|
|
|
 |

June 25th, 2012, 03:54 PM
|
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,046
Thanks: 83
Thanked 215 Times in 77 Posts
|
|
Re: YARG3, non newb MA+ENP2 RAND game. Executor's Ulm winner on turn 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by Executor
Valerius, apart from the Forge, which I think is the biggest problem, I also would blessing of steel too powerful. A handful of flail infantry had no problem dealing with indea 9 from the start under blessings of steel. Having a 24 protection troop is too much from start I think.
That small amount of diversity with smiths (20% A/S/F) is huge too. Not that I'd suggest removing it, it just opens up a load of new options. New forging possibilities and communions mostly (either with s smiths or trough matrixes).
In any case I'd say Ulm is one of the best MA nation, if not all era nations.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calahan
Yeah, the Blessing of Iron spell is another misjudged addition IMO. Any new spell that adds battlefield wide buffs has to be added with /extreme/ caution due to the huge force multiplying effect it can instantly have. But to add such spells from turn 1 is just a balance breakingly bad idea IMO. At least make these spell require some fecking reaserch if they are staying (and I hope they're not personally, as adding national battlefield wide buff spells is not a good way to go for any nation), and cost some gems to cast (such as Kailasa's national Quickness spell).
|
Along the lines of having spells available from turn 1 what about the "Iron Fears Not x" elemental resistance spells? Having them available from turn 1 seems too much. It's a bit like awe on Ri/Tuatha - later in the game this wouldn't be a problem but from turn 1...
I agree that the better magic diversity is a big deal but worth keeping.
It's also occurred to me that because of the way forging costs round Ulm comes out ahead with the removal of hammers when it comes to inexpensive items because their forging costs don't go up by as much as other nations. For instance, without hammers 5 gem items increase by 1 gem for Ulm but 2 gems for non-forge bonus nations, which is a relative advantage for Ulm.
Btw, Exec, how much did you use Iron Angels?
I think this is a very useful game to provide feedback on 1.92 changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Executor
I'd kinda like an underdog nation in the next game.
|
Cripple RAND! Only, one of the successes of CBM is I don't know how many obviously weak nations there are anymore (not that all of the Cripple Fight eligible nations were weak to begin with).
|

June 25th, 2012, 04:06 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 3,465
Thanks: 511
Thanked 162 Times in 86 Posts
|
|
Re: YARG3, non newb MA+ENP2 RAND game. Executor's Ulm winner on turn 76
"Turn 68 - I capture the Eriu cap and a huge force of yours arrives in 156 (the prov next to Eriu cap), made up of mainly the large force that captured 169. I am then forced to converge a large force on the Eriu cap to hold the walls in case you attack. (I was seriously thinking of attacking Ulm this turn while Shiny still had some life left, but this made me forget all about that)
"
 what a sad misunderstanding. I had 0 intention of taking anything from you. Not w/ Ulm easily getting away w/ the game. How stupid and short sighted would such a move be???
All I wanted from early on is attack Ulm. I was happy I finished conquering two nation by turn 40+ and were it not to Eriu attacking me I'd have attacked Ulm.
Now, for sure w/o help Van would have perished but I gathered that any sensible player would join against Ulm.
|

June 25th, 2012, 04:16 PM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco, nr Wales
Posts: 1,539
Thanks: 226
Thanked 296 Times in 136 Posts
|
|
Re: YARG3, non newb MA+ENP2 RAND game. Executor's Ulm winner on turn 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithLord
"Turn 68 - I capture the Eriu cap and a huge force of yours arrives in 156 (the prov next to Eriu cap), made up of mainly the large force that captured 169. I am then forced to converge a large force on the Eriu cap to hold the walls in case you attack. (I was seriously thinking of attacking Ulm this turn while Shiny still had some life left, but this made me forget all about that)
"
 what a sad misunderstanding. I had 0 intention of taking anything from you. Not w/ Ulm easily getting away w/ the game. How stupid and short sighted would such a move be???
All I wanted from early on is attack Ulm. I was happy I finished conquering two nation by turn 40+ and were it not to Eriu attacking me I'd have attacked Ulm.
Now, for sure w/o help Van would have perished but I gathered that any sensible player would join against Ulm.
|
Yeah, I was 90% sure you had no intention of attacking me. But because I had very little game history to go on, I wasn't 100% comfortable with taking the risk of ignoring you. Plus a huge factor was that I could see no other reason for those troops moving from 169-156, since the only purpose I could deduce of you putting a large force in 156 was to give you attack options against the Eriu cap. I think if you had moved those troops to anywhere else I wouldn't have thought twice about it, but that province at that time was only neighboured by all of your provs and my Eriu cap (and one other insignificant prov of mine).
So there was literally no other purpose for those troops being there I could see, and moving in a "towards me and away from Ulm" direction, other than having eyes on the Eriu cap. Perhaps another great example of how even one misjudged troop signal can have a real unwanted impact on another player.
|

June 25th, 2012, 04:38 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 3,465
Thanks: 511
Thanked 162 Times in 86 Posts
|
|
Re: YARG3, non newb MA+ENP2 RAND game. Executor's Ulm winner on turn 76
There's a lesson to be learned here for me. In RAND games be careful even w/ how, where and when your armies move.
I still haven't heard any explanation from Curious Yellow as to why he attacked me. I'm really curious to know what was his rational.
In first YARG a player subbed for just a turn or two and then he (the sub) attacked me thus starting a war. When the original player took over (two turns later IIRC) the war was already raging and he had no idea, until the game ended, of what the sub did. This episode was also game changing since we both controlled strong nations that could have made a big difference talk about 
|

June 25th, 2012, 05:29 PM
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco, nr Wales
Posts: 1,539
Thanks: 226
Thanked 296 Times in 136 Posts
|
|
Re: YARG3, non newb MA+ENP2 RAND game. Executor's Ulm winner on turn 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithLord
In first YARG a player subbed for just a turn or two and then he (the sub) attacked me thus starting a war. When the original player took over (two turns later IIRC) the war was already raging and he had no idea, until the game ended, of what the sub did. This episode was also game changing since we both controlled strong nations that could have made a big difference talk about 
|
I've got a curious sub story from YARG 1 as well. Utgard and Pan were whacking crap out of each other over the Aby cap, so with Utgard as a neighbour I took that chance to improve my fortunes with an attack on Caelum. But then Ano (Pan) subbed out, and then all of a sudden the Utgard-Pan war completely stopped in an instant, which left Utgard with a free shot on my fully occupied hands. Not sure how that war stopped, but doubt it would have without the sub handover.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|