|
|
Discounts
May 14, 2019 3:03:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by stoic on May 14, 2019 3:03:42 GMT
How do they work exactly please? How much should John be for example with full discount? John will be 50% cheaper. And with his terrain skills that's a great deal. You will need to upgrade him though. In fact, I think that a pair of Artillery generals - Alexander-John - is not significantly weaker than a pair - Alexander-Mahmud. But for other friendly Artillery units around the latter pair is more useful, of course... |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on May 14, 2019 4:39:50 GMT
6 infantry? That must look impressive, you're playing the game for the second time right? Wich do you already have and what's going to be your composition? I had: Murat-Dabrowski Alexander-John Massena-Karl-Barclay-Suvorov. I completed all missions with 3 stars except Siege, The battle of Balaclava and The Baltic campaign. I completed these 3 missions with two stars. Unfortunately, it is close to impossible to complete missions like Balaclava with 3 stars using only 8 free slots. We are allowed to use up to 12 generals in this mission and moreover have ban on using cavalry. So to complete it with 3 stars if you have only 8 men in the team (and a couple of those are cavalry generals) is very unlikely. Therefore now I can be more relaxed (while we are waiting for Rome) and just to play it for fun. My goals are: - to try to complete all naval missions with 3 stars (thus proving that it is possible to win all see battles without an Admiral). - to complete the game with 3 stars for each mission (with only two exceptions - Siege and Balaclava). - and, maybe, to challenge some of new records as well. I decided to make a full use of my 3 Infantry masters this time. So my strategy is to keep all my Infantry generals together whenever possible, while Alexander and Murat will play supportive roles. Most likely my Infantry generals would be: Massena-Karl-Barclay-Suvorov-Bolivar-Lannes. Maybe I will replace Lannes later in the game with someone more suited for see battles (Louise with Tactics master and counterattack could be a decent Admiral, but for reasons mentioned above, I will use her in his primary role as a Princess). On the other hand, Lannes has + 40 damage bonus against cavalry (20+20 and this damage is not absorbed by defense), Plain fighting and he is another city's cracker (alongside Massena and Barclay). Many players underestimate Tunnel, but I personally rate it very high. All his 4 skills could be potentially very useful (especially with 3 Infantry masters around) so it is possible that I will keep him until the very end... Isn't Washington better? Or do you find him to expensive. and I think you can certainly manage the first 10 naval missions in the game without naval gens because most good gens already have high BA. |
|
|
|
Discounts
May 14, 2019 4:46:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by silvercreek on May 14, 2019 4:46:32 GMT
6 infantry? That must look impressive, you're playing the game for the second time right? Wich do you already have and what's going to be your composition? I had: Murat-Dabrowski Alexander-John Massena-Karl-Barclay-Suvorov. I completed all missions with 3 stars except Siege, The battle of Balaclava and The Baltic campaign. I completed these 3 missions with two stars. Unfortunately, it is close to impossible to complete missions like Balaclava with 3 stars using only 8 free slots. We are allowed to use up to 12 generals in this mission and moreover have ban on using cavalry. So to complete it with 3 stars if you have only 8 men in the team (and a couple of those are cavalry generals) is very unlikely. Therefore now I can be more relaxed (while we are waiting for Rome) and just to play it for fun. My goals are: - to try to complete all naval missions with 3 stars (thus proving that it is possible to win all see battles without an Admiral). - to complete the game with 3 stars for each mission (with only two exceptions - Siege and Balaclava). - and, maybe, to challenge some of new records as well. I decided to make a full use of my 3 Infantry masters this time. So my strategy is to keep all my Infantry generals together whenever possible, while Alexander and Murat will play supportive roles. Most likely my Infantry generals would be: Massena-Karl-Barclay-Suvorov-Bolivar-Lannes. Maybe I will replace Lannes later in the game with someone more suited for see battles (Louise with Tactics master and counterattack could be a decent Admiral, but for reasons mentioned above, I will use her in his primary role as a Princess). On the other hand, Lannes has + 40 damage bonus against cavalry (20+20 and this damage is not absorbed by defense), Plain fighting and he is another city's cracker (alongside Massena and Barclay). Many players underestimate Tunnel, but I personally rate it very high. All his 4 skills could be potentially very useful (especially with 3 Infantry masters around) so it is possible that I will keep him until the very end... So much faith on infranty,,interesting. Why not more on cavalry, since they have "victory rush" 75% of attacking twice(if win) where as infranty only once,unless they have tactic master which very few do. Lan is a good 3rd cav general if not Ney,who would be best as a 3rd option imo. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on May 14, 2019 8:38:08 GMT
