|
|
Post by SolidLight on Oct 31, 2019 13:41:37 GMT
Now I am genuinely confused. I thought about France, but you can take Spain, Portugal, Prussia, Sweden, Austria and Russia fairly quickly if you play the country right. North America is probably the worst part about it, but they can hold out if you constantly lend-lease them. Maybe Britain? The Ottomans are a pain and your units that are already in the mainland aren’t sufficient to mount an effective attack, forcing you to be opportunistic and pray that the French will weaken a Spanish city enough for you to seize it and use it as a base of operations. Britain is easy too. No real hard 1812 countries to be honest. The most unpleasant ones would probably be italy (eugene does not have a healing item so he is not enough to carry this conquest), algeria (not too hard but again a huge pain that is not as rewarding as it is in 1815), and portugal (awful start). None of these are even in the hard category As Portugal you just need to build a farm in Lisbon. Then you can send 3 lancers at once at France and obliterate them. You can also send Belsford and Forjaz at USA and try to steal a city to establish a base there. Even that’s not too bad. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Nov 1, 2019 2:25:57 GMT
 This is attempt #2 of France 1815. It is going very well actually. But I got bogged down in the danish area and cannot move. I am going to try next time sending my entire army east into prussia and austria and seeing what happens. Its very long. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 2, 2019 0:05:25 GMT
These are my recommendations. However, I am a speedrunner rather than a noob so these could be different for everybody. However, some of these conquests even I have trouble beating and my generals are really strong. Great system you have. 1806: Very Easy: Netherlands, Spain, Sardinia Easy: Ottoman, Prussia, Poland, Austria, Medium: United Kingdom, France, Russia, Saxony, Sweden, Denmark, Egypt Hard: Morocco, Sicily, Italy, Rhine (debatably “Very Hard”) 1812: Very Easy: USA, Morocco, Bavaria Easy: Egypt, UK, Spain, Russia, Ottoman, Sweden, Denmark, Naples Medium: Algeria, Prussia, Poland, Canada, Mexico, Italy, Portugal Hard: Austria, France 1815: Very Easy: Algeria, Easy: Egypt, USA, Brazil, France, Ottoman, Naples, Bavaria, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Morocco Medium: Canada, Mexico, Prussia, Italy, Hard: United Kingdom, Austria, Portugal, Russia Very Hard: Gran Columbia, Canada, Mexico, Tribal Union Just did Portugal 1815! The hardest part was defending Spain from France. Defeating Italy and Naples was also kinda annoying. But my favorite part was that I sent troops to Brazil to help Gran Colombia. Felt like I was restoring Portugal as a great power like they were before, when they had colonial rule over Brazil. The spam is harsh, but if you have strong generals, you can kill some French units per turn. Eventually, you will be killing more units than France can send and you will be able to steamroll the French. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 2, 2019 0:07:16 GMT
This is attempt #2 of France 1815. It is going very well actually. But I got bogged down in the danish area and cannot move. I am going to try next time sending my entire army east into prussia and austria and seeing what happens. Its very long. I wouldn’t give up if I were you. If you meet a spam wall, but you’re strong, you will eventually break past it. I would only give up if USA looks like it will surely get killed by Canada and Mexico. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 2, 2019 0:23:49 GMT
Portugal 1815 is easier than Portugal 1812, though. In my opinion.
In 1815, the start is harder, but your allies are much more likely to win since when Bavaria, Denmark and Sweden join in, they have a giant economy and will send a huge army of powerful troops that is sure to turn the tide of the battle. It’s basically holding your ground until those three countries join in, then start a massive counterattack to crush France and her allies. At worst, Gran Colombia will be killed by Brazil and Egypt will be attacked by the Ottomans, but even if those two countries get killed, it isn’t a catastrophic loss. You can send an army into Brazil since you’re closer to them than any other European country, and fund Morocco to help them against the Ottomans. But you can prevent Gran Colombia and Egypt from falling by funding them.
In 1812, defending against France is easier, but Bavaria and Denmark are on France's side. Poland is also around, and Austria is killed about twice as fast. Now you have to save your allies and hope that they will be strong enough to defeat France and the rest of the French Alliance.
