lord_zar@ucrmath.ucr.edu (wayne wallace) (05/23/91)
First off, this is cross-posted to c.s.amiga.games and rec.games.misc. NO COMPUTER WARS, OKAY? Now then, I'd like to know what parties net-land considers to be the best to win with, and if using one party the entire game is good, compared to using a party with expendable members like mages and clerics (to go up and down dungeon levels at 1st level) and replacing them later. I'll post what party I and my friend are using after I see everyone's 'favorite' or 'fun' party. Also: evaluate each class, if only to show why you wouldn't use that class, as well as the ones you do use. Wayne
yeef@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (beneath notice) (05/25/91)
The party I used to win was a Cleric, two Wizards, and a Fighter. I put the wizards in the back and, as a result, they never died [not till the end anyway when all my characters died except one of the wizards] and were able to gain enough experience to advance very quickly by using mittars on everything. The fighter died many, many MANY times [he probably was not such a good choice] but he gained xp fairly quickly. The cleric was rather a problem because she couldn't cast offensive spells and wasn't that great at fighting, so she was usually about ten levels behind everyone else [although using Pontori on every party of undead you meet helps a bit here.] A friend of mine won the game with two wizards, a cleric, and a druid [I belive... the cleric may have been a ranger] which worked very well for him. My opinions on a few of the character classes: Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and such: I don't find fighting-only classes particularly useful except as front-row fodder to protect the "weak little mages", at least initially. When your mages get to be upward of tenth level, they don't need any wimpy fighters protecting them. Fight-only classes advance slowly in my parties because I use spells to nail just about everything. Wizards: I recommend two wizards in a party. Any more than that and you'll probably have trouble getting started because of the relative weakness of fledgling wizards. Any fewer than that and you won't have enough fire power. Although they do need to be protected through the first few levels [like I say, fighters are good at this], they end up the most powerful and useful characters by far. Clerics: Clerics advance slowly because of their sheer lack of offensive power, but it is necessary to have a cleric [two is overdoing it.] Alchemists and Druids: Not worth the trouble. 'Half-clerics' and 'half-wizards' are just wimpy versions of clerics and druids and they can't really fight much better. Rangers: Useful because they can fight decently and cast both cleric and wizard spells. They don't advance much faster than do fighters, but they're still fun. In my opinion, the best party you could have would be a Ranger Cleric Wizard Wizard setup [weapon limitations don't matter too much since all classes can use the Exotics]... shrug -dto
lord_zar@ucrmath.ucr.edu (wayne wallace) (05/26/91)
yeef@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (beneath notice) writes: >The party I used to win was a Cleric, two Wizards, and a Fighter. I put >the wizards in the back and, as a result, they never died [not till the >end anyway when all my characters died except one of the wizards] and were >able to gain enough experience to advance very quickly by using mittars >on everything. The fighter died many, many MANY times [he probably was >not such a good choice] but he gained xp fairly quickly. The cleric was Um, you underestimate the fighter. I hope you got the item needed to have 2550 hp max, instead of 550hp max. >rather a problem because she couldn't cast offensive spells and wasn't >that great at fighting, so she was usually about ten levels behind everyone >else [although using Pontori on every party of undead you meet helps a >bit here.] Yeah, I know the feeling about the cleric. What you could do is increase the cleric's dex & strength first, so she can fight better and thus gain more xp. >A friend of mine won the game with two wizards, a cleric, and a druid [I >belive... the cleric may have been a ranger] which worked very well for >him. Yup druids ARE powerful. [see below] >My opinions on a few of the character classes: >Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and such: >I don't find fighting-only classes particularly useful except as front-row >fodder to protect the "weak little mages", at least initially. When your >mages get to be upward of tenth level, they don't need any wimpy fighters >protecting them. Fight-only classes advance slowly in my parties because >I use spells to nail just about everything. Whoa! The paladin is VERY nice! when you get his wisdom up, he can tport you up and down dungeon levels to booty rooms, without your main spellcasters wasting points, AND he can heal! There is a big difference to having two healers in the group. >Wizards: >I recommend two wizards in a party. Any more than that and you'll probably >have trouble getting started because of the relative weakness of fledgling >wizards. Any fewer than that and you won't have enough fire power. Although >they do need to be protected through the first few levels [like I say, >fighters are good at this], they end up the most powerful and useful characters >by far. Umm, one wizard is really enough. Methinks you should have taken a druid instead of one of the two wizards. >Clerics: >Clerics advance slowly because of their sheer lack of offensive power, but >it is necessary to have a cleric [two is overdoing it.] Yeah, having Sequitu to escape dungeons is a MAJOR boon! As well as resurrect and other stuff... >Alchemists and Druids: >Not worth the trouble. 'Half-clerics' and 'half-wizards' are just wimpy >versions of clerics and druids and they can't really fight much better. You meant Alchemists and Illusionists, right? And the reason they are there is because they also have thieving skills. Druids are DAMN powerful. You see, when their INT and WIS are EQUAL, they get back TWO spell points per turn, instead of ONE. And when you don't need that advantage any more, you can raise your [I use bobbits for their 75 str, 50 dex, 75 int, 99 wis]'s wis to 99, letting you have 49 spell points, and able to cast sequitu to escape a dungeon. Andthey can cast the wizard spells, too, like mittar and fulgar and mentar. This is how they get their ranged attacks; spells. >Rangers: >Useful because they can fight decently and cast both cleric and wizard spells. >They don't advance much faster than do fighters, but they're still fun. >In my opinion, the best party you could have would be a > Ranger Cleric > Wizard Wizard >setup [weapon limitations don't matter too much since all classes can use the >Exotics]... Yeah, but Methinks you rely on magic a bit too much. Not many monsters can stand up to a 75 str hit. >shrug >-dto shrug -wsw P.S. I'm gonna wait for some more responses before I post my party.
mnfriedr@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (M. Friedrich) (05/27/91)
yeef@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (beneath notice) writes: >The party I used to win was a Cleric, two Wizards, and a Fighter. I put >the wizards in the back and, as a result, they never died [not till the >end anyway when all my characters died except one of the wizards] and were >able to gain enough experience to advance very quickly by using mittars >on everything. The fighter died many, many MANY times [he probably was >not such a good choice] but he gained xp fairly quickly. The cleric was >rather a problem because she couldn't cast offensive spells and wasn't >that great at fighting, so she was usually about ten levels behind everyone >else [although using Pontori on every party of undead you meet helps a >bit here.] What are you? A novice Ultima-player? The easiest party for beginners is this one: Wizard Cleric Thief Fighter Don't use those half-wizards or half-clerics like Rangers, Alchemists, Druids,.. They will never over spell J. And the most interesting spells are beyond that. Normally no character will die if you aren't a lousy player... I out the wizard and cleric in front because they can use only low range weapons. Thief and Fighter normally use a Bow or a Sling and can attack from behind. Start out with statistics set as follow to ensure your characters are as useful as possible in the beginning and not too weak: STR DEX INT WIS You have 50 pts. to distribute. Wizard 10 10 25 5 'cause Wizards don't need any WIS and 5 is the min. Cleric 10 10 5 25 'cause Clerics don't need any INT Thief 15 25 5 5 'cause Thieves don't need any WIS/INT Fighter 25 15 5 5 'cause Fighters don't need any WIS/INT The best classes are Wizard/Fuzzy (INT of 99 possible), Cleric/Bobbit (WIS of 99 possible), Thief/Elf (DEX of 99 possible) and Fighter/Dwarf (STR of 99). This constellation can't do anything wrong! And characters don't have to die. The Fighter is the one who will advance in Levels most easily followed by the Wizard and the Thief. Luckily the Cleric can repel undead. As soon as you know how to increase your statistics you should advance your cleric to 99 Wisdom, so he