Mahmud is better then John but i get your point he is good and you don't need the best one good is good enough. Yep, especially if the price is right. The same about Lannes. Is Bismarck better than Lannes? Well... Lannes has his trumps, but it would be ridiculous if Bismarck were inferior to Lannes. Yet, if we compare the price then the situation changes drastically. Is Bismarck twice as good as Lannes? No way! Therefore relation price/quality is always important in ET games. I just want to put my own two cents into the subject of price/quality. But I really disagree with that last part, it's not as simple as that. The importance of price/quality depends on the game, and I'd argue that it's not very important in this one. It's way more important in WC3 and WC4. See, Netherlands 1798 exists. And that means that you can get medals pretty much at will. If you need 100 medals, do two Netherlands 1798 conquests. In WC4, if you need 100 medals, wait the whole day for the invasions to trickle in and beat two waves of invasions for ~140 medals. In WC3, idle the phone for 4 hours. As you can see, medal gain is faster and way more sane to grind in this one, and because it's faster, price just isn't as importnat. Imo if you want Bismarck then get Bismarck, he's got his niche as the strongest infantry sieger anyway. |
|
|
|
Discounts
May 14, 2019 9:02:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by silvercreek on May 14, 2019 9:02:31 GMT
Yep, especially if the price is right. The same about Lannes. Is Bismarck better than Lannes? Well... Lannes has his trumps, but it would be ridiculous if Bismarck were inferior to Lannes. Yet, if we compare the price then the situation changes drastically. Is Bismarck twice as good as Lannes? No way! Therefore relation price/quality is always important in ET games. I just want to put my own two cents into the subject of price/quality. But I really disagree with that last part, it's not as simple as that. The importance of price/quality depends on the game, and I'd argue that it's not very important in this one. It's way more important in WC3 and WC4. See, Netherlands 1798 exists. And that means that you can get medals pretty much at will. If you need 100 medals, do two Netherlands 1798 conquests. In WC4, if you need 100 medals, wait the whole day for the invasions to trickle in and beat two waves of invasions for ~140 medals. In WC3, idle the phone for 4 hours. As you can see, medal gain is faster and way more sane to grind in this one, and because it's faster, price just isn't as importnat. Imo if you want Bismarck then get Bismarck, he's got his niche as the strongest infantry sieger anyway. Netherlands, I am comfortly numb. It gets rather boring, there are other ways to grind to get medals. And still get an get an S score, I will go in more detail in a separate thread sometime. |
|
|
|
Discounts
May 14, 2019 9:59:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by silvercreek on May 14, 2019 9:59:39 GMT
John will be 50% cheaper. And with his terrain skills that's a great deal. You will need to upgrade him though. In fact, I think that a pair of Artillery generals - Alexander-John - is not significantly weaker than a pair - Alexander-Mahmud. But for other friendly Artillery units around the latter pair is more useful, of course... Mahmud seems essential, if one does not have the great Napoleon. |
|
|
|
Discounts
May 14, 2019 11:05:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by stoic on May 14, 2019 11:05:13 GMT
I had: Isn't Washington better? Or do you find him to expensive. and I think you can certainly manage the first 10 naval missions in the game without naval gens because most good gens already have high BA. Yeah, especially taking into account that some land generals have universal skills suitable for see battles as well. For example, Bolivar has 3 such skills. But the Crimean war naval missions are quite tough. I could get 3 stars for the Black See campaign but the Baltic campaign was really difficult, I barely managed to get 2 stars. On the other hand, all my generals were MG, so my suspicion was that Marshals can do it with the right strategy. About Washington... Yes, he is better, but the difference between him and Lannes is about 1000 medals. Besides, it is psychologically uncomfortable to me just to sit and save for an expensive general. First time the game was a terra incognita, everything was new and interesting. Now I want action, the sooner the better  And last, but not least, I know what Lannes is capable of. I hired him previous time, but replaced him with Dabrowski later. He is a very useful general. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on May 14, 2019 12:04:15 GMT
