Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I was thinking of starting a game and limiting it to perhaps the 8 to 10 weakest EA(land) nations under Cbm 1.6.

Since I haven't played it much I was hoping to get some opinions on who you thought where the weakest and a couple of reasons why.

I think it would be an interesting game.

Thanks:up:

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Ulm, Maverni, mmmmm... not too sure about others... maybe Yomi, Tir na n'Og, and Argatha.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

check out the cripple thread - they discuss this.
game was open only to nations that had not won in the hall of fame.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Machaka is by far the weakest nation in 1.6 CBM, if you ask me. The loss of fever fetishes hurts Machaka a lot, and they can not take much advantage of the new possibilities to enter underwater. In addition to that Flaming Arrows is a pain to cast in CBM, so Machaka has been slapped royally in CBM, and 1.6 was just the final nail in the coffin.

Ulm got slightly weaker with the lack of extra earthbooster (and no loss of the earth gem generator), but not in the same scale.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Hmmm... weakest 10 land nations in approximate order of weakness

1. MA Agartha
2. EA Agartha

The non-LA Agartha's are by far the weakest nations in the game, with or without CBM. Note that EA Agartha is probably worse than its MA version relative to its era, but when you're playing with other cripples EA is probably better...

3. (MA) Machaka

Loss of fetishes hurt, a lot. They're still better off than the above Agarthas, but not by much.

4. (MA) Eriu

Eriu has issues. Its research sucks. It has no endgame (at all). It needs early research. It needs a bless. It has no astral, precious little earth, and no death magic. The only thing it has going for it is arguably the best raiding thug in the game. This only gets it so far. By mid-game Eriu has generally moved from 'threat' to 'annoyance'.

5. LA Ulm

If you can survive long enough to get a blood economy going, you're probably ok. Surviving that long is *really hard*. Your national units are all typically overpriced in either gold, resources, or both. And most of them come with crippling encumbrance that makes them all but useless after a couple rounds of melee. And then your national mages top out at 3 total paths, making you the winner of the 'worst mages in the game' award.

6. MA Man

Similar problems to Eriu, except the research isn't quite as bad, your pretender isn't overworked, and you have good standard armies instead of good thugs. Good standard armies + a good buffing path (nature) means you make it to the end of midgame fine. (Then you hit lategame and realize you have none).

7. EA Abysia

Don't get me wrong, they have a recruitable thug/almost SC in their capital and excellent sacreds. The problem is that they only really do one thing well. Once someone counters your fire you're done. Since you also *predictably* do just one thing well, expect that to happen pretty fast.

---------

Those 7 are pretty indisputable, even if some of them miraculously didn't qualify for cripple fight. These are my picks for the next 3 in order.

8. (EA) TNN

Hire anywhere Bean Sidhes, A2 assassins, and better sacreds plus a good non-sacred option make TNN leaps and bounds better than Eriu. But its still not very good.

9. LA Caelum

For a nation with troops as bad as its are, LA Caelum finally rips the heart out of the nation by saddling it with crappy mages. Sure, your death magic improved, so your endgame might be really good. But how do you expect to get there? I suppose if you're playing against a bunch of n00bs that can't figure out how to counter mammoths you might do ok, but otherwise you're just hosed.

10. LA Atlantis

Sure, you've got great sacreds and decent cap-only mages. But your recruit-anywhere mages are pretty awful, and your UW recruit mages are really expensive for what they do. And while you have death and some astral (UW fortresses), your other magic paths are either uninspiring (water, oh yay) or too short to be useful (E,A,F only on randoms). And good cap-only sacreds only get you so far.

That said, there's a big difference between LA Atlantis and the other nations listed above.

------

The following are often considered weak, although I have to imagine this is because many players can't figure out how to defend a rush with them. In no way would I consider them weak.

MA BL
Lots of astral power, earth via Rishi and national summons, great recruit-anywhere mages for communioning, and all its mages are sacred meaning really efficient research.

EA Marveni
No nation with a recruit anywhere E2S2H2 +210% EWSN mage can actually be that weak. Did i mention it can blood sacrifice as well?

EA Ermor
Similarly, F2S1D2 +110% FASD recruit anywhere mage is also pretty awesome, and they've even got good troops and respectable sacreds on top of that.

-----------------

The following is generally considered weak, although I think its probably underrated. But it arguably could replace LA Atlantis in the 10th slot:

LA Jomon - read the last few pages of the CBM thread already.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I agree with Jarkko, Machaka and (MA) Ulm were probably hit the worst by CBM as, well, there's not much else to do with either nation than fever fetishes or bloodstones. But concerning EA nations, I'd say Marverni, possibly Agartha and Ulm. Vanheim is weak in late game due lack of diversity and research but their troops are good.

edit: Squirrelloid, you rank MA Ulm better than LA? Actually, I think you just forgot them ;)

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Its possible I just forgot them.

