|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 16:21:06 GMT
Crassus is a kind of hybrid, meaning he is equally poor on most things. He is too delicate to be on cavalry, and has few upgrades to archers. On infantry he can be beat by most any other infantry general, and this only gets worse when he is on cavalry as his talent is 10% bonus to critical attack on infantry. He just isn't really good at anything, beyond killing the forts beneath defenders I don't have the game, so can't of course be sure of anything right now. But all the ET games (conquest mode) are about taking cities, not killing units. You shouldn't kill units. There is no point - that is how You are overwhelmed. But if speaking about playing for fun, no speedrun, yeah, I see Your reasons. Fully agree. Agreed. You only kill units to prevent them from overwhelming you, or so you can capture the city, but you can just bait the unit to leave the city if you have the time. Cavalry units are used to clear units so artillery and infantry can do their job. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2019 16:31:03 GMT
I think cleopatra wouldn't be the ideal first buy, but she'll definitely be one of the best come late game. Cavalry Gen should be prioritized, although i think for now we aren't sure which general is the best until we try them out individually,or becomes nerds and calculate their cost efficiency value. As for IAP, I'll go for Hannibal, cavalry gens ftw. All IAPs are good, but not all IAPs are created equal. Hannibal is best because of the nature of cavalry, and even tho archers have an advantage against them, smart play makes it so you can circumvent their weakness. My judgment can be wrong and that infantry or archers are best, but cut me some slack, I don't have the game yet  |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Jun 30, 2019 16:31:30 GMT
I don't have the game, so can't of course be sure of anything right now. But all the ET games (conquest mode) are about taking cities, not killing units. You shouldn't kill units. There is no point - that is how You are overwhelmed. But if speaking about playing for fun, no speedrun, yeah, I see Your reasons. Fully agree. Agreed. You only kill units to prevent them from overwhelming you, or so you can capture the city, but you can just bait the unit to leave the city if you have the time. Cavalry units are used to clear units so artillery and infantry can do their job. Well cavalry are not so much killers as much scouts and mobile infantry. They don't get as much hitpoints as archers or infantry, and can get smashed in short order by archers, even with a general. Units will need to be attacked because most campaigns have a "kill x number of units" part in order to get 3 stars. A murat could be useful because of his mobility and ability to take a city in two turns, but crassus only gets 7 stars in cavalry, meaning there are better cavalry generals for such a thing like scipio, especially since the AI will almost always spawn a defending unit which crassus is often incapable of handling. You get him in the second campaign against spartacus, and it will leave a really poor taste in your mouth with him. Too slow, too delicate, and just not the man for the job; just like real life? |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 30, 2019 16:41:04 GMT
I think cleopatra wouldn't be the ideal first buy, but she'll definitely be one of the best come late game. Cavalry Gen should be prioritized, although i think for now we aren't sure which general is the best until we try them out individually,or becomes nerds and calculate their cost efficiency value. As for IAP, I'll go for Hannibal, cavalry gens ftw. All IAPs are good, but not all IAPs are created equal. Hannibal is best because of the nature of cavalry, and even tho archers have an advantage against them, smart play makes it so you can circumvent their weakness. My judgment can be wrong and that infantry or archers are best, but cut me some slack, I don't have the game yet I think archer is the best but we're lucky there is a country who has as special units archery with cav+ mithridates VI my only question is how the bonus with that works |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jun 30, 2019 16:46:20 GMT
Agreed. You only kill units to prevent them from overwhelming you, or so you can capture the city, but you can just bait the unit to leave the city if you have the time. Cavalry units are used to clear units so artillery and infantry can do their job. Well cavalry are not so much killers as much scouts and mobile infantry. They don't get as much hitpoints as archers or infantry, and can get smashed in short order by archers, even with a general. Units will need to be attacked because most campaigns have a "kill x number of units" part in order to get 3 stars. A murat could be useful because of his mobility and ability to take a city in two turns, but crassus only gets 7 stars in cavalry, meaning there are better cavalry generals for such a thing like scipio, especially since the AI will almost always spawn a defending unit which crassus is often incapable of handling. You get him in the second campaign against spartacus, and it will leave a really poor taste in your mouth with him. Too slow, too delicate, and just not the man for the job; just lije real life? We were talking about hybrids. They have a very specific niche. Nobody says they could outperform specialized gens... |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jun 30, 2019 16:54:04 GMT
I think cleopatra wouldn't be the ideal first buy, but she'll definitely be one of the best come late game. Cavalry Gen should be prioritized, although i think for now we aren't sure which general is the best until we try them out individually,or becomes nerds and calculate their cost efficiency value. As for IAP, I'll go for Hannibal, cavalry gens ftw. All IAPs are good, but not all IAPs are created equal. Hannibal is best because of the nature of cavalry, and even tho archers have an advantage against them, smart play makes it so you can circumvent their weakness. My judgment can be wrong and that infantry or archers are best, but cut me some slack, I don't have the game yet I think archer is the best but we're lucky there is a country who has as special units archery with cav+ mithridates VI my only question is how the bonus with that works Also think so. Normally most expensive IAP is for the strongest unit type. |
|
|
|
Post by opinionmaker on Jul 1, 2019 21:28:36 GMT
