course you can't allow the mages to go spamming this on themselves.

I think a standard unit would be fine.

I totally disagree with any suggestion to give Ulm a cheap crossbow unit, because then they'll just build crossbow armies with a handful of the cheapest tower shield guys at the front. Doesn't encourage use of their diverse (and sadly rather crappy) infantry at all.

On the subject of actually hitting stuff - Ulm could justifiably have superior versions of basic weapons. Blacksteel flail, blacksteel sword, Ulmish hammer etc. These could carry att 1 def 1 or whatever, representing the kind of quality seen in the Jomonese weapons.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

I really don't see why you can't just buff their standard troops quite a bit.

Increase the gold cost of the troops, and give them better stats to go with all that VERY VERY HIGH resource cost equipment. Principes are AWESOME compared to the "Infantry Of Ulm". Map Move 2 + Tower Shield + Very High Defense

The difference is the Pythium Infantry is just "buying time" from the Pythium Communion Mages to unleash magical fury. The Ulm infrantry is "buying time" for themselves to become exhausted.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

Since I am the only one defending MA Ulm here (I am the one "Ulm is not underpowered" vote), let me go ahead and state my case.

First off, let me preface by saying that Ulm clearly isn't a top tier nation. I'd say they're somewhere in the middle, but since I am their top supporter apparently, the truth is that they are probably in the lower 50% in terms of power. But, is that a problem? I mean, -someone- has to be in the lower 50%. Are they -so- unbalanced that you just can't win with them against good players? Certainly not, I've won with them before, and I've come in 2nd place several times with MA Ulm (well, to be honest, it was Dom2 Ulm). 2nd place out of like 10 people is pretty dang good. By the logic of "Ulm is compelte crap!", you all would have to argue that I would have won those games with ease if I was playing Vanheim, say, which I don't think is the case.

Now about the specifics Burnsaber mentioned.

1a)Ulm's troops are slow, both tactically and map-move-wise.

It is a disadvantage, sure. Balanced races have disadvantages. Tactically, this is not even worth mentioning as a disadvantage -- your incredibly cheap pin-cushion units are getting pinned. So what? I think you guys view Ulm's units in a different light than I do. They're the toughest and cheapest cannon-fodder in the game, they don't kill much stuff without buffs (such as Weapons of Sharpness), their real function is to absorb damage cheaply. Ulmish warriors do not hope to come back alive, their only purpose is to die in your service!!

1b) AN attacks and MR negates attacks make their troops easily counterable.

See above. If you are speaking about Black Knights instead of standard troops, surely, there are counters available against them. Again... so what? Black Knights are a great mid-game unit, but towards the end-game I never build them. They have their moment of usefulness where they can really turn the tide of a battle. When the counters arrive, you stop building them.

1c)Arbalests make normally high-prot Ulmish troops vulnerable to friendly fire.

A minor side-effect to having the best missile troop in the game (with the possible exception of Jomon's longbows). Again, see the "Ulmish troops are there to die for you" comment above.

1d)Their high encumberance doesn't synergize with the high protection value since it diminishes the lasting power that high protection presents.

I am just repeating myself here. See above.

1e) Their troop selection (while allowing different weapon combinations) only consists of high resourcecost, highly armored troops, limiting army construction, and making their armies predictable.

Why would you build anything else besides heavily-armored troops when you have them available for 10 gold? If this is a comment on the lack of early-game expansion power of Ulm, I think that is greatly exaggerated. Buy mercenaries and independent troops and you will expand with the best of them. You are guarenteed to get just about all the mercenaries for the first 10 turns.

1f) Ulm's troops have average morale (expect for guardians and Black Knights) and few means to boost it (see argument 6), diminishing their lasting power in combat.

Yes, this is a problem that I would like to see addressed. But one generally of minor importance.

2) Their weak mages can't allow them to be succesfull in mid and late-game. They're also borderline old age.

Ulm's mages are great! They only cost 140 gold and they can all cast Blade Wind and Magma Eruption! What else is there? I'm being semi-serious, too! Weakness of their mages is not an issue, but lack of magic diversity is. Ulm's mages are very potent at what they do.

