Questions and Comments About the Improved MA Ulm

[CUnknown]

Sombre said:
Players who don't use arbalests much, particularly when it comes to expansion, would obviously benefit from them being swapped for shortbow archers.

Sure, but it's just as obvious to say that players who don't recruit Vans as Vanheim would benefit by having them swapped for militia.

Sombre said:

You wish the opposite of what?

I mean, I would rather arbelests do more damage (say, 20 ap) and have a still reduced rate of fire (say once every 4 turns). At that point, they would mow down thugs and SCs with ease, and these are the units that most people say Ulm has difficulty dealing with.

Sombre said:
Are you suggesting I'm saying arbalests would be better if they did less damage?

I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood your position. But.. isn't this what you're saying? You are touting indy shortbows, which are missile weapons that do less damage. It seems as if you prefer these sorts of weapons over the larger, slower firing ones. I personally think that indy shortbows border on uselessness at times, even in the early game.

Your attempt to put words in my mouth is transparent and rude.

I apoligize if I was putting words in your mouth, I didn't mean to.. it just seemed like that's what you were arguing to me.

People are saying "indy shortbows are better for expansion than arbelests", but I don't generally make arbelests to help with expansion. I make them from turn 1, but I am mostly doing that just to get them experience stars, for use later on. I suppose I'm not as concerned about rate of expansion as some other people.

It's certainly not always true that faster expansion = better expansion. Okay, now I'm the one switching to counter-intuitive arguments.

I'll grant that indy shortbows may give faster expansion potential than arbelests. But, I still submit that arbelests are a far better choice in the early game. Shortbows will give you provices, but then I'd like to have them all jump off a bridge, unless I have access to flaming arrows, anyway. They are not worth their upkeep cost past maybe turn 10.

Arbelests will nearly always give you bang for you buck, unless the spell Storm is in play.

[Sombre]

I'm convinced, you gotta be the same guy from the thread before.

[Cor2]

I like arbalests. I like having variety, even if they are not competetive with crossbowmen. I find them to be rather effective when massed. If they need a buff I suggest making them AN or upping the damage. The ROF is thematic and good so should not be tweeked.

If you read thier Wiki description sounds like they should be AN, as they often killed heavily armored knights in one shot.

[CUnknown]

Yeah, I think I am the same guy.

Cor2 - a slight buff sounds great, for example, I am always confused when I remember that arbelests only get +1 precision whereas crossbows get +2. Arbelests should get +2. And maybe make them 10 AN, or 15 AP, too, if people are convinced they are underpowered.

[Dedas]

Arbalests are great counter archers. But I rather use shortbows up close against light infantry (who are supposed to tire your heavy infantry).

[elbnar]

I like the sapper crossbowmen a lot. They are a bit overpriced, but they fire faster, do a lot less damage to your own guys, and have mapspeed 2... good if you are making a rapid-response defense squad.