One moment, I have to go actually look at what MA does again.

Ok, yes, but only quite marginally. Their mages are better and they have a more useful troop line-up, however small the margin.

That said, i'd amend them into 6, move the necessaries down 1, and remove LA Atlantis from the list.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

To be honest, they only do earth, and worse than agartha. Troops are not bad but enc is a killer. And that's it.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Think 'forge bonus'.

They basically have to take a site-searching pretender to diversify their gems, and from that their magic. But they don't need their pretender to also sit around and cast vampire counts like LA does, which is something.

And you think their enc. is killer? They're travelling light compared to LA Ulm iirc. (or at least, they have decent melee options with 6 enc., which is unheard of in LA).

Edit: Also, Iron Angels

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Yes, forge bonus is one redeeming factor. And the black knights are awesome, but cost a ton. Full chain mail troops are not bad either, but require lots of resources per gold spent (though they do get resource bonus in forts, so it's not THAT bad). They are def 5 though, so not evading anything, and that's with prot17. Plate ones are def 4 with body prot of 21 and one more enc, and both plate and chain troops are map move 1. Their "crossbowmen" have arbalests, which while do good damage, fire only once per three turns. Sappers cost 1½x the gold and same resources, but are more viable to use due having normal crossbows and a very good siege bonus. Still, the lack of diversity in national mages is even worse than of EA/MA vanheim. One 3.3% s1 chance on your main researcher. Weak priests (h2 cap only that eats the recruitment time from other useful stuff). No blood, no death, unreliably (10%) access up to e3 from only useful mages is rather weak. Iron angels are good, but require either e+s random smith (0.33% chance to get to begin with) with RoW/Robe of Magi/similar to summon, or pretender designed to do that.

And LA Ulm does not need their pretender to stay and summon counts, one is enough as it can continue the process with boosters or summon up one vampire lord and it needs less boosters to do the trick. Of course this requires construction research and so on. And LA gets s2b1 mages right out of the box, which is quite awesome (for communions, against sc's and so on), and the troops are good even if a bit expensive resourcewise for expansion - but the trick is to just spam those delicious rangers and keep some guys tieing the other troops down. And certainly this again has a counter, like pretty much everything in dom3. Still, I would rank LA Ulm well better off than MA, due the access to blood and death and astral in reliable quantities (provided that you go towards the vampire counts).

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Marverni needs to survive the early game, in midgame it is very strong, and can be quite good in late game too.

I don't quite understand why LA Ulm would be weak. They have practically all the tools MA Ulm has, plus vampires. Conventional troops and mage-priests spammin the darts will see it well into midgame, and then the blood-summons really start to make a difference.

Have you actually seen MA Ulm summon *any* Angels since we got CBM 1.6? The lack of the earthgem generators means the chances to see one is minimal (the earth-gems are needed to gazillions of other things too).

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I would personally rank LA ulm as one of the strongest nations in the game.

LA Caelum I think is potentially awesome as well.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

yeah,LA Ulm is a pretty strong nation,imo.
In addition to those great rangers,2S1B everywhere mages,sacred priests researching+inquisitor bonus+ spamming iron blizzard and a good shot at blood,dont forget the ghoul guardians.Sure,they are cap only,but if you happen to have good resource provinces surrounding your cap+prod scale(an option with Ulm)+the resource bonus of ulm,you can easily build like 12+ ghoul guardians per turn.Guardians and Rangers backed by priests spamming tempering the will and iron blizzard are a very strong force until you make it deep into blood.

Also,i say that LA Ulm profits a lot from no gem gens.

Concercing EA Agartha i dont agree,too.
People fail to see,how big an advantage they got in the sea.And they are even able to build castles and PD there.
Depending on the map you play,this can be a huuge plus with them.
E.g. Agartha has no problem at all to smash R`leyh .All their troops got good to high MR+those Oracles make great Casters in the sea,backed up by cheap summonable Earth Elementals which trample those lobo guards.
For more,Umbrals make good Sc chassis if you GoR them and they come cheap,v cheap.Plus those magma childs become pretty nasty if backed up by some Armor increasing spells,which are easily castable by most of Ag`s mages.
Also the risen Oracle,which fits well into EA Agarthas strat,is a huge immortal SC if you take the right magic path`s...even after the cost nerf in CBM...since EA Ag imo fits v well for turmoil 3,Sloth 3,Heat 3,Luck 3 scales,which leave the points for the risen oracle.

I consider EA Agartha much stronger than MA Agartha,it plays a lot different bc of the water advantages and the relative environment,i.e. vs EA nations instead of MA nations.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Btw,saying that Machaka got a huge hit in CBM 1.6 ,makes things a bit too easy,dont you think?

Sure,they cant forge fever fetishes anymore,but other nations cant forge clams and/or blood stones anymore...