3) Their pretender design is limited by being "forced" to take Production:3

Yes, but you get Production-3! And you can take Drain-3 to pay for it without losing anything of significance.

4) Reliance on resource-heavy troops limits their early expansion since massing their troops early is difficult.

It's not at all difficult if you take Production-3. I think MA Ulm has an excellent early game, as long as we're just talking about indies here. A nearby human with a bless rush can ruin anyone's day.

5) Their forging ability is diminished by not having a reliable Thug/SC chassis and their low magic ablity doesn't allow them to summon one easily.

Black Lords are actually pretty good thugs. If you gave them a much better thug than that, Ulm would quickly catapult into a top or second-tier faction.

6) No sacreds and priests to speak of.

So don't take a bless, this isn't a problem.


Done with Burnsaber's list, now to add some of my own points.

1) Spies + Lots of early castles = good

2a) Forging. Give any other nation an undispelable Forge of the Ancients and see how good they are.

2b) Forging for other people. You can make serious bank by selling items as Ulm. Or you can get tight with an ally by doing the same thing. Despite people's distaste for this, it really is a great advantage.

2c) Empowering and forging Blood items. Other races might want to do this, but with Ulm you are silly if you -don't- do it, it's so good.

2d) Research ability. Lightless lanterns put Ulm as a good research race. I think people don't realize how good the boost from these items are, and how cheaply and quickly Ulm can forge huge numbers of them. Combined with the blood stones from 2c) and the large numbers of castles mentioned above, and you've got yourself the ingrediants for a good turtle race.

2e) Little commander zap wands. I love these things. Given that you are going to have a large number of commanders ferrying around the huge numbers of troops you make as Ulm, giving your guys flame wands is a fun game. Later, you can upgrade them to fireball wands or the Rods of the Phoenix which are very powerful.

2f) Artifacts. Get 'em all. You know you've got the construction magic before anyone else.

3) Arbelests. I just wanted to prove my assertion earlier that Arbelests are the best missile weapon. Here are the stats (assuming no random numbers and that every shot is a hit.. which is of course false, take this with a grain of salt):

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

Shortbow -- 0 -- 0 -- 0
Longbow -- 3 -- 1 -- 0
Crossbow -- 2.5 -- 2 -- 1
Arbelest -- 3 -- 2.67 -- 2

Anything with a prot less than 10 can be killed easily by your hoards of indy shortbows. At 10, Longbows and Arbelests are equal in terms of DPR (damage per combat round). At protection 12, Arbelests are head and shoulders above Longbows, and higher than that it's just not comparable, Arbelests are the King.

Arbelests have an additional advantage in that they fire on the first turn (not the second or the third, for example) so that your damage is heavily front-loaded. Therefore, on any particular round of combat, arbelests will have done much more damage then they are "supposed" to have done.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

"Besides, I don't that AP weapons are necessary. Ulm troops already have high damage weapons and good strength. They just need to actually hit troops."

I do. MA man's KOA have ap. Vans may as well have it as you will never see one without an ap double attack.

Why should a nation who relies on steel and has a forge bonus be unable to forge an ap weapon for its best soldiers?

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

> Are they -so- unbalanced that you just can't win with them against good players? Certainly not, I've won with them before,

News flash! They were NOT good player, if they lost with Ulm. Unless by "won with them" you mean - I was someone's smith ***** since turn one, and we ganged a real nation.

Ulm is helpless to blesses, SCs, tramplers, and even good human infantry supported by priest (on turn 1) If you get a SC to stop them, you sacrifice diversity... and because you need scales, their SC is better anyway.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

I like these best.

The AP swords, even if sometimes unnecessary in troop battles would make them a little more threatening against SCs. Similiar to what Micah mentioned in the Most Useful Research thread about weapons of sharpness, except Ulm's black knights wouldn't need a mage to cast weapons of sharpness.

