.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Air Assault Task Force- Save $8.00
Bronze- Save $10.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Illwinter Game Design > Dominions 3: The Awakening

View Poll Results: Do you think that MA Ulm is underpowered?
Yes 52 85.25%
No 9 14.75%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 02:09 PM
Arralen's Avatar

Arralen Arralen is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 500km from Ulm
Posts: 2,279
Thanks: 9
Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts
Arralen is on a distinguished road
Default 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
__________________
As for AI the most effective work around to this problem so far is to simply use an American instead, they tend to put up a bit more of a fight than your average Artificial Idiot.
... James McGuigan on rec.games.computer.stars somewhen back in 1998 ...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 02:17 PM
Meglobob's Avatar

Meglobob Meglobob is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,198
Thanks: 90
Thanked 32 Times in 22 Posts
Meglobob is on a distinguished road
Default Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm

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

[Dom3 MOD : MA Ulm] Black Steel of 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 02:29 PM
Meglobob's Avatar

Meglobob Meglobob is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,198
Thanks: 90
Thanked 32 Times in 22 Posts
Meglobob is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 02:58 PM

CelestialGoblyn CelestialGoblyn is offline
Corporal
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 167
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
CelestialGoblyn is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 03:28 PM
Velusion's Avatar

Velusion Velusion is offline
Colonel
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,712
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Velusion is on a distinguished road
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 04:22 PM

CUnknown CUnknown is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 947
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
CUnknown is on a distinguished road
Default Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm

Sombre said:

Quote:
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 05:25 PM

Frostmourne27 Frostmourne27 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 299
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Frostmourne27 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm

Quote:
CUnknown 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.
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.
__________________
Qui tacet consentit
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 07:36 PM

Sombre Sombre is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,463
Thanks: 165
Thanked 324 Times in 190 Posts
Sombre is on a distinguished road
Default Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm

CUnknown: It is entirely debatable. Where have you 'shown' that arbalests deal the most damage per combat round of any missile weapon? I'm talking about tests here, not simply saying "look at their damage stat". Several people have noted that the arbalests fire first at extreme range and usually don't do much, then sit around reloading for two turns. Their second volley obviously does a lot better, but by the time they reach their third and fourth volleys crossbows, longbows and composites have put out a whole lot more fire. And yes, generally I believe crossbows are better, because I find the combination of firing more often and still having good AP damage (useful vs mid level prot) more worthwhile than being able to hurt the high prot guys who usually have shields.

It's worth noting that if we ignore body/head prot and just talk about shields, a parry is a parry and ignores the strength of the missile attack (I have tested and confirmed this - shield prot isn't factored in). Arbalests are no better than crossbows if the stumbling block is shielded enemies - indeed they are worse, as they produce less chances to get by the shield.

If they fired at the same speed as crossbows and cost the same amount of resources (the weapons themselves cost 4 as opposed to 3) but had better damage and range, you could say there can be no debate that they are better than crossbows. But that isn't the case. To my mind it's obvious arbalests and crossbows and longbows are all for different things - you can't say that Arbalests are simply the best and there can be no argument, because in so many cases (using fire arrows, against effective shields, against mid or lower prot, against enemies that will reach you before the second volley etc) they are not.

Ignoring all other factors, such as the resource and gold cost of the unit carrying the weapon - I would take crossbows over arbalests. They put out more fire (important for fire arrows, vs mid/low prot, vs shields) and still have the AP to do what I need (kill and injure non uber prot units). Note I'm not saying there can be no argument that Arbalests are better. There can. It will have to point out why the instances where they are better (vs high prot, high hp etc) are more important than the instances where crossbows are better. Actually since you said they're the best ranged weapon, no argument possible, you'll have to compare them with longbows, javs, throwing axes, mind burn etc etc.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 10:19 PM
Tuidjy's Avatar

Tuidjy Tuidjy is offline
Major
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: La La Land (California, USA)
Posts: 1,244
Thanks: 0
Thanked 30 Times in 11 Posts
Tuidjy is on a distinguished road
Default Petar\'s \"Range Weapons\" flamebait

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

CUnknown, you are an arrogant prick, but that's not the problem - after all, so
am I. The problem is that you are wrong, and by touting your misconceptions, and
generating as much noise as everyone else together, you may deceive people into
thinking that the community is more divided on this subject than it actually is.

You have not shown [censored]. First of all, your numerical analysis is totally
worthless for every single reason under the sun. I cannot even accuse you of
being deliberately obtuse, because your bad assumptions swing both ways - some
lend power to your argument, some fail to address the arbalest's strengths.
No, you are simply ignorant. And you analysis sucks. I am repeating myself,
and typing slowly, because I know you do not get things right away.

First your analysis reduces everything to a worthless DPR value. According to
you the damage per round of a short bow firing at a protection 10 unit is 0.
When you cannot deal negative damage, and your average is 0, all your values are
zero. And all this time I have been building short bow archers...

Second your analysis shows that you have no understanding of how damage is
computed. You are grossly underestimating crossbows and arbalests. I'll
enlighten you, no worries. Read on.

Third, disregarding precision, range, rate of fire, presence of shields, and
army orders is lame. The assumption that your opponent's as bad as you are
is also unjustified.

And last, production capacity and marching speed does matter. The high resource
cost and low strategy movement devalues arbalests. Real players fight real
battles, and in real battles, you use only what you manage to bring to the field.

OK, I'm almost done with insulting CUnknown...

CUnknown, I once crushed your Ulm with the race you believed was weakest,
in 15 turns, without blessing or tramplers. I am ready to do it again,
with any Dominions II land race. If you intend to answer this post, please
do it by proving my math wrong, or by picking up my challenge. I'm tired
of non-substantiated nonsense.