I actually think Machaka is stronger now bc of this.
Still not a top nation,but playable imo.
Just spam fire drakes with your fire random dragon mastered sorcerers and you got some good use for your fire/nature gems again.
And Hunter Spiders are cheaper now.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

LA Ulm is by no means strong. They are very weak early, and their troops are bad and overpriced. Lasting long enough to summon a vampire count is hard, much less lasting long enough to do anything with said vampire count. And their blood access is bad and expensive for their performance as blood hunters - you don't get the good blood summons, they're already all gone because you're competing with LA Abysia, LA Mictlan, etc... And have we mentioned the bad research? - you get to midgame after everyone else even in the research-poor LA, as a nation whose early game sucks. You think Marveni has a hard time surviving the early game? At least Marveni gets to start with a good mage and troops that don't fatigue out at the drop of a hat.

Agartha:
...
First of all, EA Rlyeh isn't even *that* strong, and EA Agartha still has no chance against them. Good MR doesn't help when your troops have the military power of tissue paper. Oh yeah, and invading Rlyeh with their guaranteed C3 dominion... let me know how that turns out for you. I'd take indie tritons over agarthan troops. No, not equal cash, equal numbers.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Squirrelloid, I totally agree with your list, at least until 9.

It's actually quite sad that CBM didn't see fit to address Agartha and Machaka. Some small touches could make a big difference in making them interesting and competitive.

like for example, give all Machaka sorcerers/es +1 E/D/F pick. They are supposed to me a mage centric nation right?- That one additional pick can make the difference between lame and decent.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I wasn't totally happy with LA Atlantis on that list, since its so much better than everything else there. But if I had to pick a 10th... LA Atlantis at least has a shot at winning a game without riding the coattails of other nations.

Being reminded how much MA Ulm sucks helped a lot. (ie, amend list so MA Ulm is #6, and adjust accordingly)

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

He wants EA land nations, so talk of Machaka and MA/LA Ulm doesn't really help.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

my balance mod had fixes for abysia, agartha and oceania. It was intended to fix machaka as well, just haven't gotten that far.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

For some reason I read that as 'land nations' without the EA restriction - has the OP changed since last night?

Err... there aren't 10 or even really 8 'weak' EA land nations.

Agartha, Abysia, TNN, ... ???

I suppose if you believe the haters out there Marveni and Ermor probably get added to the list, but they're pretty strong. And if they're on the list, EA Ulm certainly should be. And where do you go from there? Vanheim? Yomi? C'Tis? We're into pretty good nations before we hit 4, much less 8.

Now, if you permit water nations, well, all three of them qualify as weak imo.

(Running a weak nations game as all ages makes a lot more sense because the weak nations are fairly well distributed.)

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

ok,my friend.I must say that i already hate your arrogance at this point,after only reading half a dozen posts from you.
I just won an MP war with Agartha vs an EA Rlyeh ,that did know what he was doing.
He had no chance,bc my Pale infantry did a good job resisting quite a lot of mind blasts,while my Earth elementals via barathus pact where stomping his Lobos.He then proceeded to target my oracles in further battles,which had starting MR of 18,some did cast iron will for MR 22 before being targeted...in that fight he did not manage to kill a single of my Orcale mages,bc you know,they got pretty good HP,too.
My teleporting Risen oracle did a good job there,too,since,you know,he is amphibous.I took a start dom of 10 so actually wasnt a big problem to face his cold 3,since EA Ryleh always has dom problems.
I say EA Agartha is the top nation for battling EA Squids.
And,you know,that was just an example by me.
You didnt adress any of my other points.


Did YOU ever play EA Agartha?

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Thats why you take an awake Blood Fountain for example.
Preferbly B4D3N2.
Helps with early research along with magic scale 1.
Lets you summon the first count before end of year 1.
Forges the first Thistle mace so that your N random fortune tellers can cast harupsex early on.
You ever heard of specific pretender builds targetting nation weaknesses?
With cbm,the blood fountain is a decent choice.
Talking about bad research...LA ULm is the perfect fit for Lightless Lanterns.
Your Fire random black priests with forge bonus dont know what to do with the fire gems anyways.
Have you even read the other points me and the other posters mentionend,that make LA Ulm strong?

Did YOU ever play LA Ulm?

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

No, EA Oceania is the top nation for battling EA squids.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Thats debatable.

Oceania has to defend vs the squids,e.g. vs teleporting sc mind lords.
Agartha probably has a lot of "safe" land terrain until the squids can amass amulets of the fish.So,with Ag you will wage the war almost exclusivle in enemy terrain.
Also I consider the risen oracle the perfect choice for EA Agartha as already mentioned above,bc u can take T3S3H3L3 easily with Ag.
That alone makes EA Agartha a v strong force early on in the water.
U still need luck for the starting position though.
So probably Oceania is a tad better vs the squids .
But my point is: EA Agartha is strong in the water and decent on land= pretty good nation on most maps especially when there is only 1 water nation.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

And I hate your false familiarity and your assumption that I haven't tried these nations. If you make ridiculous claims, expect not to be taken seriously.

