|
|
Sertorius
Nov 3, 2021 18:00:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Nov 3, 2021 18:00:39 GMT
Sentry is good in conjunction with shieldwall, as their proc rates aren't bad, and can make you do some really aggressive plays with them. Since maintaining high hp in the game is not too hard, having a way to mitigate damage is quite good. Sentry isn't good on it's own, and it needs shieldwall to make sure that it's use is optimized. Sadly, shieldwall can stand on it's own, while sentry can't without shieldwall. That's why I rated labienus much higher with banner of Vulcan. That said, Scipio is just sad gameplaywise. Really hope he was much better, considering he was the one who adapted to hannibal's tactics and beat him in both strategy and their first and final battle at Zama. But Scipio has three top-tier cavalry skills and one okay one (Raid)! He carried me in the early game together with Pompey! Arminius and Belisarius have 4. As for Huo, I think Guerilla and Assault are considerably better than Street Fighting and Charge. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Nov 3, 2021 21:19:43 GMT
IMO, he is better than Antony and Arminius though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2021 23:03:42 GMT
Yeah, but other generals could also carry you early game. Trebonius carried stoic early game, as did Pacorus for me. Street fighting and counterattack is quite questionable, as you want the cavalry to be moving around and taking cities or killing infantry. Charge is alright, and raid is alright. Flat damage skilIs in isolation isn't really good, as it's easy for enemy units to reach high hp due to how easy it is to spam units on top of units, tho I will admit tho that he is good in defending key points, as if all conditions are met, he can reach 85 flat damage against a large infantry force attacking him in a city, and a flat 45 damage against cavalry attacking him. He would actually be much better as an archer, just give him items that boost his survivability. He would've also appreciated vercingetorix's talent really. Inspire as well, but that talent would be great on anyone. Sentry as well, since cavalry lacks shield wall. The major problem Scipio has is having a defensive playstyle, although he could easily be played offensively, but he lacks the crucial skill siege. He is the best cavalry defender of cities, but being the best at a role best relegated or archers or infantry doesn't make him objectively good, but rather a niche unit that has some uses in campaign, and there isn't a campaign so hard that scipio's flat 85 damage against infantry attacking him is required, and other cavalry gens can defend cities just fine if needed. Belisarius, Arminius and Huo would do better, along with Antonius when it comes to killing infantry and moving a lot. Basically, he ain't bad, just not as good as the likes of Belisarius. |
|
|
|
Sertorius
Nov 3, 2021 23:35:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by SolidLight on Nov 3, 2021 23:35:48 GMT
I don’t consider being good at meatwalling cities to have any significant value. Not if you’re specced for that while being worse at most other roles in comparison to your competition. This is due to a couple reasons. Firstly, most maps require you to move it, so anytime you defend should be a limited to one turn at most, unless you have a VERY niche situation like trying to wall out an enemy general while having a terrible economy and being way too far away from the others to possibly contribute. MOST of the action is going to be attacking, so it’s more important to be good at that. This alone makes these people lousy. You DON’T want to invest heavily into stuff that doesn’t happen very often.
Secondly, even for maps where you are on the defensive you’ll STILL don’t want a situation where the enemy surrounds your defense point. Morale means that usually you’ll have lousy stats. Plus the enemy can pile on stuff like fire and poison which can be crippling.
Basically for it to have any value you need to be in the goldilocks zone where being specced for meatwalling a city actually buys you enough turns to matter over not being specced for it, AND you need to not be better off just playing offensively clearing out any attackers in the first place.