If some feel Dr.P's constructs/summons are "too magical for Ulm" then maybe a high cost/resource national unit. Expanding on the anti-mind attack idea, perhaps an expensive immobile/slow unit that acts like a giant lightning rod or dome (low % based on balance) since they fear magic so much. An Ulm only dome spell with a low research requirement is another idea.

Re: The MA Ulm issue.
 

For brevity, I won't mention it if I agree. Yes, I know it makes me look harsh and critical. Sorry. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, although it probably looks that way.

--> True. You can hold the enemy up for several turns. And... Oh crap. You can blade wind, if you forewnet construction, got conjuration 2, AND evocation 4. Not impossible, but arrow fend makes this totally useless. Also, BW is crap against anything with prot over 15, and weak vs. 12-15. You really need better stuff. Like Magma eruption, except that its even harder to get. And when you run into an SC? DOn't even start. You can't petrify, you can't get your own, you can't really bladewind it, since it probably wears armour, and magma erruption isn't that likely to kill it. And, of course, if four high seraphs reduce your infantry to toasted marshmallows in two turns, there isn't much for your mages to do other than run like hell. A few distraction units, and you probably won't kill much.

-->You miss the point I think, and I don't like your 'cannon-fodder' explination, but this isn't a disadvantage. EVERYONE with high protection has encumberance problems, except for the undead, and they have other problems.

I fail to see how you will get anymore mercs than anyone else with order 3. With the above mentioned prod 3, you will probably be able to spend most of your gold on recruitables, if you want to. Ulm of course, may NOT want to, since mercs are better that your troops at least 25% of the time.

--> They're cheap 'cause they're wortheless. Compare to Ktonian necromancers, which are 200, and LATE era. Necromacers have MORE magic, can get three in two paths, and TWO emore paths than smiths (death and some astral - as much as ulm gets air). Which, theoretically, means that the other nations get weaker mages. LE agartha, I should mention, has troops not vastly dissimilar to ulm's.

--> As mentionned above, compare to pythium. Pythium has easier expansion and a hell of a lot better magic.

-->This limits options, but isn't really a disadvantage. Black Knights are comparable to moderatly blessed sacreds from the nations that don't have awesome sacreds. E.g. Pythium.

-->Spies and castles ARE good. Of course, marignon could get the same, and just as easily.

-->Forging: You do NOT get a permanent forge of the ancients. Your mages don't get +1 in their known paths for forging. They also get 25% off, not 50, which is the forge bonus, IMHO. Oddly, Ulm also has a difficult time get the forge up. Honestly, making it an Ulm national might go a long way to solving ulm's problems.

--> The rest of your points are valid, but assume you research construction, which precludes the above mentioned evocation-smiths of doom. Also, they aren't that limited to Ulm. Lightless lanterns aren't THAT expensive.

Re: Frostmorne27
 

No worries! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Let's see.. I mean.. Are there counters to Ulm's units? Yes. Are there counters to Ulm's magic? Yes. Why is that an issue? There are counters to just about everything out there. About the SC stuff.. I just disagree.. Ulm can both make and counter SCs and thugs. I'm not sure how to argue that point except just to contradict you, though. Other factions can get/counter them easier, but Ulm can certainly get/counter them. I'm not trying to argue that Ulm is in the upper 50% of factions.

Because you have far more available money than anyone else in the early game.

Um... no? We just disagree.

I'm not arguing that Pythium isn't better than Ulm.

I never build the Forge as Ulm because there's no point to it. Ulm's forging abilities are equivalent to the Forge, and I have other uses for my earth gems.

Re: Frostmorne27
 

In my experience, the forge bonus of the smiths stacks with the forge bonus of the global, making items that much less costly in terms of gems. The bonus of plus one to the caster spell level for the purposes of forging also saves you from having to do that one last empowering on each of your specialty smiths, which saves a lot of gems, far more gems get saved from this that are spent on casting the global.

The idea of making that spell a national spell for Ulm is interesting. I rely (completely) on forging to keep Ulm competitive (though I only play SP).

Re: Frostmorne27
 

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/5...litebg8.th.jpg


good infantry.


Bad infantry-look at ulm.