Now, clearly EA Rlyeh didn't know what he was doing since he brought lobo guards and mindblasters to a fist fight. I'd take indie tritons over both of those for that fight. Or Slave Trolls, who should mop the floor with both your earth elementals and your troops. Heck, as EA Rlyeh I'd be tempted to take Slave Trolls in general since they give you a way to project power onto land early.

Out of curiosity, what did his mages cast?

And EA Rlyeh often has dom 9-10 on a kraken, which in their case isn't a terrible idea since CBM 1.6 removed the need to have air on its pretender. A dom 10 kraken could have wiped your army *by itself*. Dom 10 similarly tends to imply no problems with dominion.

I have played EA Agartha, repeatedly, in SP, and its the only nation where the AI has given me a hard time. Even such crappy nations as Eriu and Machaka outperform them trivially against the AI. I have not had the opportunity to play them in MP, mostly because while I like playing underdogs they simply are not worth the pain.

As to your other 'points' - (1) There are other sea nations, both of whom are better suited to smashing you than Rlyeh is. EA Oceania is the dominant EA sea nation, and they run you over better than either Rlyeh or Atlantis. (2) Yes, Umbrals are good. They're the only thing Agartha has going for it. And standard UD counters apply. I was one of the people arguing for Umbrals to be returned to Conj 5 (from the Conj 7 they were in CBM 1.5) so that EA Agartha wasn't simply DOA.

...

What do you do, blood hunt your capital?

That's an awful blood fountain build. Blood fountains need A2 or S3 for mobility reasons if its not being used merely as a bless chassis.

Its also a bad pretender build for LA Ulm longterm because you want S4+ (with a sufficiency of slots) so you can forge the astral rings. You want E so you have S+E to forge coins. And of course you need D3B3 so you can summon vamp counts at all. And as you correctly identified, N is useful to you. Sufficient F to make fire boosters isn't a terrible idea either, and also opens up fire arrows (which since your crossbows are your best troop option, is a really good idea).

Oh yeah, and you want that awake research boost so your research doesn't suck year 1.

You'd also like plausibly decent scales, since you need resources, cash for infrastructure/mages (who are winning no efficiency awards), and so on. Mg1 might help, but Dr2 would at least give you points *and* do something about your perenially weak MR. Of course, your research is *already* bad.

And given how weak Ulm is early, you wouldn't mind some SC help from your pretender. Of course, you aren't going to get that, D3B3, and satisfy your magic diversity needs all at the same time.

Sure. Have you ever heard of an excess of weaknesses? Its exactly what I indicted Eriu for - like Eriu, LA Ulm needs too many things out of its pretender to reasonably get it all.

I dunno, forge flaming skulls so they can Phoenix Power into Flaming Arrows sounds pretty good. Not that you live that long.

Of course, lightless lanterns require that you somehow miraculously made it to Constr 6. Since you probably die early year 2, I am not enthused. Further, weren't we researching iron storm to survive into the midgame?

I read 'they have blood and death, how can they possibly be bad'. Note that neither of these are especially good as early game paths. And they're competing against the best blood nations in the game (Mictlan, Abysia) for the unique blood summons, a competition they lose by lightyards. They're competing against everyone else for the Chalice or GoH, which they also lose because their research sucks. So despite having D+B access they don't actually get to use the good B stuff and can't heal their tarts making tart-farming inefficient. (Also, they have no good tart casters - so they have to spend yet more gems on casters who can plausibly tart summon). If they were an MA nation, they might be a plausible blood power. In LA they're just another might-have-been that never makes it.

Jarkko's 'conventional troops' comment is hilarious, because their conventional troops just die against most opponents. Heck, they have trouble expanding vs. typical LA indies with a lot of their troop line-up. And that's before you even consider the pitifully weak MR. And as if your troops being individually worse than most of the opposition you'll face wasn't bad enough, you're also perpetually outnumbered because you pay so much in resources for the privilege of hiring crappy troops. LA Ulm is one of the easiest nations to rush in the game, bar none. I'd class them as easier to rush than Machaka. (If they do survive, their longterm prospects are better... but they always get rushed).

I have played LA Ulm. It was a disappointing experience. Crossbows aren't very good when your line troops just disintegrate after 2-3 rounds of melee, and did almost no damage while there.

Would you like Wraithlord to also wax poetic about the utter suckitude of these nations, since he agreed with most of my list?

