Dud nations

HoneyBadger · #1 April 21st, 2007, 11:50 PM

I wouldn't by any means call EA Oceania weak. They have the single *best* sacred troop in the whole game, and Triton Kings with 4 water right off the bat.

Run well, they should be the Helheim of the ocean.

If they were amphibious, they'd be the best nation in the game, in my opinion.

R'lyeh Aboleths is easily the weakest of the bunch.

EA Atlantis could really use more national summons-especially weird, squishy/flappy ones, to go along with that whole Lovecraft jones-overall, though, I'd say they're the most balanced water nation.

DrPraetorious · #2 April 22nd, 2007, 12:32 AM

I tend to agree about ME Agartha.

I should note that ME Agartha does *not* get skull mentors. Those guys have a whopping 2.5% chance of DD, and they're capital only.

This also means that, unlike every other era of Agartha, you can't cast darkness, which is your killer ap. This isn't to say that ME Agartha doesn't have some strengths. Those statues really are quite excellent.

Ulm may be slightly underpowered (Master Smiths should probably have 100% on that random), but not hugely so.

EA Ulm gets superior troops and doesn't pay more gold for them. They're also only resource heavy if you want them to be. They max out at 2 in most paths, but they get every element, nature and death.

EA Arco is not weak - it is *difficult*. It can produce more research than any other nation, and it has a great variety of magic (every element, astral, nature) incl. the ability to form communions. Your military kinda bites but not so badly that it can't be salvaged.

EA Marverni, on the other hand, has an utterly dreadful military, and no research bonus. That's a weak nation. If they had philosophers they'd be fine, but they don't - which means they're stuck with magic that-will-eventually-be-great but you-won't-survive-to-use-it. I've never seen Marverni survive the initial rush of wars. Possibly this is just because experienced players avoid playing it.

The other nations that could use some help are ME T'ien Ch'i and Bandar Log. ME T'ien Ch'i isn't terrible, but it gets none of the cool stuff available to the other eras of T'ien Ch'i. Bandar Log has the same problem as Marverni, although at least you get elephants.

Shinuyama is also kinda weak. You can do darkvision+darkness, which is cool, but all of your stuff is just overpriced.

Xietor · #3 April 22nd, 2007, 01:07 AM

My issue with ME Ulm is more thematic. They are not the best race or even in the top 5, of sword and steel. that is their theme, but put one of ulms infantry up against one from arcos and they suck. Ulm's infantry should be the best, best armor, best morale, best overall, and it is not close.

Even Pangaea's infantry, not counting the recuperation, is much better. While not quite as much prot(16 is still good),
it has more hp and much much higher defense, mr, and more hps as well.

So my beef is that every race should fear Ulm's infantry, but in reality whose does? Very few.

Sombre · #4 April 22nd, 2007, 01:30 AM

I don't really agree that the theme of Ulm ME is supposed to be ultra elite soldiers. They're an armour nation and they have some scary knights but nothing in the infantry descriptions makes me think anything other than standard feudal man-at-arms infantry. You compare them with Sparta, but I just don't see anything like that in the descriptions.

HoneyBadger · #5 April 22nd, 2007, 01:48 AM

Well, I don't have a problem with them not being Spartans, but I'd like to ask the question-provided they're not, then what *are* they? They started out Cimmerians, ended up Carpathians, what's in the middle? What qualities make them a distinct nation, rather than just a placeholder?

Sombre · #6 April 22nd, 2007, 01:58 AM

Super-heavy armour nation of smiths. Based on germanic european culture.

Not all the nations in Dom3 have to exactly match up with a mythology or historical period.

Gandalf Parker · #7 April 22nd, 2007, 02:06 AM

Is this supposed to be duds for multiplaying on blitz maps (small maps, few players)? I dont think you can expect agreements unless you set the parameters. Duds for MP blitz are very different than duds for RPG or for large maps or for alliances.

HoneyBadger · #8 April 22nd, 2007, 02:08 AM

No, they don't have to "match" anything, but that's not what I meant.

If they *are* a "super-heavy armour nation of smiths", what does that translate into? What does it mean? Can they make iron constructs? are they mounted knights? Are they all Elrics armed with Stormbringers? Do they capture or employ Jotuns, cover them with beetle-armour and force them to fight?

Why should I want to play them over something else?

My point is that apparently they aren't very distinct or interesting, if they can't be said to *be* something beyond a description of their clothing and employment.

Such things might "make a man" but they don't make a national character.

So, who are they?

Edi · #9 April 22nd, 2007, 02:26 AM

For an indepth analysis of EA Ulm units, see this thread.

I do not consider EA Ulm weak. It has some problem with its magics, namely low levels but good versatility. It has good units as long as you only use the female units and archers and possibly the iron and steel warriors.

Marverni could conceivably be a good nation to play, but it requires production scales to be able to pump out the good units. Ambibate Noble Warrior is one of the best EA infantry units. If you also have a F9 bless, the boar warriors provide with quite the shock potential early on.

I must say that I have not played very many nations at all, though I have a fair idea of strengths and weaknesses due to my familiarity with the units from making the DB.

I will also note that if some nation does not suit a particular player's play style, chances are that the player will suck with even a strong nation compared to something that does suit him.

Gandalf Parker · #10 April 22nd, 2007, 02:35 AM

EA Ulm has 6 stealth units and 4 non-stealth. And 3 stealth leaders with 1 non-stealth. Heavy on forest and mountain skills w/ defense against cold. That all seems built heavily into the theme. I suspect that discussing its pros and cons while ignoring that is going to miss the point.

If all nations are going to be compared on the basis of army-to-army open warfare then you will be able to seperate nations into great or duds but I dont think the comparison will mean much to the game in general.