Pangaea's infantry is not the best, but it is solid. 23 resources. 13 gold. 14 defense. Some of Ulm's infantry have defenses of 5 and 7. difference of 4 in mr. Pangaea has more hps.

Also MA Pangaea can boost the average morale of their infantry with their priests. Ulm cannot. And with recuperation, pangaea's infantry are much more likely to be useful after 4 or 5 battles and have experience stars that boost morale and stats.

Then we could compare the Black Knight to the Centaur Cataphract. The centaur is cheaper, and its recuperation and mr make it the more desirable unit. 32 resources v a whooping 68 resources. 40 gold v 55. 20 hps to 15. 13 mr to 9. Same str, same defense. Knight has 1 more protection, 2 better attack and a bit more punch to its attacks. Knight has 15 morale to 11 for pangaea's.

Ulm, the nation of steel, seems to be weak melee v melee. And that should not be. And I will not even compare arcos infantry to ulm's. And Arcos has elephants and good magic.

Re: Frostmorne27
 

I was hoping that would be a hoburg. You disappoint me.

As regards to Ulmish forging:
Err? You have a 25% discount on forging with an E2 F1 mage. This is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to forge of the ancients, which is twice as effective, and gives +1 in all known paths.

However, with a dwarven hammer, and the forge, master smiths can make items for free. This is usefull.

Ulm has no particular expansion ability compared to any nation except Agartha (and a few others, I guess).

Re: Frostmorne27
 

A couple points with regards to the Pangean comparison...

'difference of 4 in MR'
Although it requires research in Thau 5, Ulm gets the amazingly inexpensive "Tempering the Will", providing all your units +4 MR. Because of its low fatigue, you can cast it even with a level 2 earth mage, even if you don't research conjuration or construction ... though that is a bit unlikely.

And while Thau 5 is a bit pricey, at a aggregate cost of 620, it can fit in your research budget easily, later on.

The defense hurts... but Ulm can get Tower Shields. While they're fairly easy to bypass in melee...

Shield (Pan) 4 parry
Tower Shield (Ulm) 7 parry

attacker generally rolls DRN+6
At the start of a battle, before melee causes fatigue...
Pan: 10+DRN (Diff of 4, or 18%)
Ulm: 16+DRN (Diff of 10, or 3%) CORRECTION EDIT

I am curious what spells these missile hit mathematics apply to. Blade of wind certainly, possibly even fire spells... Page 77 certainly implies that many fire spells count as missile weapons, though I don't know about splash damage. Can a shield parry lightning?

Anyways, before you even factor protection into the equation, you're getting hit only half as much, even by crossbows.

The cost for Infantry of Ulm (not Black Plate)? 10, 26. The lack of recuperation is notable, but where as the hoplite has a dinky little spear (dam3), Ulm has access to various weapons. The one I'm looking at has a hammer, with 7 damage.
Attack, Prot
Pan/Ulm 14+DRN versus 17+DRN
Ulm/Pan 18+DRN versus 15(body)+DRN

This is balanced by the variety of factors the Satyr Hoplite has in its advantage, such as defence and recuperation. And while the encumberance is equal (8) with these two units, fatigue decreases defense twice as fast as attack, which works in Ulm's favor in this matchup. In this particular matchup with the shield we get a defense of 11, which while inferior isn't as dramatically ineffective as a defense of five, especially while facing an attack of 11.

A small correction to Valandil. According to what I've read off of the forum, there is no free forging. The minimum is 10% cost.

I don't have enough Ulm or Pangaea experience to say who has the better infantry, but it isn't quite as one sided as you make it seem.

MA Pangaea generally has much inferior weaponry for a similar cost. I mean, EA Agartha uses spears... And we know what a super power their strong and hearty Pale Ones are. The War Minotaur is another story and price range, but spears really are of little comparison to the advantages of hammers and morningstars. Can someone refresh me as to what flails and morningstars, have as a special ability? I've forgotten.