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

T3 with gold-hungry Agartha? I think you just lost any authority in this discussion.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

lol.u are just an idiot.
U are telling everyone agarthian troops are soo bad,why do you want the gold to produce them?
I mainly need gold for the oracles,which are cap only,and earth readers which are cheap.The rest is chaff,much needed,but just cannonfodder.10g11r 2 map move amphibian chaff.
Now,tell me,why do i need O3 here?
I got the idea from someone who won a big MP game here on the forum with EA Agartha,He took the line T3S2H3L3M1,death -1 AFAIK.
I read his AAr several months ago and tried that a lot in SP.
U take awake super Sc immortal pretender Risen oracle with something like S4E4D4 and v high dom.I took T3S2H3L3G0M1 though,dont like death scale.
I want gems for my v good national summons,not only Umbrals,but also Magma childs(to be backed by E4 or E5 mages) and Earth Elementals( v good for water fights).
How do i get many gems?
By taking turmoil+luck+magic combo.
Also you get some luck events most of the time to compensate for lack of gold at the start.
Try it before judging.

I stomb the AI in no time there,simply alone bc my Pretender stomps him.He is nearly unstoppable at around turn 5 already.
Mind you,thats dom2 style,where it was a lot more common to see strong starting pretenders.
I feel home there since i am a Dom2 vet,probably having a lot more MP victories under my belt there than you in DOm3.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

[quote=Squirrelloid;724703

And I hate your false familiarity and your assumption that I haven't tried these nations. If you make ridiculous claims, expect not to be taken seriously.

Now, clearly EA Rlyeh didn't know what he was doing since he brought lobo guards and mindblasters to a fist fight. I'd take indie tritons over both of those for that fight. Or Slave Trolls, who should mop the floor with both your earth elementals and your troops. Heck, as EA Rlyeh I'd be tempted to take Slave Trolls in general since they give you a way to project power onto land early.

Out of curiosity, what did his mages cast?

And EA Rlyeh often has dom 9-10 on a kraken, which in their case isn't a terrible idea since CBM 1.6 removed the need to have air on its pretender. A dom 10 kraken could have wiped your army *by itself*. Dom 10 similarly tends to imply no problems with dominion.

I have played EA Agartha, repeatedly, in SP, and its the only nation where the AI has given me a hard time. Even such crappy nations as Eriu and Machaka outperform them trivially against the AI. I have not had the opportunity to play them in MP, mostly because while I like playing underdogs they simply are not worth the pain.

As to your other 'points' - (1) There are other sea nations, both of whom are better suited to smashing you than Rlyeh is. EA Oceania is the dominant EA sea nation, and they run you over better than either Rlyeh or Atlantis. (2) Yes, Umbrals are good. They're the only thing Agartha has going for it. And standard UD counters apply. I was one of the people arguing for Umbrals to be returned to Conj 5 (from the Conj 7 they were in CBM 1.5) so that EA Agartha wasn't simply DOA.


[/QUOTE]

I was asking seriously if you do have any MP experience with these nations,which you havent;)
You know what,i suck with Sauromatia.
I still wont ever claim that they are bad,just bc their playing concept doesnt get into my mind in SP games.
He did have lots of tritons and troopers mixed in.
I was better in research,so i had advantage at start.That changed later on though and still didnt do anything.
Lol @ DOm 10 Kraken wiping me out.
I got a dozen smiters and moreso of frozenheart spammers,thats how i killed his pretender in the end anyways.Alteration synergized v well with my pretender build.
I agree though,that his pretender build(imprisoned void Lurker S8 and some other paths+low dom) was suboptimal.

To your points regarding my other points:

(1)as i already stated to Sombre,Oceania being better suited vs the Squids is debatable .Agartha,having lots of provinces on land normally,is practically immune to any serious counter attacks by the squids until quite some time.Whereas oceania is vulnerable to e.g. teleporting Mind lords quite early.
What i am saying is,basically a land nations with easy access to water has big advantage in a battle vs a water nation with vv tough access to land,after all,all mind blasters are aquatic,no?
In other words,u cant lose the war,just stalemate as worst case.

(2) at least we agree on Umbrals.
What about the magma childs and earth elementals?

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I have to agree with Squirrillord, about LA Ulm at least. Trying to design a pretender for them is like having a leaky roof with 10 holes and only having 3 buckets to catch it all.

I don't so much agree about the fountain being a bad choice. You mention the need for S4 for rings, but I think it is a bigger burden to get S4 on the pretender than it is to just empower an S2 Fortune teller, then give her a coin and a cap. They have an abundance of S2, S1E1 and E2 mages, so coins and caps shouldn't be a problem.

Also, considering the high resource to gold ratio for Ulm troops, you aren’t very gold hungry in the first couple turns. Blood hunting your capital to summon a Vampire on turn 3 isn't impossible/crippling in CBM. Maybe not super effective, but hunting your capital is not the end of the world.