I’ve never seen a situation where that has happened. It might be cool to have someone hunker down in a city to try to use skills like counterattack effectively, but I don’t think that’s actually useful in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2021 2:30:22 GMT
I don’t consider being good at meatwalling cities to have any significant value. Not if you’re specced for that while being worse at most other roles in comparison to your competition. This is due to a couple reasons. Firstly, most maps require you to move it, so anytime you defend should be a limited to one turn at most, unless you have a VERY niche situation like trying to wall out an enemy general while having a terrible economy and being way too far away from the others to possibly contribute. MOST of the action is going to be attacking, so it’s more important to be good at that. This alone makes these people lousy. You DON’T want to invest heavily into stuff that doesn’t happen very often. Secondly, even for maps where you are on the defensive you’ll STILL don’t want a situation where the enemy surrounds your defense point. Morale means that usually you’ll have lousy stats. Plus the enemy can pile on stuff like fire and poison which can be crippling. Basically for it to have any value you need to be in the goldilocks zone where being specced for meatwalling a city actually buys you enough turns to matter over not being specced for it, AND you need to not be better off just playing offensively clearing out any attackers in the first place. I’ve never seen a situation where that has happened. It might be cool to have someone hunker down in a city to try to use skills like counterattack effectively, but I don’t think that’s actually useful in the grand scheme of things. A situation where Scipio could be good is in city sieges, where he just steps inside a city structure to get a bonus, and start attacking the cities. Infantry defending the city would be taking 60 or 65 flat damage when counterattacking, and Scipio can comfortably hit them with a flat 40 or 45 when he attacks. Basically the same strat as Crassus really. The difference is that Crassus is much more efficient in what he does than Scipio. The only thing Crassus lacks really is infantry commander for that sweet double tap city destruction without the reliance of forced march. What hurts Scipio is that Crassus can also slot in as a cavalry general if you need more cavalry generals. So yeah, i wouldn't dismiss Scipio as being mediocre, but he sadly won't be the best at anything but slaughtering infantry consistently in city structures. If Scipio had march or siege, then he'd definitely be better(and no, not all generals with march are good sadly). |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Nov 4, 2021 9:46:54 GMT
I don’t consider being good at meatwalling cities to have any significant value. Not if you’re specced for that while being worse at most other roles in comparison to your competition. This is due to a couple reasons. Firstly, most maps require you to move it, so anytime you defend should be a limited to one turn at most, unless you have a VERY niche situation like trying to wall out an enemy general while having a terrible economy and being way too far away from the others to possibly contribute. MOST of the action is going to be attacking, so it’s more important to be good at that. This alone makes these people lousy. You DON’T want to invest heavily into stuff that doesn’t happen very often. Secondly, even for maps where you are on the defensive you’ll STILL don’t want a situation where the enemy surrounds your defense point. Morale means that usually you’ll have lousy stats. Plus the enemy can pile on stuff like fire and poison which can be crippling. Basically for it to have any value you need to be in the goldilocks zone where being specced for meatwalling a city actually buys you enough turns to matter over not being specced for it, AND you need to not be better off just playing offensively clearing out any attackers in the first place. I’ve never seen a situation where that has happened. It might be cool to have someone hunker down in a city to try to use skills like counterattack effectively, but I don’t think that’s actually useful in the grand scheme of things. A situation where Scipio could be good is in city sieges, where he just steps inside a city structure to get a bonus, and start attacking the cities. Infantry defending the city would be taking 60 or 65 flat damage when counterattacking, and Scipio can comfortably hit them with a flat 40 or 45 when he attacks. Basically the same strat as Crassus really. The difference is that Crassus is much more efficient in what he does than Scipio. The only thing Crassus lacks really is infantry commander for that sweet double tap city destruction without the reliance of forced march. What hurts Scipio is that Crassus can also slot in as a cavalry general if you need more cavalry generals. So yeah, i wouldn't dismiss Scipio as being mediocre, but he sadly won't be the best at anything but slaughtering infantry consistently in city structures. If Scipio had march or siege, then he'd definitely be better(and no, not all generals with march are good sadly). Fair enough. That’s something that’ll regularily happen enough to be useful. Don’t see him as the best one for that job and don’t think he’ll be necessary for normal play considering his alternatives. I still see the issue of not having Cavalry Commander, which is amazingly gamechanging. 20-25% extra actions (assuming there’s no lies or anything) is ridiculously huge. Plus you’re already probably speccing your commander for a similar role, and yeah Crassus can kinda do his job too, much better due to march. So Scipio is pretty much simply not good enough at what he does. That was more about the whole idea of tanking a city though. USUALLY that won’t be useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2021 10:31:42 GMT
Fair enough. That’s something that’ll regularily happen enough to be useful. Don’t see him as the best one for that job and don’t think he’ll be necessary for normal play considering his alternatives. I still see the issue of not having Cavalry Commander, which is amazingly gamechanging. 20-25% extra actions (assuming there’s no lies or anything) is ridiculously huge. Plus you’re already probably speccing your commander for a similar role, and yeah Crassus can kinda do his job too, much better due to march. So Scipio is pretty much simply not good enough at what he does. That was more about the whole idea of tanking a city though. USUALLY that won’t be useful. Yeah he won't sadly. He has an interesting aggressive niche of deleting infantry that attacks him in cities, but he lacks siege to take advantage of that. He lacks mobility to move around, assault for the crits to match huo's crit consistency, or cavalry commander to make-up for the lack of siege. Not a bad purchase for a cavalry general really, but others are just better. Wish he was better, but as i said, maybe in GCR 2 or something. |
|
|
|
Sertorius
Nov 21, 2021 14:26:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by gladiator on Nov 21, 2021 14:26:43 GMT
Having used Sertorius, should say his surviability is high.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 7, 2021 21:56:11 GMT
|
|