EDIT:
Really, you don't need conjuration 2 for Blade Wind or Magma Eruption. You don't have a heck of a lot to spend gems on other then forging. At a measly 30 fatigue, you can spend a single gem on it. With Blade Wind, you can boost your path temporarily with one gem. Not economical in the long run, but in the short term, Blade Wind and Magma Eruption are viable even without booster magic or items. In fact, you can think of one pair of earth boots as being equal to 7 Magma Eruptions.

It's even more costly, but you also have access to fire three spells with a gem cost of 2 or less in combat. Pheonix Power can be cast with a spare gem, taking you up to two, and thereafter, you can cast 22 damage, ap flame bolts for hardened targets with Evo 1. Very late game, after you've capped construction, you can cast Pillar of Fire for 20 fatigue (f2) at Evo 8. 34 Armor piercing damage will threaten even a cyclops pretender.

As no one expects to need magic resistance against Ulm, you may even be able to pull of something with Hydrophobia, also an extremely inconvenient Thau 8. It's also more effective in a hostile empire with positive magic scales for a penalty to MR.

More practically speaking, Rage and Prison of Fire are also along the research path to Tempering the Will. They aren't world shattering, but they are effectively research free, unless you're ignoring Tempering the Will.

If you ARE going for BladeWind and summon Earth Power (EP first), you'll get Pheonix Power as well, and plenty of fire spells will be opened up along the way.

As well, you have Destruction, Strength of Giants, and Legions of Steel readily available. early. Making their fewer attacks that hit much more deadly, and more survivable.

Yes, Ulm's magic variety and power still is quite poor. But you do have a few more options available at all stages of the game than just Blade Wind and Magma Eruption. The magical victory still goes to other nations.

Re: Frostmorne27
 

Er... With the Forge of the Ancients cast and no other equipment in hand, my master smith makes a Cloak of Invulnerability for 30 earth gems. If he equips a dwarven hammer, it costs him 20 gems. If I give him the Hammer of the Forge Lord, it cost him 10 gems. In no case is it free. The bonuses stack, but it is not purely additive.

Re: Frostmorne27
 

I think Ulmish troops need either a few more points of skill, or a slight reduction in blacksteel armor encumbrance/defense penalties, or both. If that isn't enough, maybe a couple more HP and another point of strength.

If they're only going to do one thing well, let them do it *really* well.

A national spell that gives a squad of troops/all friendly troops 50% resistance to all elements would be very nice, too. They have Tempering the Will to counter MR-negates spells, but nothing much to deal with Falling Fires/Frost or Orb Lightning (the regular counters to those elements require paths Ulm doesn't get easily). I realize this would basically duplicate Gaea's Blessing, but - Ulm *needs* to be able to counter other people's counter to armor, because they don't really have a Plan B.

One way to deal with the morale issue would be to give them commanders with Standard. If Strategoi and Legati Legionarum (if that's the correct plural, been a long time since I took Latin) can lead their men to greater valor, I don't see why Ulmsmen can't learn to command that well too.

A way to get enough Nature magic for Relief would be nice too, but might be too big a change to the nation because of all the other applications that nature magic would have.

Resources
 

For me the problem would be solved by rasing the castle resource bonus from 25% to say 75%.

My complaint is not the MR or the slowness, I see that as central to the theme. My problem is I cannot crank out enough troops to keep up early game.

Should be pretty easy to mod, I might do that.

Re: Resources
 

Oh... and before I forget...

While Arbalests open Ulm up to friendly fire, I'm not aware of the game taking any special considerations into account. That is, Tower Shields should be just as effective against friendly fire as hostile fire, with maybe only an 3% hit rate at the outset, climbing as high as 14% with 99 fatigue. If you recruit shielded infantry, you shouldn't really need worry about friendly fire so much as wasted ammo.

Re: Frostmorne27
 

You know it's sort of like putting a band aid on a festering axe wound, but Ulm could simply have their resource bonus in forts increased. It's currently 25% I believe. If it was 50% they would at least be able to produce their troops in bulk and some people might be tempted away from prod 3.

Re: Frostmorne27
 

Hey I just said that! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Frostmorne27
 

Yeah, sorry, I didn't see :]

It's very easy to mod, if anyone wanted to test it out.