Now, I'm done. The rest will be worth reading, I promise!

Lets remember how damage is computed. Once a hit has occured, both the damage
dealt and the armour value get two open ended dice added to them. The average
value for such a roll is 8.5 (I will not back up my math here. Anyone who doubts
it will have to bathe in my vitriol in a different post)

Thus when firing at a protection 10 unit, damage 10 short bows will fail to
do damage about half the time. 18.5 vs 18.5 - it's a wash. Now consider a
damage 10 crossbow. The average case is 18.5 armour-piercing (AP) damage versus
13.5 armour. Five points of damage are dealt when the rolls match.

Next I'll throw some numbers at you. I will consider five armour levels, and
examine how four different weapons affect them. I will be tracking kills,
no damage hits, and the average damage for all remaining hits.

Armour levels: 0 (none), 10 (light), 15 (heavy), 17 (elite), 20 (black plate)
Weapons: short bow, longbow, crossbow, arbalest
The targeted enemies are assumed to have 10 hit points.

First case: Unarmoured targets. Remember, we are tracking only hits

short bow (10) ---- Kills: 46.0% -- No damage: 6.7% --- Hits: 47.3%(6.79)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: 68.4% -- No damage: 3.2% --- Hits: 28.4%(7.09)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 46.0% -- No damage: 6.7% --- Hits: 47.3%(6.77)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 74.4% -- No damage: 2.5% --- Hits: 23.1%(7.12)

Once we adjust for rate of fire, it becomes clear that against unarmoured targets
arbalests are simply abysmal - about three times worse kill rate than longbows,
and nearly twice as bad as short bows.

Second case: Lightly armoured targets (armour 10)

short bow (10) ---- Kills: _5.2% -- No damage: 54.0% --- Hits:40.8%(4.07)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: 10.6% -- No damage: 31.6% --- Hits:57.8%(4.67)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 16.8% -- No damage: 20.7% --- Hits:62.5%(5.31)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 38.5% -- No damage: _8.4% --- Hits:53.1%(6.59)

After adjusting for rate of fire, the arbalest kill rate is slightly better
than that of the longbow. But if we combine the kills and hits that did damage,
the arbalest is twice as bad. And the latter is what determines whether most
enemies will break. Furthermore, when you have three times the hits, and the
average hit is 4-5 points of damage, the kills add up. Thus, longbows and
regular crossbows soundly beat the arbalest in this case.

Third case: Heavily armoured targets (armour 15)

short bow (10) ---- Kills: _1.5% Misses: 83.2% Hits: 15.2%(3.80)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _3.2% Misses: 68.4% Hits: 28.4%(3.93)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: 10.7% Misses: 31.6% Hits: 57.6%(4.17)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 25.6% Misses: 13.4% Hits: 61.0%(5.52)

Finally, the crossbows start to shine. Even adjusted for rate of fire, the
bows cannot compare. But the regular crossbow still has a much better combined
total for kills and hits than the arbalest.

Fourth case: Knights, elite infantry (armour 17)

short bow (10) ---- Kills: _0.9% No damage: 89.3% Hits: _9.8%(3.73)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _1.9% No damage: 79.2% Hits: 18.9%(3.85)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: _8.4% No damage: 38.5% Hits: 53.0%(3.92)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 20.7% No damage: 16.8% Hits: 62.6%(5.18)

After adjusting for rate of fire, the crossbow's combined total is still higher
than the arbalest's. The arbalest may be better in this case, as even when the
crossbow does wound, the damage is lowish, and even multiple hits will not result
in many kills. But it's close. 4.2% kills vs 6.9 and 26.5% wounds vs 20.9%.

Fifth case: Black plate of Ulm (armour 20)

short bow (10) ---- Kills: _0.4% Misses: 94.8% Hits: _4.8%(3.67)
longbow (13) ------ Kills: _0.9% Misses: 89.3% Hits: _9.8%(3.73)
crossbow (10AP) - Kills: _5.2% Misses: 54.0% Hits: 40.8%(4.08)
arbalest (14AP) --- Kills: 13.4% Misses: 25.6% Hits: 61.0%(4.98)

No argument here. The arbalest has no equal for shooting (in the back) those who
wear Umlish armour. The crossbows may inflict a few wounds, but only the
arbalest will get rid of those pesky Black Plate infantry.


So far we have established that even when we oversimplify the analysis, the
arbalest may be better than the crossbow only against armour 17 and higher.

But everything else plays against the arbalest.

Its higher range results in a badly aimed first salvo, and by the time they have
reloaded, the enemy is either in melee with other Ulmish troops, or engaging
the crossbowmen themselves.

The high resource costs mean that one cannot produce many arbalests in the first
few turns, and that gold gathers unused until more castles can be built. Once
those go up, the low strategic move prevents the crossbowmen from being where
they are needed.

When "Flaming Arrows" comes around, arbalests benefit the least from it, due to
their abysmal rate of fire.

And of course, if your opponent is worth anything, he will draw the enemy fire
with low resource troops with shields. Pythium and Ermor's Velites, Tien Chi's
footmen, Machaka's warriors, etc, etc, etc... all of these are cheap and are
best dispersed with a higher rate of fire which the arbalests lacks. The
arbalest's high damage is perfectly unnecessary here. Once again, its only
purpose is to kill friendlies.

And now, if any retard comes and tells me that the arbalests are the best ranged
weapons and that it's not subject to discussion...
__________________
No good deed goes unpunished...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old September 22nd, 2007, 05:40 PM

Lord_Bob Lord_Bob is offline
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 214
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Lord_Bob is on a distinguished road
Default Re: MA Agartha and MA Ulm

What makes MA Argatha great in late game?

Darkvision? Marble Golems?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.