@Mardagg

Keep in mind, the argument here is that these nations mentioned are weaker than others, not that they are garbage outright. Proving that some negatives are possible to overcome, or that a nation can compensate for a weakness doesn't prove that a nation isn't weaker than others. In either case, weak or not, providing a specific example of how a very particular build can be effective is evidence enough that the race is AT LEAST constrained in terms of variety.

On a side note, I think that it is ironic the way that post (#27) is started, and then subsequently composed.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

[quote=Squirrelloid;724703][quote=Mardagg;724690]For the record,i would like Wraithlord to also wax poetic about these nations.
Maybe thats someone,that actually is more openminded.

I dont need mobility since i indeed blood hunt my capital given the fact that i get plenty of 0 upkeep chaff troops to patrol it and i want my blood counts being summoned as early as possible.
After all,you got a pretty good allrounder as a summonable right from the start there without the need to research anything in blood for quite some time.
Do you see the synergy here?
I dont took S since u can get S3 with your S2B1 mages via random,its v advisable anyways to build a lot of these guys.
acces to crystal coin+starshine cap is easily.I agree though,that that is the weak spot.you may have to empower 1 S2 mage to S3 in order to repeately being able to forge the rings.
My build allows pretty decent scales with DOm 6.
I might go for O3P2G2L-1C3M1.
Luck -1 is ok imo due to fortune tellers.
As i stated,i consider the 0 enc Ghoul guardian which is insanely massable as ULm with Prod scale to be vv strong troops early-midgame.U counter all bless rushed with that and together with Rangers,they are v powerful with decent MR right from the start.+ they make great underwater units when lead by undead commander with Manual of Water breathing,since the enc penalty is ignored.
I repeat,i dont think ULM is weak in early game,just in early research.If you can come up with solutions here,Ulm is great.
How can u say that Ulm is easily rushable,when everyone knows that the ghould guardians counter most rush options?
I assume u never did build these guys.
Put in antimagic and/or tempering the will and they got v good MR,too.
U played it wrong.
Its that easy.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Good Point.
But there is one thing we all have to keep in mind:
Being difficult to play isnt the same as being hopelessy underpowered.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

On the subject of MA Ulm and Mackaka:

There is a reason I haven't arbitrarily upped the power of their national mages (or nerfed the magic levels of powerful nations mages). If anything is thematically defining about a nation it's the paths the mages have, so I am very reluctant to meddle with them.

Mackaka I don't think is nearly so bad off as people seem to think. As they stand I would say they are at probably better than Man, Eriu, MA Ulm or MA Agartha, and arguably better than Bandar Log or MA Marignon. Which is not to say I'm opposed to boosting them, I already made the hunter spiders much cheaper and upped the MR of the spider form, and improved PD is in the works.

MA Ulm is perhaps more legitamitly poor, but they are much harder to boost within the theme. In any case it's not like being forced to branch into blood was really a good solution to them being better either (it's also a bit hard to swallow that a nation without the native ability to forge any gem gens is made comparatively worse off by the change than those that could). I do think making the iron angel easier/cheaper to cast is an excellent idea.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

OK guys...I just wanted a list of EA weaker nations so I could post a list and you could pick from it for a game.

MY list included Ulm, Arco, Marverni, Argatha...after that I was relying on the forum.

Also, if you read the description, it was land nations only so any argument between Ryleh and Argatha is pointless in this thread (as much as I was enjoying it).

Thanks for the other nations mentioned and why, as I said I have not played CBM 1.6 much if at all, so I really didn't want to put in a nation that had been boosted and I was relying on old info.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I still believe both MA and LA Ulm troops should be boosted in the form of another enc taken off. Their melee troops are supposed to make you want production scales without any question and are supposed to be pretty much the best, highest tech troops in all of dom3. It's their whole thing - steel over magic. I don't think it goes against theme at all to just give them 1 less enc on all the heavies. This is a nation that lives in its armour.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

As far as actual EA land nations...Ulm, Arco, Marverni, Agartha, Abysia, Tir Na Nog, and after that it's less clear. Just pick a few from Yomi, C'tis, Ermor, and Kailasa.

Now to the off-topic part: Machaka's fine once Hunter Spiders get the 5 strength they're missing and get a buff to their PD.

Ulmish troops truly could use a lower Enc, though for MA I'm more concerned with Iron Angels being more or less impossible to get out with your base casters. That's even okay--just make it Research 7 and 15 gems if your pretender has to cast it, though. Because face it, Iron angels aren't as good as the Earth Royalty, and if they're on the same research level and you don't have enough gems for both...

Also, if Wolfherds are training and breeding wolves, shouldn't their summon allies be better than normal wolves?

