|
|
Post by Andika on Jul 8, 2019 17:39:19 GMT
Which one is the best, Arminius's damage or Marcus Antonius's speed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 20:55:48 GMT
I'd go with Antony. Arminius does damage, but the ability to ignore terrain and move for 1 more hex is so valuable since it provides good strategic possibilities. Imagine in conquests where you just ignore the terrain and go straight for enemy cities, instead of taking a turn or 2 just to go through or around a mountain range or river. Antony still does damage, and Arminius doesn't do a significant amount of damage more than Antony. That's why I think overall, Antony is the better cavalry Gen  |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jul 8, 2019 21:40:34 GMT
I'd go with Antony. Arminius does damage, but the ability to ignore terrain and move for 1 more hex is so valuable since it provides good strategic possibilities. Imagine in conquests where you just ignore the terrain and go straight for enemy cities, instead of taking a turn or 2 just to go through or around a mountain range or river. Antony still does damage, and Arminius doesn't do a significant amount of damage more than Antony. That's why I think overall, Antony is the better cavalry Gen Buy Gallic War book  |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jul 8, 2019 22:35:03 GMT
I'd go with Antony. Arminius does damage, but the ability to ignore terrain and move for 1 more hex is so valuable since it provides good strategic possibilities. Imagine in conquests where you just ignore the terrain and go straight for enemy cities, instead of taking a turn or 2 just to go through or around a mountain range or river. Antony still does damage, and Arminius doesn't do a significant amount of damage more than Antony. That's why I think overall, Antony is the better cavalry Gen Unfortunately fog of war exists tho, and once the general hits an enemy, he stops. Unless with forced march of course |
|
|
|
Post by yuanzhong on Jul 9, 2019 0:19:44 GMT
I have both of them. Although I prefer Arminius (raw data is clear and I'm the evidence based guy) but I have to say that I have feeling Antony is better. Better move and his Cavalry Commander (lvl 3)actives quite often (yes, It's more than my Hannibal with lvl 5 skill).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 3:18:15 GMT
I'd go with Antony. Arminius does damage, but the ability to ignore terrain and move for 1 more hex is so valuable since it provides good strategic possibilities. Imagine in conquests where you just ignore the terrain and go straight for enemy cities, instead of taking a turn or 2 just to go through or around a mountain range or river. Antony still does damage, and Arminius doesn't do a significant amount of damage more than Antony. That's why I think overall, Antony is the better cavalry Gen Unfortunately fog of war exists tho, and once the general hits an enemy, he stops. Unless with forced march of course That's why you send some units first to go ahead, then your general |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jul 9, 2019 11:10:55 GMT
Unfortunately fog of war exists tho, and once the general hits an enemy, he stops. Unless with forced march of course That's why you send some units first to go ahead, then your general Thats true. |
|
|
|
Post by Andika on Jul 11, 2019 3:04:25 GMT
Ok. Thanks for all of the advices. 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich on Aug 29, 2019 12:42:28 GMT
I don’t want to create a new thread so I bring this thread back to ask for who should I pick now. As every general is good in certain scenarios, it’s hard to make a choice between Arminius and Antony. I have Hannibal myself so I think I don’t need another Cav gen that so much like him in skills and output. But Antony is a bit kind of glass cannon, he’s fragile to lead an attack alone in conquest (most of the time he’ll be alone coz no one can catch up with him except commander with march) and he doesn’t have siege. I also have the service of Pacorus I and really need a third Cav gen, please give me advices to make a decision. Or I will create a new thread with poll?
|
|
|
|
Post by kingbutawl on Aug 29, 2019 13:30:47 GMT
I don’t want to create a new thread so I bring this thread back to ask for who should I pick now. As every general is good in certain scenarios, it’s hard to make a choice between Arminius and Antony. I have Hannibal myself so I think I don’t need another Cav gen that so much like him in skills and output. But Antony is a bit kind of glass cannon, he’s fragile to lead an attack alone in conquest (most of the time he’ll be alone coz no one can catch up with him except commander with march) and he doesn’t have siege. I also have the service of Pacorus I and really need a third Cav gen, please give me advices to make a decision. Or I will create a new thread with poll? If u want a comparable damage with Hannibal , take Arminius. If u want only speed , then even a Pompey with map is good . If u want only resistance and slightly less average damage , Scipio and Huo can go alone on their paths (but Scipio has street fighting to better counterattack in cities) |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 29, 2019 16:17:37 GMT
I don’t want to create a new thread so I bring this thread back to ask for who should I pick now. As every general is good in certain scenarios, it’s hard to make a choice between Arminius and Antony. I have Hannibal myself so I think I don’t need another Cav gen that so much like him in skills and output. But Antony is a bit kind of glass cannon, he’s fragile to lead an attack alone in conquest (most of the time he’ll be alone coz no one can catch up with him except commander with march) and he doesn’t have siege. I also have the service of Pacorus I and really need a third Cav gen, please give me advices to make a decision. Or I will create a new thread with poll? I got anthony in your situation, but either one is fine. Arminius is solid because he has good damage reduction skills when attacking, with garrison and guerilla. Anthony is better at city cracking/being very fast. Both are solid options. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2019 22:45:58 GMT
I don’t want to create a new thread so I bring this thread back to ask for who should I pick now. As every general is good in certain scenarios, it’s hard to make a choice between Arminius and Antony. I have Hannibal myself so I think I don’t need another Cav gen that so much like him in skills and output. But Antony is a bit kind of glass cannon, he’s fragile to lead an attack alone in conquest (most of the time he’ll be alone coz no one can catch up with him except commander with march) and he doesn’t have siege. I also have the service of Pacorus I and really need a third Cav gen, please give me advices to make a decision. Or I will create a new thread with poll? Antony makes you play like an opportunist. Just make sure the path is safe and let Antony charge ahead and wreck infantry and cities. He lack siege, but he has cavalry commander + assault, so he can siege well. If he can't straight up capture a city, he can be a distraction for enemy generals or enemy units so your allies can have more breathing space. Antony's mobility gives you more options to work with, that's why he's better than Arminius. |
|
|
|
Post by kingbutawl on Aug 29, 2019 23:02:32 GMT
Arminius just needed march instead .
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 30, 2019 1:15:58 GMT
Arminius just needed march instead . Or inspire! Arminius is probably the next best though, if you give him a military map |
|
|
|
Post by Erich on Aug 30, 2019 6:49:19 GMT
So, most of you guys recommend to get Antony instead of Arminius. Ok, I’ll make an iCloud save and do some tests with both of them, just want to know who suits best with my team of Cav gens: Hannibal + Pacorus I. And I have Pompey and Crassus and Inf. commander with march, so another Cav gen with march iz a bit too much.
|
|