You just need to #selectnation (MA Ulm's number) then #castleprod 50 or 75 or whatever. Then #end :]


Just as a sidenote: Arbalests aren't the best missile weapons in the game. They're worse than crossbows imo. And Ulm's arbalests cost a load of resources, making them far harder to mass than say Marig's crossbows.

Re: Frostmorne27
 

the only bad thing about cranking 300 Ulm Infantry and an army of Black knights. Then a mage teleports in with a runesmasher, eye void, spell focus and casts master enslave and that person owns your army.

Yeah you can cast tempering the will if you have the luxury of going to thau. 5. That raises the mr from 9 to? I had commanders with 24 mr get enslaved in alpaca. heh. what chance does mr 9 have?

Of course you may get your commanders mind hunted, and be stuck with no one to cast tempering the will. Then it is pretty much automatic enslavement.

Maybe master enslave needs toned down a bit. But that is for a different thread. It is potent now though, and Ulm is last in being able to defend against it.

Re: Xietor
 

Well, none really... but Master Enslave is a Thuamaturgy 9 spell, requiring an S8 mage, something thats not necessarily common. It's not the worlds fairest comparison. Tempering of the Will can be helpful against plenty of other spells, though.

620 RP versus 4600 on standard... That's CORRECTION: 1/7th of the effort required. If you're not facing anything that require you to boost your resistance earlier than that, then you're quite lucky. You'll have better odds than many 10 or 11 MR nations....

Regards to mind hunt, you've still got the not-quite effective enough lead shields. Though your Master Smiths will have a decent chance of surviving, the cost of mind hunt is obscenely low.

Even if you can't wipe them out, it may be worth finding the time to kill a level 8/9 astral pretender early, a couple of times. It'll stop wishery.

Re: Xietor
 

This will probably come as a surprise for most people but IMO MA Ulm isn't as terrible as it's made out to be. I think most people are either feeling the after effects of Dom II (where they are the worst nation) or the CB where Earth boots got bumped in cost and blade wind nerfed. In base, MA TC and MA Argatha are both in a worse off position (just going off the top of my head) with MA Oceania not doing too great either. Ulm troops are decent if you spread them out to avoid them clustering (and as a result eating up) too many magic attacks. Their mages, while unversatile, are actually decent in battle between earth buffs, decent prot, blade wind + magna spells. Arbalests are crappy but sappers are actually usable for their bonus + xbows. Drain 1 isn't too terrible compared to magic 3 in base if you're relying on indie mage research and drain 3 is just free points if you're planning on ending the game pre turn 50.

Re: Xietor
 

I disagree about MA Agartha. Certainly it isn't the strongest position early on, and the lack of crossbows can be comically painful - but in terms of combat magic, a golem crafter is just like a master smith except that he also has a water. We can have theoretical arguments all day - but the fact is, I've seen MA Agartha have a lot more success in a significant number of games, such that I doubt it's a fluke.

I agree about MA T'ien Ch'i - but MA T'ien Ch'i is very different from Ulm, and a fix is in the works from the devs.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

I concur with Doctor Praetorius about MA Agartha compared to MA Ulm. MA Agartha is far from the strongest, and has some glaring weaknesses, but is functionally better than MA Ulm is. The infantry is somewhat similar, if lacking solid weaponry, but is less easily exhausted, has at least average MR, and has darkvision. MA Agartha's mages and priests are more diverse and they have some solid national summons as well. MA Agartha's golem cult effect can make a large difference for not only it's national statues, but for other construction summons as well. In Chinchilla, in which I am MA Agartha, I repeatedly beat MA Tien Chi's arrow swarms between my infantry's shields, and my statues' high protection and hit points to the point where he called off the war. I would of course still rank MA Agartha as not the best out there, but certainly a better performer than MA Ulm.

