|
|
Arminius
Aug 22, 2019 15:24:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 22, 2019 15:24:07 GMT
why would you discuss this? you can take huo, scipio, arminius and antony. I don't think the differences are so great that it is really bad to take one earlier than the other. you can better argue about generals for which there are alternatives (for example the inf gens). there are no alternatives to cav except hannibal or less than 4 cav gens which is probably not the best setup. so the question could be who is the worst of the four but i think that's just huo. Maybe 3 infantry generals, 3 cavarly, and 2 archers is a good build. But I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2019 15:41:39 GMT
why would you discuss this? you can take huo, scipio, arminius and antony. I don't think the differences are so great that it is really bad to take one earlier than the other. you can better argue about generals for which there are alternatives (for example the inf gens). there are no alternatives to cav except hannibal or less than 4 cav gens which is probably not the best setup. so the question could be who is the worst of the four but i think that's just huo. Maybe 3 infantry generals, 3 cavarly, and 2 archers is a good build. But I agree. I'll take tiberius over Arminius and Scipio, thank you very much. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 22, 2019 15:54:37 GMT
Maybe 3 infantry generals, 3 cavarly, and 2 archers is a good build. But I agree. I'll take tiberius over Arminius and Scipio, thank you very much. Good for speedrunners. Bad for casual players |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Aug 22, 2019 15:55:00 GMT
Maybe 3 infantry generals, 3 cavarly, and 2 archers is a good build. But I agree. I'll take tiberius over Arminius and Scipio, thank you very much but that's just because you love march |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Aug 22, 2019 15:58:31 GMT
why would you discuss this? you can take huo, scipio, arminius and antony. I don't think the differences are so great that it is really bad to take one earlier than the other. you can better argue about generals for which there are alternatives (for example the inf gens). there are no alternatives to cav except hannibal or less than 4 cav gens which is probably not the best setup. so the question could be who is the worst of the four but i think that's just huo. Maybe 3 infantry generals, 3 cavarly, and 2 archers is a good build. But I agree. why only use 8? We have 12 spaces I would go for 4-4-4 with 3 navy hybrids: commander,agrippa and cleo |
|
|
|
Arminius
Aug 22, 2019 16:02:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 22, 2019 16:02:36 GMT
Maybe 3 infantry generals, 3 cavarly, and 2 archers is a good build. But I agree. why only use 8? We have 12 spaces I would go for 4-4-4 with 3 navy hybrids: commander,agrippa and cleo Only 8 allowed in conquest so far. Yes that is very smart to do. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 8:15:34 GMT
I'll take tiberius over Arminius and Scipio, thank you very much but that's just because you love march Nah, the damage differences aren't too large, unlike in ew6 where aura gens reign Supreme, plus having March frees you for an offensive item. |
|
|
|
Arminius
Aug 23, 2019 12:52:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 23, 2019 12:52:04 GMT
Nah, the damage differences aren't too large, unlike in ew6 where aura gens reign Supreme, plus having March frees you for an offensive item. Plus lvl 4 = + 2 hex mobility in conquest. |
|
|
|
Arminius
Aug 23, 2019 12:54:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 23, 2019 12:54:18 GMT
But as I am not a record breaker, just someone who plays as fast as possible with what I have, I probably won’t ever buy tiberius. I mean he is 1/2 arminius + march, but loses his best skill guerilla as well as charge. A bit of mobility ain’t worth it imo
|
|
|
|
Post by kingbutawl on Aug 23, 2019 12:58:03 GMT
Nah, the damage differences aren't too large, unlike in ew6 where aura gens reign Supreme, plus having March frees you for an offensive item. The difference is indeed inconsistent. The fact is that every golden tier geberals are good (or every expensive generals with more than 400 of gold price.... some of them suck but Tiberius is a good cav general) . That's why from the beginning of the game I chose my generals mostly considering their appearances (Scipio is cooler than Anthony and surely much more than Baby Arminius over there) . I use the same principle from EW4 , just because it relaxes me and makes me adapt my strategy to different situations. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 23, 2019 13:21:52 GMT
Nah, the damage differences aren't too large, unlike in ew6 where aura gens reign Supreme, plus having March frees you for an offensive item. The difference is indeed inconsistent. The fact is that every golden tier geberals are good (or every expensive generals with more than 400 of gold price.... some of them suck but Tiberius is a good cav general) . That's why from the beginning of the game I chose my generals mostly considering their appearances (Scipio is cooler than Anthony and surely much more than Baby Arminius over there) . I use the same principle from EW4 , just because it relaxes me and makes me adapt my strategy to different situations. You pick your generals by looking at who is more attractive... a pretty good strategy actually. Surena and Wei are ugly bastards. I just hope you find Pompey Magnus and Crassus attractive, in a sort of guilty pleasure way 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by kingbutawl on Aug 23, 2019 14:07:23 GMT
Murat was the best looking general in EW6 . He was magnificient (he inspired terror , just deploying in the battlefield . Even on militia!)
|
|
|
|
Post by kingbutawl on Aug 23, 2019 14:11:48 GMT
The difference is indeed inconsistent. The fact is that every golden tier geberals are good (or every expensive generals with more than 400 of gold price.... some of them suck but Tiberius is a good cav general) . That's why from the beginning of the game I chose my generals mostly considering their appearances (Scipio is cooler than Anthony and surely much more than Baby Arminius over there) . I use the same principle from EW4 , just because it relaxes me and makes me adapt my strategy to different situations. You pick your generals by looking at who is more attractive... a pretty good strategy actually. Surena and Wei are ugly bastards. I just hope you find Pompey Magnus and Crassus attractive, in a sort of guilty pleasure way 😂 "Attractive" is not the correct word (even if they did a good job with Cleopatra). |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 23, 2019 14:16:35 GMT
Murat was the best looking general in EW6 . He was magnificient (he inspired terror , just deploying in the battlefield . Even on militia!) Karl was ugly tho lmao. |
|
|
|
Arminius
Aug 23, 2019 14:18:31 GMT
via mobile
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 23, 2019 14:18:31 GMT
You pick your generals by looking at who is more attractive... a pretty good strategy actually. Surena and Wei are ugly bastards. I just hope you find Pompey Magnus and Crassus attractive, in a sort of guilty pleasure way 😂 "Attractive" is not the correct word (even if they did a good job with Cleopatra). She good though. But Drusus has inspire + advantage so if I buy an archer next, it will be him. |
|
