Quote:
johan osterman said:
Who said that Ulm opposes evocations ?
|
Ulm has a small number of small(tightly packed) and expensive units. This means that an area spell covers much larger percentage of their army than it would be the case for another nation(relying on higher number of units). This is further amplified that Ulm infantry moves very slowly on the battlefield. So not only enemy mages get more out of their area spells, but are also able to cast more of them before both armies clash.
Small number of units also makes them more vulnerable to single target spells.
Bottom line: Ulm would be vulnerable to magic even without explicit -1 to MR. I think the penalty is just an overkill.
-------------
There's something wrong about EA Ulm. Nowhere does it say (Not even unit descriptions !) that EA Ulm fears magic. In fact, EA Ulm is affected by Drain ! EA Ulm has quite high magic and lots of randoms, even on smiths. Lots of variety. And... 8 MR ? Why ? In EA Ulm, mages seem to be easily accepted part of the society. If anything, MA Ulm should have lower MR than EA Ulm, because they've lost lots of their magic, Drain is coming, etc.
--------
Ulm progression through eras is really strange. I think MA Ulm -> LA Ulm is ok from thematic point of view. But if I was new to Dom3, my guess would be that Transylwania Ulm belongs in MA and Tin Can Ulm is from LA. LA Ulm has more magic, light and medium infantry, as well as heavies. But ok...
Now look at EA Ulm -> MA Ulm. Almost no sense of connection except for smithing discount ! Very different tactics (ambushes), magic, military, even weapons used. It would be hard to guess they're ancestors of MA Ulm. 1 Era later, Ulm is radically transformed AND already abandoning the "old ways" of "no magic" ? Master smiths already falling out of grace and Black Priests quite prominent ? I think MA Black Order looks stronger than the one from LA.
---
Endoperez:
Battleaxes might be a little better in some cases (and certainly better against elephants) but the difference is quite marginal. 6% you say ? About 1/20 . If you choose cheaper mauls over battleaxes, 2 resource less per soldier means you get 13 maulers per 12 battleaxes. Also quite marginal. My main point is, it's too redundant and it would be much more interesting to have entriely different weapon in its place. MA Ulm is interesting because they don't use any swords...how about a kopesh ? ;-)
What's really bad about hammer infantry is that, to my knowledge, they are affected by the same parry laws as everyone else. Infantry in very heavy armour AND with heavy shields shouldn't be so afraid of enemies with longer weapons. They have biiig shields to parry and unusually heavy armour. Yes, I know blck plates have +1 morale now(and it helps against longer weapons) but LOTS of units of other nations have morale this high or even higher, so it hardly matters.
By the way: If I remember correctly, either JK or KO said that morningstars work a bit different in Dom3. Instead of "piercing" shields, they substract 4 from shield defense, or something. But I was mainly offended by hammer infantry. Hammer infantry tires quickly, deals low damage, and costs a LOT.