The MA Ulm issue.

[Lord_Bob]

What makes MA Argatha great in late game?

Darkvision? Marble Golems?

[RamsHead]

I'm guessing Umbrals.

[Velusion]

Lord_Bob said:
What makes MA Argatha great in late game?

Darkvision? Marble Golems?

"Great" is maybe an exaggeration. Let's stick with good.

Darkvision is nice (especially if Utterdark goes up). You also have:

Decent/good magic varity
Excellent Umbrals
Decent/good national summonable sacreds units
Mages that can take a lot of damage

If (and thats a big if) they manage to make it to the late game I'd say they are probably in as better position than most other equivalent sized MA nations.

However they do suck pretty badly in the early game - which is why don't see em win much.

[Meglobob]

I think Velusion and Dr P. have been influenced by how well MA Agartha has done in the mega game, Perpetuality, which has been surprising. Congratulations to atul who has been playing MA Agartha. Perhaps he will share his thoughts on how he has managed to do so well?

MA Agartha is still very weak in the early game however.

[atul]

Heh, thanks for congrats, Meglobob.

Perpetuality's just one game, and I've been thus far exceptionally lucky with my neighbours - up until attacking Man&C'tis I've been up against people who've had also their own neighbours to worry about.

At least one thing I've learnt to respect with MA Agartha are the Pale Ones. Abysmal troops - until you cast Darkness. After that, they're the tin can opener that destroys any walls in an instant and actually manages to be useful in a big fight, too.

I agree with Velusion's assesment. Umbrals are good, but they suffer from being 1) on different research path than national statues and 2) requiring Cap-only move 1 mage to summon. But, they're great. My current favorite's GoRed one with Black Heart.

Ancient Oracles are as great as earth mages come, Marble Oracles make surprisingly strong thugs as they're immune to Charm and fear, with actual magic variety you need indies as you get only level 1 on FWD on your mages, barring the 10% on capital-onlys.

But, early game sucked. I paid thousand gold and more in bribes to be left alone, but I guess it was worth it. Having immortal hp100+ pretender might have helped, weak nation suddenly seems a lot less weak when it has a recurring thug of its own.

[Sombre]

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.

[Valandil]

The best missile weapon in the game? Gaze of death! Enslave mind! Theft of Reason! you name it...

I think he meant something like ...'best mundane bow' or something. Even poison bow might be better.

[CUnknown]

Yeah, I was talking about 'best mundane bow'.. although Sauromatia's poison bows may in fact be better, I forgot about them.

Where have you 'shown' that arbalests deal the most damage per combat round of any missile weapon?

I did earlier on in the thread:

Weapon -- DPR (Prot 10) -- DPR (Prot 12) -- DPR (Prot 16)

Shortbow -- 0 -- 0 -- 0
Longbow -- 3 -- 1 -- 0
Crossbow -- 2.5 -- 2 -- 1
Arbelest -- 3 -- 2.67 -- 2

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.

Shields are irrelevant in this dicussion because they affect crossbows and arbelests equally. It doesn't matter that "they have more chances to get through the shield" since that when arbelests -do- get through, they do more than enough damage to make up for not getting through last time. Just look at the damage numbers.

Fire arrows is a different matter, when that spell is cast, the DPR changes:

Weapon -- DPR (Prot 10) -- DPR (Prot 12) -- DPR (Prot 16)

Shortbow -- 3 -- 2 -- 0
Longbow -- 6 -- 3 -- 0
Crossbow -- 4 -- 3 -- 1
Arbelest -- 4 -- 3.33 -- 2

In this case, you can't really tell which one is better.. Longbows are definitely the best against anything lower than 12 protection with fire arrows up, but arbelests still do pretty good, and are still the best against higher protections. But, admittedly, the lead has shrunk a lot, since even a shortbow has a good chance of damaging a 16 prot guy if it's flaming.

Without flame arrows, arbelests are just better. Now, there may be some issues with the first volley missing due to range (although arbelests have a nice range and precision stat), and that is more a problem with unit placement before the battle than with the arbelest itself anyway.

Here are the total damage numbers with the first volley completely missing (no flame arrows), through 5 combat rounds:

Damage x5 rounds (first missing): (Prot 10) -- (Prot 12) -- (Prot 16)

Shortbow -- 0 -- 0 -- 0
Longbow -- 12 -- 4 -- 0
Crossbow -- 10 -- 8 -- 2
Arbelest -- 9 -- 8 -- 6

This is a little more debatable, since the longbow has a nice edge against 10 protection or below. Also, the arbelest doesn't do any damage whatsoever until the 4th round.. but still, on the 4th round the arbelest catches up in a big way against anything over 12 protection.

I guess the take home lesson is to not put your arbelests in the far back, because they might miss the first round, and then they're much closer in power to the other mundane bows.

[Tuidjy]

> 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...

[KissBlade]

I should probably backup why I view MA Argatha and MA TC as "weaker" than MA Ulm. Assuming all equal player skills, MA Ulm doesn't share several notable problems with MA Argatha/MA TC. MA Ulm can effectively research only evocation to help with its military. You can branch off into construction for diplomacy but for the most part, they have a very straight forward approach when it comes to preparing for war. Its early game, while not spectacular due to the lack of archers, is decent since most of its troops match well against indies in MA. (Xbows/Cavs/Knights are rare in MA) You get a decent amount of free points from Drain to spend on your pretender and you don't need to make him a thug right off the bat since thugs are often used to help with fast exp/harrassment. Also smiths (if I recall) can take an arrow better than most mages. This lets you shuffle them closer to the front lines which is important to help aiming spells.

MA Argatha does have strengths in umbrals and golems but as you've already mentioned they're in seperate skill trees. Worse Umbrals require death gems and you don't start with any of them in generation not to mention your only death gem searcher has d1 AND costs 400g's. Very hefty and deftly not something that lets you flow in death gems early game. Statues are great but slow to acquire. Thus your initial few turns generally will feel very clunky especially due to the subpar attack/precision on your troops. This means in most games, you feel the heat pretty early on as the first few turns are often the land grab turns and you'll be left behind if you don't invest in an awakened pretender. Which is even less points for you to have especially since you are mostly likely going with magic 3 to get your summons up asap. I'm not arguing against what results you may have encountered, I'm simply stating my view of the situation. I have seen MA Argatha do decent and I have seen them flop. But the same I could say for MA Ulm.

MA TC is already realized by many to be problematic so I won't go too indepth with it. While they may look magically diverse, they are actually not very. Their path synergies to almost nothing useful at all especially since their best capital only mages are easily astral dueled away AND often the main things you're hoping for is the A3 thunderstrikers which are pretty damn rare. Summon wise, they are also pretty poor since they lack death magic and only possess minimum nature magic. They can craft nice items with their skill tree, which is decent since you're going to need a SC chassis with them. Sadly enough, MA TC's main strat is consort spamming and that simply doesn't suffice for the mid => late game scenarios where call of the wind is cheap and easy.