will have 99 Magic Points and can cast offensive spells. Soon the cleric will be the one who has the highest level. When you continue you'll find out what is best to do next... >A friend of mine won the game with two wizards, a cleric, and a druid [I >belive... the cleric may have been a ranger] which worked very well for >him. Experts can win with any constellation af characters, even with four Fighters. You just have to know how to increase your statistics and do so. If your characters do have the maximum in STR and DEX, Clerics will be as powerful in non-magic combat as Fighters. >My opinions on a few of the character classes: >Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and such: >I don't find fighting-only classes particularly useful except as front-row >fodder to protect the "weak little mages", at least initially. When your >mages get to be upward of tenth level, they don't need any wimpy fighters >protecting them. Fight-only classes advance slowly in my parties because >I use spells to nail just about everything. You don't have to protect the ""weak little mages"", they aren't weak. You're just too weak to move them. As I said, later, mages are as useful as Fighters. I personally only need mass kill spells to kill annoying monsters like dragons or snatches or devils later on. >Wizards: >I recommend two wizards in a party. Any more than that and you'll probably >have trouble getting started because of the relative weakness of fledgling >wizards. Any fewer than that and you won't have enough fire power. Although >they do need to be protected through the first few levels [like I say, >fighters are good at this], they end up the most powerful and useful characters >by far. Clerics will have as powerful spells as Wizards. You don't need two Wizards. And no Wizard needs protection. Wizards are not weak, only the player who moves them is. >Clerics: >Clerics advance slowly because of their sheer lack of offensive power, but >it is necessary to have a cleric [two is overdoing it.] >Alchemists and Druids: >Not worth the trouble. 'Half-clerics' and 'half-wizards' are just wimpy >versions of clerics and druids and they can't really fight much better. Right, but every character fights like the other later...no argument. >Rangers: >Useful because they can fight decently and cast both cleric and wizard spells. >They don't advance much faster than do fighters, but they're still fun. As unuseful as Druids... >In my opinion, the best party you could have would be a > Ranger Cleric > Wizard Wizard Look above for my opinion... >setup [weapon limitations don't matter too much since all classes can use the >Exotics]... Do you use exotics all the time??? Thieves tend to stel exotics... Daggers for Wizards, a mace for the Cleric, and Bows for each Thief and Fighter. *sigh* -Efchen P.S.: Was it too hard a flame? :-) --- /~\ | Martin Friedrich IRC/FN/BITNET: Efchen C oo | Postfach 1602 NightFall: Sir Efchen, Knight of Elvendar _( ^) | 8520 Erlangen ~\ | GERMANY InterNet:mnfriedr@informatik.uni-erlangen.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tie two birds together. Though they have four wings, they cannot fly. - The silent Flute
andrewh@msb.com (Andrew Huie) (05/29/91)
In Ultima 3, I find at least one elven thief to be indispensable in the party until the final battle. Since I typically give them a higher Dex., they have a higher probability of hitting things. A dwarven/hobbit Paladin (just as long as their wisdom and strength have a max of 75 and/or 99) or a human Ranger, a fuzzy/elven Magic User, and a hobbit Cleric is a typical dungeon party. At the very beginning, I might have a hobbit Druid instead of cleric until I can get the money to boost their stats. At the final battle, my "perfect" party consists of an elven wizard, a fuzzy wizard, a hobbit druid, and a hobbit cleric. Those who made it to the end know what I mean!
lazer@lablues.UUCP (Patrick Delahanty) (05/31/91)
I find that with Ultimas II through V, Copy II Plus makes the best companion
on the quests! (It won't work on Ultima I) Just do a little sector editing
when you get in a jam.
Cheat? Me? No! I went through all once without cheating...I just raised
my stats the second time to get to the good stuff faster.
A few tips...
^L
Ultima I: Go in the dungeon's a lot...
Ultima II: Don't bother going in dungoen's...you don't have to...I didn't.
Ultima III: Use the same guys and have them ALL get marked with burns.
Ultima IV: NightShade (I think) is available on the island near in the lake
up in the northeast corner. Midnight only.
Ultima V: Geesh...I can't think of anything really...