I had: Murat-Dabrowski Alexander-John Massena-Karl-Barclay-Suvorov. So much faith on infranty,,interesting. Why not more on cavalry, since they have "victory rush" 75% of attacking twice(if win) where as infranty only once,unless they have tactic master which very few do. Lan is a good 3rd cav general if not Ney,who would be best as a 3rd option imo. First, without IAP generals there are only two Cavalry Commanders - Murat and Dabrowsi. I was an advocate of Dabrowski all the time, but he is only a Duke. But there's something more serious than that. Let's suppose we hire Ney and Lannes as well. Let's again suppose they fight together... So Murat will have his own bonus from Cavalry Master (bonus 1) and Dabrowski's bonus (bonus 2). Dabrowski - bonus 1 + bonus 2. Ney - bonus 1 + bonus 2. Lannes - bonus 1 + bonus 2. Another situation. Karl-Barclay-Massena-Suvorov. Karl - bonus 1 + bonus 2 + bonus 3 Barclay - bonus 1 + bonus 2 + bonus 3 Massena - bonus 1 + bonus 2 + bonus 3 Suvorov - bonus 1 + bonus 2 + bonus 3 With 3 Infantry masters we have one additional bonus everytime and that is more than 20 points of attack. Second, Let's suppose Murat-Dabrowski-Ney-Lannes attack an enemy general. They all have Plain fighting and it is practically not very probable that they all will occupy a favorable square for an attack. Inevitably one of them will loose an important terrain bonus. On the other hand, Karl-Barclay-Massena-Suvorov can attack an enemy without any disadvantages on every type of terrain. Third, most of the time our strategy is - to take the city - to hold the city - to move to another city. Our Infantry generals are better suited for taking cities than our Cavalry generals. Forth, most likely our non-general units are almost exclusively infantry (very often simple militia). Infantry is always available, affordable and easily maintainable. And with 3 Infantry Masters nearby a simple Infantry unit is a very dangerous opponent for everyone. Of course, cavalry is better than infantry judging all pros and cons. But it is a general consideration. In practical terms, 3 Infantry Masters change everything on the battlefield. If I had Blucher, on the other hand, my reasoning could be different  . But I don't have |
|
|
|
Discounts
May 14, 2019 12:29:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by stoic on May 14, 2019 12:29:52 GMT
Yep, especially if the price is right. The same about Lannes. Is Bismarck better than Lannes? Well... Lannes has his trumps, but it would be ridiculous if Bismarck were inferior to Lannes. Yet, if we compare the price then the situation changes drastically. Is Bismarck twice as good as Lannes? No way! Therefore relation price/quality is always important in ET games. I just want to put my own two cents into the subject of price/quality. But I really disagree with that last part, it's not as simple as that. The importance of price/quality depends on the game, and I'd argue that it's not very important in this one. It's way more important in WC3 and WC4. See, Netherlands 1798 exists. And that means that you can get medals pretty much at will. If you need 100 medals, do two Netherlands 1798 conquests. In WC4, if you need 100 medals, wait the whole day for the invasions to trickle in and beat two waves of invasions for ~140 medals. In WC3, idle the phone for 4 hours. As you can see, medal gain is faster and way more sane to grind in this one, and because it's faster, price just isn't as importnat. Imo if you want Bismarck then get Bismarck, he's got his niche as the strongest infantry sieger anyway. When we talk about farming - we talk about trading time for medals. Sometimes medals are more important than our time , but sometimes the situation is different. And still the question is - "is it worth it?" Is Bismarck really significantly better than Lannes? Or only slightly better and we can live with that? My answer is that Bismarck has definitely better survivability but Lannes' damage bonus against cavalry is a trump. A very imbalanced situation. Survivability is important, but as Churchill said after Dunkirk "evacuations don't win wars". So taking Lannes instead of Bismarck is definitely a gamble. But I prefer one attacking skill to two defensive skills (one of which has a very low probability of triggering). And the price in this particular case does matter... |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on May 14, 2019 12:41:30 GMT
In fact, I think that a pair of Artillery generals - Alexander-John - is not significantly weaker than a pair - Alexander-Mahmud. But for other friendly Artillery units around the latter pair is more useful, of course... Mahmud seems essential, if one does not have the great Napoleon. Well, actually I agree . Two Artillery experts are more useful than one. A rule of thumb As I demonstrated somewhere else attack bonus with 3 Infantry Commanders nearby is more than just 20+20+20. In fact, it is more than 70 points of attack (it depends on the BA of generals as well)! The same is true about Artillery generals. |
|
. But I don't have 
