|
|
Post by Seger on Apr 6, 2019 14:37:08 GMT
What is the fourth infantry general in the game and do you actually need 4 infantry generals? I think everyone agree that the best 3 are Washington, Karl and Massena, but who is the fourth? is it bismarck, suvorov, bolivar, garibaldi, lannes or barclay? I don't think there are other options.
Bismarck is the most expensive general but can only reach the king. his skills are not that special, assault is standard, tunnel is okay, ambush is not so good and alert is okay.
Suvorov can only reach king, assault is standard, formation master is good, mountain fighting is bad, plain fighting is good but together with mountain fighting it is pretty bad and inspiration is okay.
Suchet just sucks.
Only Bolivar can reach emperor, assault is standard, formation master is good, alert is okay, counterattack is okay and inspiration is okay too.
Garibaldi can only reach prince. Assault is standard, ambush only has 2% chance, tunnel is Okay, mountain fighting is bad and Tactic master is pretty good.
Lannes of course has the best price, unfortunately he can only reach the king. assault is standard, intercept is pretty good, tunnel is okay, plain fighting is good.
Barclay can only reach prince. Assault standard, tunnel is okay, infantry master is fantastic and inspiration is okay.
Barclay and lannes have the disadvantage that they are purple and therefore lack a skill and skills can only go up to lv4.
With 4 infantry I thought of 4 inf 3 cav 1 art (I don't like artillery), 4 inf 2 cav 2 art or 4 inf 2 cav 1 art 1 navy. With so much infantry, infantry master will be very handy, but during a campaign you probably won't use all infantry generals as one unit and then infantry master will be less good. It’s more likely that you split your generals in to two groups.
|
|
|
|
Post by Champion Knight on Apr 6, 2019 18:08:23 GMT
Seger,its a matter of preference really.. pick whichever you feel suits best for you.. but if I was you I would pick Bismarck/Lannes ignore Suvorov and Bolivar because they don't do too well on their own plus skills aren't that helpful.Barclay is also a good choice and lot of peoples fav due to his greatness when stacked with Karl and Massena.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 5:10:18 GMT
Seger ,its a matter of preference really.. pick whichever you feel suits best for you.. but if I was you I would pick Bismarck/Lannes ignore Suvorov and Bolivar because they don't do too well on their own plus skills aren't that helpful.Barclay is also a good choice and lot of peoples fav due to his greatness when stacked with Karl and Massena. Suvorov is actually really good. His high BA makes him suitable for challenges where you need to place your infantry gens in other units (tanks, ships or artillery). And his skills are useful, the double terrain makes having a consistent damage buff. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 5:12:00 GMT
Also, Washington vs Suvorov has been a debate for a while, and it's slightly in favor for Suvorov. Barclay, Massena and Karl are great when together, and both Massena and Barclay destroy cities because of Tunnel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Apr 7, 2019 6:22:17 GMT
Also, Washington vs Suvorov has been a debate for a while, and it's slightly in favor for Suvorov. Barclay, Massena and Karl are great when together, and both Massena and Barclay destroy cities because of Tunnel. I would think that Bolivar gets better at the end than Suvorov, because Bolivar's battle ability will only be 10 lower and his infantry ability will be 20 higher. and the terrain terrain skills, they will never trigger at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by daniellie on Apr 7, 2019 6:26:59 GMT
Well,I think people rank Barclay over Washington,due to his infantry master skill.Also,I don't see the point of having 4 infantry generals.People usually use only two or three.I prefer cavalry generals to infantry generals.They're more useful.Last,mountain fighting isn't bad,I think.There was some sort of Alexander vs Mahmud debate,and the former prevailed,albeit very slightly,because his mountain fighting triumphs over desert fighting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Apr 7, 2019 6:36:56 GMT
Well,I think people rank Barclay over Washington,due to his infantry master skill.Also,I don't see the point of having 4 infantry generals.People usually use only two or three.I prefer cavalry generals to infantry generals.They're more useful.Last,mountain fighting isn't bad,I think.There was some sort of Alexander vs Mahmud debate,and the former prevailed,albeit very slightly,because his mountain fighting triumphs over desert fighting. but what do you do then? 3 cav 3 inf 2 art, 4 cav 2 inf 2 art, or 3 cav 2 inf 2 art 1 navy? only curious. Desert fighting can be very good if you play in north africa or latin america. |
|
|
|
Post by Champion Knight on Apr 7, 2019 8:13:02 GMT
Seger ,its a matter of preference really.. pick whichever you feel suits best for you.. but if I was you I would pick Bismarck/Lannes ignore Suvorov and Bolivar because they don't do too well on their own plus skills aren't that helpful.Barclay is also a good choice and lot of peoples fav due to his greatness when stacked with Karl and Massena. Suvorov is actually really good. His high BA makes him suitable for challenges where you need to place your infantry gens in other units (tanks, ships or artillery). And his skills are useful, the double terrain makes having a consistent damage buff. |
|
|
|
Post by Champion Knight on Apr 7, 2019 8:13:34 GMT
Deleted, yes I truly agree with you there.yesterday after commenting I went to experiment again(which I should have done before commenting) Suvorov did end up being rlly good.with a small army/stacked with Karl or Massena..his output is rlly nice.his skills about mountain and plain are handy as well.would have been great if Murat had one extra jungle fighting instead of manoeuvre
|
|
|
|
Post by Champion Knight on Apr 7, 2019 8:26:43 GMT
Deleted, Seger, I apologize if you guys see anything weird..new to the forum, still figuring out stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 9:46:54 GMT
Deleted , Seger , I apologize if you guys see anything weird..new to the forum, still figuring out stuff. That's fine, we all start somewhere  . |
|
|
|
Post by daniellie on Apr 7, 2019 9:51:53 GMT
My personal preference is 3 cav,2 inf,2 art,1 navy.The navy general will be the last one.3 cavs because they provide most damage,arty for city cracking and damaging ships,inf for support and navy because Crimean War was one hell of a challenge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Apr 7, 2019 11:02:40 GMT
daniellie,I like infantry the most because of grenadiers, they can do anything, they are good at demolishing cities and they can do decent damage to units.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Apr 7, 2019 11:08:45 GMT
Deleted, yes I truly agree with you there.yesterday after commenting I went to experiment again(which I should have done before commenting) Suvorov did end up being rlly good.with a small army/stacked with Karl or Massena..his output is rlly nice.his skills about mountain and plain are handy as well.would have been great if Murat had one extra jungle fighting instead of manoeuvre any decent infantry general is good with an aura buff from karl / massena, and i agree suvorov is good, but is bolivar not better? |
|
|
|
Post by Champion Knight on Apr 7, 2019 12:20:38 GMT
Seger, That's a tough debate since they are pretty much equally strong.fully upgraded Bolivar battle ability is 94 where Suvorov is 100. it really depends on you style of play.both have assault, formation master, inspiration skills.. the only difference is Bolivar has Alert and Counterattack where Suvorov has two terrain skills.. if you are a player that uses terrain advantages a lot then pick Suvorov and if youre a player that plans to go head on against artillery pick Bolivar.
|
|
.