Ultima VI: Write to Origin! They make it for the Commodore 64 even! Don't
you think Apple comes BEFORE Commodore?! I do! WRITE!
Ultima VII: I wish I could do like the box says and star in this Ultima but
I don't want to buy an IBM or Commie Ultima VI to find out how!
-Lazermnfriedr@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (M. Friedrich) (06/03/91)
andrewh@msb.com (Andrew Huie) writes: >In Ultima 3, I find at least one elven thief to be indispensable in the party >until the final battle. Since I typically give them a higher Dex., they have >a higher probability of hitting things. A dwarven/hobbit Paladin (just as >long as their wisdom and strength have a max of 75 and/or 99) or a human >Ranger, a fuzzy/elven Magic User, and a hobbit Cleric is a typical dungeon >party. At the very beginning, I might have a hobbit Druid instead of cleric >until I can get the money to boost their stats. At the final battle, my >"perfect" party consists of an elven wizard, a fuzzy wizard, a hobbit druid, >and a hobbit cleric. Those who made it to the end know what I mean! I made it to the end, I don't know why you need different parties. Or why do you need so much magic users. Have you ever considered taking a horse with you into Exodus' castle? You only have to fight dragons two times then, instead of four times. It seems you all have many problems playing Ultima III, but it is such an easy and uncomplicated game... Later, every party member is as powerful as the other. Every character has his maximum stats... Why do you all have problems? I don't know... Greetings, :-) Efchen --- /~\ | Martin Friedrich IRC/FN/BITNET: Efchen C oo | Postfach 1602 NightFall: Sir Efchen, Knight of Elvendar _( ^) | 8520 Erlangen ~\ | GERMANY InterNet:mnfriedr@informatik.uni-erlangen.de ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tie two birds together. Though they have four wings, they cannot fly. - The silent Flute
merlin@presto.UUCP (Jeff W. Hyche) (06/05/91)
In article <7o6y31w163w@dorsai> hotline@dorsai (Anthony Palestrini) writes: >Firstly, Ultima III was a disappointment on the Amiga. So was IV and V! >I cant believe Origin would do something so bad! I was so addicted to >these games on the old C-64 but now, I rather play the c64 version! > Ultima III was Ultima III, I like Ultima IV alot. I played it on the C64 and loved it. When I got an Amiga I bought it for 14 bucks just to have it. Ultima V would have been a execellent games if not for the bad user interface. The way it is it sucks the crome off a trailer hitch. To quote a friend of mine when he refured to his last girlfriend. // Jeff Hyche There can be only one! \\ // Usenet: hychejw@infonode.ingr.com \X/ UUCP: ...!uunet!sci34hub!presto!merlin
daguru@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Da Guru) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun2.185744.3309@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mnfriedr@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (M. Friedrich) writes: >Why do you all have problems? I don't know... Me neither. I figured out the loophole and started all my characters with full armament. Even brand new, fuzzy mages can survive with the best armor money can buy.... -Nick <Generic Disclaimer: It was my Evil Twin.... >
andrewh@msb.com (Andrew Huie) (06/10/91)
In article <1991Jun2.185744.3309@informatik.uni-erlangen.de> mnfriedr@immd4.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (M. Friedrich) writes: >I made it to the end, I don't know why you need different parties. Or >why do you need so much magic users. Have you ever considered taking a >horse with you into Exodus' castle? You only have to fight dragons two times >then, instead of four times. At the beginning, just staying alive is most important; otherwise you go through a lot more characters. And yes, I have brought horses into the castle, which allowed me to evade the initial guards, but without diagonal movement, you will find it very difficult to evade the dragons, if at all (the clerics came in handy then). It's not necessary to enter the castle with a magician- heavy party (I've done it with different parties) but it helps. > >It seems you all have many problems playing Ultima III, but it is such an easy >and uncomplicated game... >Later, every party member is as powerful as the other. Every character has >his maximum stats... Not quite. In Exodus' castle those characters that depend on weapons proficiency will be much less valuable than those that depend on spell-casting. >