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.
|
Threaded Mode