Agreed. You only kill units to prevent them from overwhelming you, or so you can capture the city, but you can just bait the unit to leave the city if you have the time. Cavalry units are used to clear units so artillery and infantry can do their job. Well cavalry are not so much killers as much scouts and mobile infantry. They don't get as much hitpoints as archers or infantry, and can get smashed in short order by archers, even with a general. Units will need to be attacked because most campaigns have a "kill x number of units" part in order to get 3 stars. A murat could be useful because of his mobility and ability to take a city in two turns, but crassus only gets 7 stars in cavalry, meaning there are better cavalry generals for such a thing like scipio, especially since the AI will almost always spawn a defending unit which crassus is often incapable of handling. You get him in the second campaign against spartacus, and it will leave a really poor taste in your mouth with him. Too slow, too delicate, and just not the man for the job; just like real life? Spartacus may seem pretty weak, but from what I’ve seen him do personally while controlling him as my own general, hes pretty good. The main issue is his mobility, but thats more of a heavy infantry problem overall; The stronger your infantry the slower they tend to be. *ignore, I misunderstood* |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jul 1, 2019 23:49:15 GMT
Well cavalry are not so much killers as much scouts and mobile infantry. They don't get as much hitpoints as archers or infantry, and can get smashed in short order by archers, even with a general. Units will need to be attacked because most campaigns have a "kill x number of units" part in order to get 3 stars. A murat could be useful because of his mobility and ability to take a city in two turns, but crassus only gets 7 stars in cavalry, meaning there are better cavalry generals for such a thing like scipio, especially since the AI will almost always spawn a defending unit which crassus is often incapable of handling. You get him in the second campaign against spartacus, and it will leave a really poor taste in your mouth with him. Too slow, too delicate, and just not the man for the job; just like real life? Spartacus may seem pretty weak, but from what I’ve seen him do personally while controlling him as my own general, hes pretty good. The main issue is his mobility, but thats more of a heavy infantry problem overall; The stronger your infantry the slower they tend to be. *ignore, I misunderstood* He isn’t weak at all. He is just as good as hannibal, but hannibal can attack up to three or four times in a turn, whereas spartacus at two. In addition, spartacus lacks ambush. Other than that and him being only general, he is really good. A 4.5/5 stars in my opinion. What really saves caesar is the fact that he starts out at consul. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jul 1, 2019 23:50:59 GMT
Agreed. You only kill units to prevent them from overwhelming you, or so you can capture the city, but you can just bait the unit to leave the city if you have the time. Cavalry units are used to clear units so artillery and infantry can do their job. Well cavalry are not so much killers as much scouts and mobile infantry. They don't get as much hitpoints as archers or infantry, and can get smashed in short order by archers, even with a general. Units will need to be attacked because most campaigns have a "kill x number of units" part in order to get 3 stars. A murat could be useful because of his mobility and ability to take a city in two turns, but crassus only gets 7 stars in cavalry, meaning there are better cavalry generals for such a thing like scipio, especially since the AI will almost always spawn a defending unit which crassus is often incapable of handling. You get him in the second campaign against spartacus, and it will leave a really poor taste in your mouth with him. Too slow, too delicate, and just not the man for the job; just like real life? Funny enough, it was crassus that beat spartacus. But not after a very long campaign though. |
|
|
|
Post by opinionmaker on Jul 2, 2019 2:02:03 GMT
I agree that hannibal would have been a better pick in the end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 10:47:52 GMT
Well cavalry are not so much killers as much scouts and mobile infantry. They don't get as much hitpoints as archers or infantry, and can get smashed in short order by archers, even with a general. Units will need to be attacked because most campaigns have a "kill x number of units" part in order to get 3 stars. A murat could be useful because of his mobility and ability to take a city in two turns, but crassus only gets 7 stars in cavalry, meaning there are better cavalry generals for such a thing like scipio, especially since the AI will almost always spawn a defending unit which crassus is often incapable of handling. You get him in the second campaign against spartacus, and it will leave a really poor taste in your mouth with him. Too slow, too delicate, and just not the man for the job; just like real life? Funny enough, it was crassus that beat spartacus. But not after a very long campaign though. Out of the 3 IAPs, how would you rank them in terms of power, longevity and overall usefulness ? I'd say Hannibal is the top dawg, but i'm not sure if who's better between Caesar and Spartacus. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jul 2, 2019 10:53:18 GMT
Funny enough, it was crassus that beat spartacus. But not after a very long campaign though. Out of the 3 IAPs, how would you rank them in terms of power, longevity and overall usefulness ? I'd say Hannibal is the top dawg, but i'm not sure if who's better between Caesar and Spartacus. Difficult to say. Haven't played a lot yet. But if speaking about aura, Spartacus would be more useful for the beginning. In Campaign You are often given quite good infantry gens to control, so his aura is useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jul 2, 2019 10:53:56 GMT
Funny enough, it was crassus that beat spartacus. But not after a very long campaign though. Out of the 3 IAPs, how would you rank them in terms of power, longevity and overall usefulness ? I'd say Hannibal is the top dawg, but i'm not sure if who's better between Caesar and Spartacus. So far, Hannibal > Spartacus > Caesar But caesar does occasionally one shot a cavarly or archer unit from full health. But its really the lack of defense and movement. I would say that Spartacus is better. But I am not very far in the game. Caesar has good things going for him, but he just gets rekt so quickly. But, for two dollars more, Caesar is consul whereas Spartacus is only general. This makes caesar stack up faster, and deal quite a lot of damage. He is very powerful but very fragile i guess. I still wanna say spartacus. Him in vercingetorix would be a great team of unstoppable meatshields. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2019 11:38:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Jul 2, 2019 13:05:25 GMT
I think between caesar and spartacus it comes down to playstyle and situation. Caesar and his archers are equally good but they are more passive than spartacus and his more tanky infantry. The ability to outnumber his enemy and deal more damage makes caesar have better output in most situations, but he also always takes more damage.
Both are good, but spartacus is less passive and generally more adaptable to situations, whereas caesar shines brighter when you put him in the less common situations that he excels at
TL;DR-Spartacus is probably a better buy in general, but both are of about equal worth
|
|
