Dud nations

HoneyBadger · #1 April 22nd, 2007, 02:08 AM

No, they don't have to "match" anything, but that's not what I meant.

If they *are* a "super-heavy armour nation of smiths", what does that translate into? What does it mean? Can they make iron constructs? are they mounted knights? Are they all Elrics armed with Stormbringers? Do they capture or employ Jotuns, cover them with beetle-armour and force them to fight?

Why should I want to play them over something else?

My point is that apparently they aren't very distinct or interesting, if they can't be said to *be* something beyond a description of their clothing and employment.

Such things might "make a man" but they don't make a national character.

So, who are they?

Sombre · #2 April 22nd, 2007, 02:35 AM

They /are/ a nation of smiths with super heavy armour. Have you actually ever played as them? No other nation has a selection of national troops like that. No other nation has forgebonus like that. So to answer your question, what does that translate into - it translates into MA Ulm. Plenty of people like their flavour. Maybe there's no accounting for taste. There's more to them than smiths and armour, it's just a general description, like EA Pangaea being 'the woodland halfmen'.

There are a few nations whose themes don't appeal to me in the slightest. To me they seem generic, uninteresting, cliched,... but I accept there are people who like them.

Xietor · #3 April 22nd, 2007, 02:38 AM

The description of Ulm as a race, says out of the ashes of Ermor they arose, and they disdain magic, and even priests, choosing to forge an empire on steel.

So they get crappy mages, crappy priests, poor mr, and then they do not even get the best units that rely on steel? Give me a break. And their units are resource hogs. maybe those great forgers of armor could make some lighter armor, just as strong, but less cumbersome so they can have better movement and defense.

maybe since they do not use preists(sermon of courage), they get superior training in steel, are more disciplined, and do not rout easily? But no, they have average morale.

True, they have good knights, but a nation with a few smiting priests make short work of them. Why should arcos get superior infantry to Ulm?

They have far superior priests, priests that heal afflictions no less, they have elephants, they have superior mages, access to broad magic, mind burn early on, and paralyze not far down the road. To top it off their infantry
is just grossly superior to ulm's in every way. they are not crippled with mr 9 either.

lol, and they even put ulms national spell to increase mr down a line it never uses and at 5th level no less. Cut ulm some small slack and stick it in construction(forge, makes sense you would research construction). And it is not like ulm can research well anyway with drain 3. Its own mages suck at research, and any indies you find suffer from drain 3.

And Ulm is not a race that should have to research. They rely on steel remember? They disdain magic and priests. Ok, that is great, do not make them rely on some spell to be viable.

Sombre · #4 April 22nd, 2007, 02:56 AM

When you read 'steel' you clearly think 'trained from birth to be elite fighters'. When I read 'steel' I think they rely on their superior arming technology. Which would be the forgebonus and the availability of super heavy armour.

I'm not claiming that MA Ulm is good, or comparing them with anyone else, I just don't think anything in the descriptions indicates they should be amazingly skilled or brave fighters. What it does indicate to me is that they like to wear a lot of armour, they have more advanced weapons (such as the arbalest etc). And yes, they are resource hogs. That's a big theme of the nation.