See which one has a more hopeful goal? 1815, right? That’s why it’s easier, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Nov 2, 2019 12:57:12 GMT
Portugal 1815 is easier than Portugal 1812, though. In my opinion. In 1815, the start is harder, but your allies are much more likely to win since when Bavaria, Denmark and Sweden join in, they have a giant economy and will send a huge army of powerful troops that is sure to turn the tide of the battle. It’s basically holding your ground until those three countries join in, then start a massive counterattack to crush France and her allies. At worst, Gran Colombia will be killed by Brazil and Egypt will be attacked by the Ottomans, but even if those two countries get killed, it isn’t a catastrophic loss. You can send an army into Brazil since you’re closer to them than any other European country, and fund Morocco to help them against the Ottomans. But you can prevent Gran Colombia and Egypt from falling by funding them. In 1812, defending against France is easier, but Bavaria and Denmark are on France's side. Poland is also around, and Austria is killed about twice as fast. Now you have to save your allies and hope that they will be strong enough to defeat France and the rest of the French Alliance. See which one has a more hopeful goal? 1815, right? That’s why it’s easier, in my opinion. I don’t want to play as portugal for their vomit inducing generals. Same reason why I don’t want to play as the tribal union. The cringe is surreal |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Nov 2, 2019 13:10:47 GMT
Portugal 1815 is easier than Portugal 1812, though. In my opinion. In 1815, the start is harder, but your allies are much more likely to win since when Bavaria, Denmark and Sweden join in, they have a giant economy and will send a huge army of powerful troops that is sure to turn the tide of the battle. It’s basically holding your ground until those three countries join in, then start a massive counterattack to crush France and her allies. At worst, Gran Colombia will be killed by Brazil and Egypt will be attacked by the Ottomans, but even if those two countries get killed, it isn’t a catastrophic loss. You can send an army into Brazil since you’re closer to them than any other European country, and fund Morocco to help them against the Ottomans. But you can prevent Gran Colombia and Egypt from falling by funding them. In 1812, defending against France is easier, but Bavaria and Denmark are on France's side. Poland is also around, and Austria is killed about twice as fast. Now you have to save your allies and hope that they will be strong enough to defeat France and the rest of the French Alliance. See which one has a more hopeful goal? 1815, right? That’s why it’s easier, in my opinion. I don’t want to play as portugal for their vomit inducing generals. Same reason why I don’t want to play as the tribal union. The cringe is surreal Hey, Felix is alright man. And Belsford is a hilarious meme general.  |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 2, 2019 13:15:56 GMT
I don’t want to play as portugal for their vomit inducing generals. Same reason why I don’t want to play as the tribal union. The cringe is surreal Hey, Felix is alright man. And Belsford is a hilarious meme general. Forjaz is actually great for finishing off enemy grenadiers or cavalry. Most of the time he takes half of their HP away. Belsford has amazing survivability and he has good damage, even though his skills are useless. He is useful for weakening enemy cities. If anything, you can’t complain that he is there because Portugal only has Forjaz and him. Better to have something than nothing, even if that “something” is far from being the best. Both of the units which those generals command are strong. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Nov 2, 2019 13:23:14 GMT
Hey, Felix is alright man. And Belsford is a hilarious meme general. Forjaz is actually great for finishing off enemy grenadiers or cavalry. Most of the time he takes half of their HP away. Belsford has amazing survivability and he has good damage, even though his skills are useless. He is useful for weakening enemy cities. If anything, you can’t complain that he is there because Portugal only has Forjaz and him. Better to have something than nothing, even if that “something” is far from being the best. Both of the units which those generals command are strong. Yeah exactly, using what you’ve got as efficiently as possible is a pretty good way to play conquests. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 2, 2019 13:36:39 GMT
Forjaz is actually great for finishing off enemy grenadiers or cavalry. Most of the time he takes half of their HP away. Belsford has amazing survivability and he has good damage, even though his skills are useless. He is useful for weakening enemy cities. If anything, you can’t complain that he is there because Portugal only has Forjaz and him. Better to have something than nothing, even if that “something” is far from being the best. Both of the units which those generals command are strong. Yeah exactly, using what you’ve got as efficiently as possible is a pretty good way to play conquests. Yup. I only complain if the units that the generals are commanding are meh. I’m fine if Forjaz is on Light Infantry and Belsford is on Siege Artillery, those are among the best units in the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 2, 2019 13:38:56 GMT
I prefer the later eras in terms of starting generals because they have the best items and command the strongest units. (Britain 1798 and Austria 1806 are exceptions due to Nelson and Karl, respectively)
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Nov 2, 2019 14:34:46 GMT
I prefer the later eras in terms of starting generals because they have the best items and command the strongest units. (Britain 1798 and Austria 1806 are exceptions due to Nelson and Karl, respectively) A rocket artillery general with an ambulance is really powerful. Kutuzov, napoleon, and mahmud wreck |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Nov 2, 2019 14:53:15 GMT
I prefer the later eras in terms of starting generals because they have the best items and command the strongest units. (Britain 1798 and Austria 1806 are exceptions due to Nelson and Karl, respectively) A rocket artillery general with an ambulance is really powerful. Kutuzov, napoleon, and mahmud wreck Tell me something. What was the real reason Kutuzov was considered one of the best of the best? |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Nov 2, 2019 15:10:34 GMT
A rocket artillery general with an ambulance is really powerful. Kutuzov, napoleon, and mahmud wreck Tell me something. What was the real reason Kutuzov was considered one of the best of the best? He has an ambulance in 1812 |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Nov 2, 2019 15:10:37 GMT
A rocket artillery general with an ambulance is really powerful. Kutuzov, napoleon, and mahmud wreck Tell me something. What was the real reason Kutuzov was considered one of the best of the best? Plain, He’s still strong, but the difference between him and Scharnhorst is so minimal so he isn’t really worth it. Kind of like how most people see Bismarck. I’m not planning on getting him though since he doesn’t have anything that makes him much better than Scharnhorst. Survivability isn’t as important on artillery imo because they can attack from range. |
|