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

LA Ulm is definitely not deserving as one of the ten weakest nations. Rangers + shields are already ye olde proven tactic of xbows + blockers. Zweihanders and ghoul guardians (the latter of which are very nice against pretenders) are pretty nice melee cleavers. You get very very underestimated mages especially recruit-able everywhere second tier astral2/blood 1 mages who doubles as spies!

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I shall jump on the LA-Ulm-isn't-underpowered bandwagon. A blood economy isn't that hard to start up: 3-4 Second Tiers and a nearby province and you'll be churning out enough slaves to summon a count or two in short order. Once the counts have been summoned, you then start relying on Blood-Random Fortune Tellers and Vampire Counts to boost the blood economy.

Early research is a problem, but it's a problem that doesn't last for too long. A major point of LA Ulm would be to put up castles ASAP. At 5RP for 170/5.67 gold, or 34/1.13 gold per Research point at Magic-1, Iron Priests are fairly cost effective researchers. While not the best, Ulm can certainly keep up in the research race beyond the first few months (where your mages will go directly into blood hunting), and certainly towards the midgame (with lightless lantern spam and/or skull mentors (if you really need it). At 4 gems a pop with their forge bonus, it's fairly cost-effective even without a dwarven hammer (which will simply reduce the gem cost by 1, and you need your earth gems for other things)).

I'd argue that Ulm is a fairly difficult nation to rush. No nation reliant on sacreds are going to go near Ulm, for the simple matter of ghoul guardians. I posted the test results in the CBM thread, but I think they clearly demonstrate ghoul guardians slaughtering dual-blessed sacreds. Elephants are easy to beat with Rats tails (+4 Animal Awe+Greater Fear on x2Attack+Const-2+N1), which are easily forgeable by Nature-Random Fortune Tellers. A Hochmeister with a Rat's Tail with one black templar bodyguard or two can rout many an elephant (not to mention elephants are expensive). If we compare Ulm's troops to Marignon's, they're nearly identical. The pikemen and halberdiers are the same in price and cost, and have identical stats except for HP and MR (+2 HP vs. +1 MR). Comparing Rangers to Crossbows, Rangers cost +3 gold, but has +2 Precision, Stealthy, Forest Survival, and are better in close combat then Crossbows. Men-at-Arms are +2 gold and -1 resources compared to Infantry of Ulm, and are better overall in close quarter combat, but Infantry perform better in their intended role, i.e. arrow catchers. The lower MR isn't really felt by Ulm during expansion and the early game. Who's going to mass units to exploit that weakness early on, mindblasting R'lyeh? They have the gold for that?:D When we move on into the mid-game, where nations will certainly start putting together MR reliant counters, you can easily put up Anti-magic and/or spam Tempering the Will with or without communions. Therefore, while the units aren't awesome, they certainly aren't crap.

While expanding can be a pain, there are actually several methods you can take beyond just the simple xbows+bows/shields technique. Certainly templars can be used as a quick and easy expansion methods against most indies, and Call Lesser Horror+retreat is also a viable expansion method (one that works similarly for, say, Bogarus), if you choose to go down that path. Expansion might not be as easy as, say, Mictlan and dual-blessed jags, but they can do it well enough. You just need to get creative, and find a good combination of the three.

Generally, I'd say it's a pretty good nation with a strong end-game (with Astral, Death, AND Blood). There can be minor tweaks made to it, for example lowering the cost of counts (this is something I suggest, although it may mean even larger armies of chaff for Ulm), encumberance, boosting the summon of wolfherders, etc., but honestly, it stands pretty well by itself. Stealthy communions and non-mindhuntable spies are underestimated, as well as kamikaze counts (hey, medallions of vengeance are only 4 fire gems. Why not?).

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

excellent post Tolkien:up:

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I should've probably also mentioned that crystal matrixes (easily forged by astral randomed priests) lets you boost and cast fire arrows, wind guide, and arrow fend, to add to your crossbow fire.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

You've gotten quite good at LA-Ulm Tolkien = ).

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

call lesser horror + retreat will sometimes work while at other times the horror would kill your mage. I didn't test this so I don't know the actual probability of that happening but it happened to me once so I know it can happen.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Yeah, if you plan on using horrors as a serious weapon in a battle, it's a good idea to spend some effort horror marking the enemy a little first.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Be careful about what the nation-restrictions do to the balance.
As an example, EA Agartha gets quite a boost if there are no aquatic nations in the game.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Even on an immortal or worthless unit, meds of vengeance aren't worth it. The actual explosion isn't particularly powerful. I think you'd get more value out of a fire drake or a different random fire item.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Concerning the enc issue of Ulm, how about making a national e3 or e4 spell that costs one or zero gems that copies the effects of relief, either as battlefield-wide or large aoe? It's 1+DRN-DRN reinvig iirc that can't go below 0. It would somewhat alleviate the high enc problem of the troops, and it would boost the mages slightly. Call it 'Revitalizing earth' or something, add it to around the same place as tempering the will (thau4) or one-two levels higher. Still this would not touch the national mages paths, which on MA are quite horrendous. Also, Iron angels being cheaper/easier to get would also fix quite a many problems.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I don't think it's likely to be added in CBM. qm doesn't like to add new content to dom3 and that would be a fairly substantial step in terms of theme, which is a concern. It is a nice idea though.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

The strength of Machaka was always in my opinion the strong mid-game. They struggle early on in the game, and they quite simply suck late in the game. If Machaka is to do good, to win if you so want to say, they have to steamroll the field in the midgame (after havng survived the early phases somehow).