I've always liked MA Ulm's idea, but in practice they have so many problems. Slow and heavy infantry with bad MR get eaten alive by battlefield magic before they can even close the gap. As MA R'Lyeh fighting them for an example, I have my artillery brigades of ilithids mind blast away while my infantry blocks hold and attack and am often able to force Ulm to rout before they ever get to melee. The Arbalests fire so slowly and from such extreme range (and I usually split my ilithid groups into fire closest and fire archers as well), that they have little to no effect on even my poorly armored lobo guard chaff. I would like to see exactly what Dr. Praetorius was asking for: force the enemy, somehow, to meet Ulm on Ulm's terms.

On a related note, I was under the impression that shields did not help troops from friendly fire since the shields are in front and the projectiles hit you in the back and thusly provided no bonus against them. Is this not the case?

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

Instead of argueing what-ifs, simply try out my slightly improved Ulm :

[Dom3 MOD : MA Ulm] Black Steel of Ulm

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

I'd say MA T'ien Ch'i isn't worse either. They're not exactly a powerhouse, but they've got enough magical and troop diversity to keep the enemy on their toes.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

The only problem with this, is in MP haven't ALL the players got to download the mod to play the game? Which further complicates setting up MP games.

However good mod Arralen. Lets hope Illwinter get the, 'hint' with MA Ulm and spice it up a bit in vanilla sometime soon.

Need to get Kristoffer or Johan to play MA Ulm in a MP game. It will then get loads of patch goodness, just like MA Mictlan + others will get in this next patch.

Its a fun way to get the devs to 'upgrade' a nation.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

Well we are talking about MA Ulm, if MA Ulm is lucky enough to make it into the mid game, would Riches From Beneath help Ulm alot?

I have never cast Riches From Beneath but I always thought it may help Ulm considerably.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

I'm not very experienced, but in my opinion all those could be done:
-Lower all armour's encumberance. Justify it with Ulmish armour being of higher technology than others.
-Give them some affordable bowman unit. If they're a nation of humans, why would they ignore the obvious advantage of having bowmen support the arbalets? Maybe something similar to LA Ulm's villain?
-Give them a good standart bearer. It will boost morale and be thematic.
-Give their priests a national anti-magic spell that would stack with 'tempering the will'.
-Increase the resource bonus in castles
-National Construction summon - steam golem.

edit: And how about a non-magical commander that can heal troops? A field surgeon perhaps. The same guy could also provide a supply bonus.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

I think Ulm might benifit from this more than many other nations... however...

In the mid game I'm trying to set myself up for the late game - where my infantry really won't be used much at all. I'm not sure I could ever justify casting this spell in that case when there are so many other better globals for entering the late game. Maybe if there were lots of global slots open and I could cast it for the base cost I'd consider it... but I wouldn't spend much more than than the base cost.

Now if I could somehow cast this in the early game I think it would be a very good deal for Ulm. IMHO RFB should probably be easier to cast anyway since it is barely ever used.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

Some nations peak (or don't) at very differnt times IMHO...

MA Ulm:
Average/Poor Early game
Average Mid game
Poor Late game

MA Agartha:
Poor Early Game
Average Mid Game
Good/Excellent Late Game

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

Sombre said:

The resource issue is a different one, there you are debating whether or not you want to pay for plate mail on your archers. However, the fact that arbelests are the best missile weapon in the game is not debatable, unless you are trying to argue that shooting protection 5 guys is way more important than shooting protection 12+ guys.

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

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

I don't believe that you factored prescision differences in, but I think you are somwhat right regardless. Massed crossbowmen are highly overrated. Sure, C'tis might want them, but marignon is not better than Ulm because it has crossbows and not arbalests. Besides, the arbalest is the only nom-poison, non-magic ranged weapon that is halfway teolerable vs. thugs/SCs.

Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm
 

When you initially expand as MA Ulm, you are best off using pure 17 prot inf. Those slice through indies with ease. Ignore arblests and crossbows as they only kill your own army.

Around 30-40 infantry can easily take a indie. So you can get 2-4 armies going in the 1st year to grab alot of indies. When you meet other players then recruit arbalests/crossbows in droves. Put your inf on guard commander in front of your massed arbalests/crossbows and make the enemy come to you.

It may get you through to turn 30 or so if you are lucky.