|
|
Post by SolidLight on May 20, 2019 22:07:51 GMT
This is a really interesting unit and I want to hear some opinions on it.
Imo this is probably the 2nd best special cavalry unit, behind Mamluk Cavalry.
these are possibly the most damaging cavalry units in the game just due to how rout works with victory rush. But I wouldn’t really advise spamming them as generic stats aren’t really good enough to take advantage of that synergy. Though rout is still amazing, I’d use them if I have the cash, and they’re really easily accessible, both in campaign and conquest.
Only Mamluk cavalry has an ability that pairs up better with victory rush.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on May 21, 2019 4:08:43 GMT
This is a really interesting unit and I want to hear some opinions on it. Imo this is probably the 2nd best special cavalry unit, behind Mamluk Cavalry. these are possibly the most damaging cavalry units in the game just due to how rout works with victory rush. But I wouldn’t really advise spamming them as generic stats aren’t really good enough to take advantage of that synergy. Though rout is still amazing, I’d use them if I have the cash, and they’re really easily accessible, both in campaign and conquest. Only Mamluk cavalry has an ability that pairs up better with victory rush. I am not sure if they are worth it with lancers that are about as strong but cost 50 less. the cossack is probably the only one you put a gens on because they have high damage and charge which will help them a lot against spam. I myself am a fan of the Hungarian hussar because of their suprise attack, the disadvantage is that they are weak and expensive. horse grenadier guard are fantastic. they are unfortunately expensive but they also have the best skill in the game: bomb dropping this makes them a sort of mobile grenadier. the mamluk is good but my problem is that they do not do enough damage so I think they are good and not fantastic The tank is amazing and strong but expensive |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on May 21, 2019 4:27:05 GMT
I agree with Seger. The only type of elite cavalry I used most of the time for my generals were Cossacks. However, when we play as Prussia and have Blucher at our disposal (plus, for example, Murat+Dabrowski) Death's Head Hussars could be quite effective. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on May 21, 2019 4:28:56 GMT
I agree with Seger . The only type of elite cavalry I used most of the time for my generals were Cossacks. However, when we play as Prussia and have Blucher at our disposal (plus, for example, Murat+Dabrowski) Death's Head Hussars could be quite effective. But is it also worth it if you need to research them? |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on May 21, 2019 5:33:08 GMT
This is a really interesting unit and I want to hear some opinions on it. Imo this is probably the 2nd best special cavalry unit, behind Mamluk Cavalry. these are possibly the most damaging cavalry units in the game just due to how rout works with victory rush. But I wouldn’t really advise spamming them as generic stats aren’t really good enough to take advantage of that synergy. Though rout is still amazing, I’d use them if I have the cash, and they’re really easily accessible, both in campaign and conquest. Only Mamluk cavalry has an ability that pairs up better with victory rush. I am not sure if they are worth it with lancers that are about as strong but cost 50 less. the cossack is probably the only one you put a gens on because they have high damage and charge which will help them a lot against spam. I myself am a fan of the Hungarian hussar because of their suprise attack, the disadvantage is that they are weak and expensive. horse grenadier guard are fantastic. they are unfortunately expensive but they also have the best skill in the game: bomb dropping this makes them a sort of mobile grenadier. the mamluk is good but my problem is that they do not do enough damage so I think they are good and not fantastic The tank is amazing and strong but expensive
I do think that cossacks are good, just not as good as Death's Head Hussars because rout>charge when cleaning up spam. Statwise they are great though.
The Hungarian Hussar is basically a tougher but weaker light cavalry for 2x the price, and ideally surprise attack shouldn't be used all that often because cavalry should kill stuff when it attacks.
As for the tank and horse grenadier guards, they both lack something, availability. Horse grenadier guard exists in some conquests, but are not really spammable because they need a lv 4 tech. And the tank basically only exists in challenges.
I consider the mamluks absolutely amazing as they are the only units that I think can be functionally invincible if used well.
I seriously think you guys are undervaluing rout. A capable general + Death head hussars can destroy groups of enemies at very high HP without needing too much more help. And they'll do even better if they do get help. I thought about whether or not they're worth spending 50 more than lancers, and because they're significantly better offensively than lancers then yes maybe. Whether or not you want to spam the unit is up to you really, but i'd recommend placing generals on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on May 21, 2019 5:46:20 GMT
i tried them but I still believe cossacks are better because they're stronger and arti is most of the time behind the lines and the first units you want to kill are arti |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on May 21, 2019 7:04:15 GMT
I agree with Seger . The only type of elite cavalry I used most of the time for my generals were Cossacks. However, when we play as Prussia and have Blucher at our disposal (plus, for example, Murat+Dabrowski) Death's Head Hussars could be quite effective. But is it also worth it if you need to research them? I don't think so. If they are unlocked already - it is one situation. But otherwise there are other priorities, as I think. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on May 21, 2019 7:20:06 GMT
Mamluks are a very useful unit for our cavalry generals in two of the Crimean war missions. In conquests, however, a geographical position of the Ottomans is a decisive factor. You have to cross the channel in 1796 and 1806 conquests and the ocean as well in 1812/1815 conquests. So you have to move your mamluks literally all around the globe. It is possible, of course, to win, but the French coalition has better countries for conquests. France at least has a central position, a number of powerfull generals at the start and a significant income.