The Machaka PD is a joke, even with the slight boost seen in CBM 1.6. Thus Machaka is very weak against an early rush (before you have been able to summon fire-drakes to bolster the frontline and crafted enough boosters for your mages to make a difference on the battlefield). Machakan PD is famous for rushing forwards and then be killed by their own missiles... Try it in SP if you want to see the hilariosity.

The midgame is where Machaka can shine. Flaming arrows (althjugh Flaming Arros is tougher to get to in CBM), firedrakes at front, spiders on flanks, evocations. Of course you need lots of firegems to succeed in all that. Firegems which are not available in CBM1.6 anymore.

Late game for Machaka does not exist. The game is over once the SC's enter the field. No endgame for Machaka in vanilla, not in earlier versions of CBM, and not in 1.6. The do or die time for Machaka is the mid-game, and in 1.6 there is no "do" left in that.

@Squirrel: If you honestly think LA Ulm rangers, ghoul guards and x-bowmen are not enough to take you through the early game, then you do need to learn to play the game called Dominions 3 :)

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

Yeah,the PD is hilarious bad.
That should and probably will be adressed in future CBM upgrades,QM already said this.
In general,i dont mind certain nations being bad at Early game and/or Midgame and/or Late game.Part of the way and style the nation is intended to play.
Adds diversity.
If you prefer having a strong endgame ,just take a nation that got it.
I for my part like playig "fast" nations from time to time, with a bad endgame,thus being forced to get a significant advantage early on.
A bad late game sure is not advisable on huge maps,other than that u just cant turtle,which is good imo,it adds more action.
If i compare my current MP games with my history of games on Dom2,where a lot of nations were considered to have very bad Late and/or early game btw,simply too much turtling and racing for research is going on these days.If you want to turtle take a nation with good endgame,if you want to be ruthless take those giants,rushing your neigbours.

Concerning Machaka,i still do have a different opinion.
It looks to me,that those Hunter spider sacreds are now very much affordable.They make sick good,and i mean really sick good, expansion parties for the early game.In my last SP game tests,i was able to field 3-5 expansion parties by the end of year 1,taking 0 losses most of the time.4-6 spiders and only some archers are steamrolling most indies.Map move 2 and forest survival adds a lot of flexibilty there ,too.Of course,you have to take a pretty good bless for this,which is easily affordable with Machaka though,thanks to Heat 3.
I also think that keeping the spider after losing the rider shouldnt be underestimated in power,especially with a low to medium Nature bless.

If you dont take a good bless,you probably are forced to take an awake SC pretender to help with expansion,thats right.
But if i want to play Machaka,i want to play it aggressive,that fits for the theme.
Mid game is pretty good,like you said.Those Fire and Nature mages are perfect for fire drake spamming.
Late game is not the best,but at least you got early access to death and nature.Actually machaka can have a very good nature gem income pretty fast.That looks to me like a shot for GoH and Tartarians.
If you manage to get very mighty in the early and midgame,but werent able to win,you should have a decisive gem advantage at least to keep the GoH up,i would think.
Additionally,it sure comes down on having some kind of astral access.
Astral is heavily nerved bc of no gem gens,everyone is in need of those pearls.
Thats why its probably enough,if you got only some shamans arcane probing with alchemized fire gems as early as possible,so that you can at least forge some items at the end game.
Some earth sites also offer pretty good astral mages.

Needs to be tested,for sure.I will soon start a MP game playing Machaka,i am pretty curious.
They have been my favorite nation,besides Abysia,in Dom2 and even back there,Machaka was considered to be pretty weak(where i considered them pretty strong actually).

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

I'm in the midst of a CBM 1.6 game playing as Machaka, and they are in no way weak. Early on the hunter spiders are amazing. 4-5 of them can take most indies without losses, no bless required. Mid game is strong as you said. With the nerf to astral magic, in the late game your nature and death magic keep you competitive.

Re: Nations under CBM 1.6
 

"If you prefer having a strong endgame ,just take a nation that got it."
Or don't play RAND games :p

"It looks to me,that those Hunter spider sacreds are now very much affordable.They make sick good,and i mean really sick good, expansion parties for the early game"
Did you read Baalz Machaka guide?- He presents a different approach and is quite convincing at that.