Conceptual Balance Mod v1.92

[Amhazair]

Originally Posted by Bat/man

Is Ulm's encumbrance in heavy plate 2?

No. Ulm's encumberance naked is two. To that they add whatever encumberance their equipment gives.

Originally Posted by Bat/man

Is Mictlan's encumbrance in furs 3?

Yes. (if you mean the two very specific sacreds who wear furs, since their regular warriors don't.)

Originally Posted by Bat/man

Does this make sense to anyone?

I agree it wouldn't make sense if it was true. Luckily, it isn't.



Now, because I'm a kind person I'll expand a bit and also address the issue you were trying to point out with that false argument:

Partly for balance reasons*, partly bacause of "thematic reasons"** the base encumberance for Ulmish units was decreased from 3 (standard for most humans) to two. On top of that MA Ulm's heavy armors were also reduced in encumberance, as Ulm's armorsmiths were supposed to be some of the best ever. (Again balance and theme go hand in hand here.) This does mean that MA Ulm heavy infantry has 4 encumberance, (or 5 with shield.) which is indeed very good for heavy infantry. Did those two changes at the same time overdo things? I don't know. I haven't played Ulm (with or against) since. If you think it's unbalanced make an arguement as to why, preferably with a concrete ingame excample, and I'm sure Llama will look at it.

*Ulm's heavy infantry was really poor, and in fact easier to kill them in regular melee engagements than more lightly armored troops & the heavy infantry of many other nations, this while their heavy infantry was supposed to be their strength.

** From EA Ulm's Barbarians, to MA/LA professional soldiers and LA forresters all mention or at least imply great strength and endurance, so giving them 1 point less endurance (again, naked) than the average human seemed to make sense.