It is really a shame that Egypt don't have Mamluks as a special unit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on May 21, 2019 10:40:25 GMT
Mamluks are a very useful unit for our cavalry generals in two of the Crimean war missions. In conquests, however, a geographical position of the Ottomans is a decisive factor. You have to cross the channel in 1796 and 1806 conquests and the ocean as well in 1812/1815 conquests. So you have to move your mamluks literally all around the globe. It is possible, of course, to win, but the French coalition has better countries for conquests. France at least has a central position, a number of powerfull generals at the start and a significant income. It is really a shame that Egypt don't have Mamluks as a special unit. Ottomans are realy good in 1798 they aren't good for speedruns but they are realy easy |
|
|
|
Post by Navia Lanoira on May 21, 2019 10:57:47 GMT
Mamluks are a very useful unit for our cavalry generals in two of the Crimean war missions. In conquests, however, a geographical position of the Ottomans is a decisive factor. You have to cross the channel in 1796 and 1806 conquests and the ocean as well in 1812/1815 conquests. So you have to move your mamluks literally all around the globe. It is possible, of course, to win, but the French coalition has better countries for conquests. France at least has a central position, a number of powerfull generals at the start and a significant income. It is really a shame that Egypt don't have Mamluks as a special unit. Ottomans are realy good in 1798 they aren't good for speedruns but they are realy easy 1798 is an easy conquest except for sardinia |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on May 21, 2019 11:42:41 GMT
Mamluks are a very useful unit for our cavalry generals in two of the Crimean war missions. In conquests, however, a geographical position of the Ottomans is a decisive factor. You have to cross the channel in 1796 and 1806 conquests and the ocean as well in 1812/1815 conquests. So you have to move your mamluks literally all around the globe. It is possible, of course, to win, but the French coalition has better countries for conquests. France at least has a central position, a number of powerfull generals at the start and a significant income. It is really a shame that Egypt don't have Mamluks as a special unit. Ottomans are realy good in 1798 they aren't good for speedruns but they are realy easy Yeah, there is a difference between easy conquests and record braking conquests. For example, both South American countries are very easy to play in 1815, but they hardly have a great potential for speedruns. Unfortunately for Ottomans USA are very passive on American continent even if they are winning decisively. They prefer to build ships and to send them to Europe instead of finishing off their rivals in America. If that was not the case Ottomans could be an interesting option for speedruns as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Navia Lanoira on May 21, 2019 12:37:13 GMT
Ottomans are realy good in 1798 they aren't good for speedruns but they are realy easy Yeah, there is a difference between easy conquests and record braking conquests. For example, both South American countries are very easy to play in 1815, but they hardly have a great potential for speedruns. Unfortunately for Ottomans USA are very passive on American continent even if they are winning decisively. They prefer to build ships and to send them to Europe instead of finishing off their rivals in America. If that was not the case Ottomans could be an interesting option for speedruns as well. But it will be america who will decide your game. Sometimes they fail, sometimes not. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on May 21, 2019 14:39:33 GMT
Yeah, there is a difference between easy conquests and record braking conquests. For example, both South American countries are very easy to play in 1815, but they hardly have a great potential for speedruns. Unfortunately for Ottomans USA are very passive on American continent even if they are winning decisively. They prefer to build ships and to send them to Europe instead of finishing off their rivals in America. If that was not the case Ottomans could be an interesting option for speedruns as well. But it will be america who will decide your game. Sometimes they fail, sometimes not. If you play as Anti-French Coalition and donate your allies in South and North America in time - your win is inevitable. If, however, you play as a state of the French coalition - your donations (notwithstanding how generous they are) can prevent USA and Brazil from being defeated, but they won't defeat their counterparts without your units being present in America. They simply ignore remaining Mexican and Canadian cities choosing other targets instead That is a big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by Navia Lanoira on May 22, 2019 1:05:25 GMT
But it will be america who will decide your game. Sometimes they fail, sometimes not. If you play as Anti-French Coalition and donate your allies in South and North America in time - your win is inevitable. If, however, you play as a state of the French coalition - your donations (notwithstanding how generous they are) can prevent USA and Brazil from being defeated, but they won't defeat their counterparts without your units being present in America. They simply ignore remaining Mexican and Canadian cities choosing other targets instead That is a big difference. And for 1815 you can donate for colombia and later your allies at america. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on May 22, 2019 2:37:31 GMT
If you play as Anti-French Coalition and donate your allies in South and North America in time - your win is inevitable. If, however, you play as a state of the French coalition - your donations (notwithstanding how generous they are) can prevent USA and Brazil from being defeated, but they won't defeat their counterparts without your units being present in America. They simply ignore remaining Mexican and Canadian cities choosing other targets instead That is a big difference. And for 1815 you can donate for colombia and later your allies at america. That is what I was saying. Gran Colombia is a part of the Anti-French Coalition. If, on the other hand, you will donate Brazil or USA - is is not a guarantee that they will destroy Mexico and Canada on their own in a reasonable number of turns. Therefore, as I said, Ottoman Empire is not the best choice for playing in 1812/1815 (though, of course, it is possible to win) |
|
