|
|
Post by dsongop on Jul 23, 2019 17:39:30 GMT
Hi all, after quietly observing discussions about some gens, I decided to create a thread about which generals I think are underrated and which are overrated. Disclaimer: by putting a general in the underrated category does not mean that I recommend you purchase him, and likewise an overrated general is not always a general to avoid. This list is purely based on my personal opinion and understanding of the game. Underrated:Crassus Obviously there wouldn't be too many underrated gold tier generals, plus he wasn't a strong military general in history, but Deleted 's efficient usage of Crassus changed my opinion on him. The forum's reception towards him isn't great as well, with even someone putting a 1-star rating on him. Crassus has 3 universal skills, which makes him an awesome hybrid, plus he is the best city cracker in the game. Along with march, he is very appealing to speedrunners like me. Agrippa
 I don't think he gets the attention he deserves. Only other 9-star navy hybrid. He's capable of reaching 8 stars in infantry as well. All his skills are useful, and if we're going to have navy based campaigns/expeditions (Battle of Actium etc) then hiring him temporarily or permanently would help a lot. With Cleopatra buffing him on a ship, his damage could be off the charts. He starts off as general which also isn't bad at all. Tiberius
 He has great skills, meh talent, good early game gen, but since he's only Legatus, save up and get Antony instead Labienus & Bato
  Both are beasts with terrible talents. Labienus can get on a tear offensively, and Bato is a budget Vercingetorix. Both endgame worthy. Commius
 Pacorus I but he hits harder and is better at cracking cities. Don't recommend touching him until later, when Pacorus becomes useless. Cassius
 Decent skills, quite cheap, and rumor would be an interesting talent. CommanderInvest more on him; he will be your best general. OverratedOctavian
 Too expensive in my opinion. Counterattack is a garbage skill on an archer, and he can't even reach 9 stars. Mithridates IV would be a better purchase. Don't recommend buying him until the endgame. Vercingetorix
 Absolute tank, but he lacks offense in my opinion. Sure he has roar, but he is more defense oriented. Even if you give him a good item, he's either going to lack in punch or mobility. Even though I hired him, I'd rather have Pompey or even Crassus. Sertorius
 Though he is by no means highly popular, I think we are treating him too nicely. He's absolute trash in my opinion. Starts off as Legatus, weird talent, so-so skills. Nothing stands out particularly well about him, so I see no reason of buying him at all. Scipio All gold tier cav gens have their shortcomings (wouldn't it be a great thing if they could trade talents). Scipio's skills seem too defensive and could be replaced with much better ones. He lacks cavalry commander, which is probably the most important cavalry skill, because it would be highly likely for your general to attack again due to the 60% chance we automatically get after destroying a legion. Antony is a better choice for speed, Huo hits slightly harder, and Arminius is all around good even though he lacks the commander skill. Generally, Scipio is the worst out of the gold cavalry gens. Drusus
 Controversial, and even under the heavy endorsement of stoic I have to say that I don't think he is that great. He certainly hits hard, and his talent works well with advantage, but it almost seems like he has one skill. Archers are not that important early game, as you usually won't deploy more than one general on an archer especially in campaigns. I'd take Mithridates over Drusus because of his bonus against cavalry and second attack probability, plus Mithridates' critcal chance against a smaller enemy force would be much higher than Drusus if he is orated or has the ring activated. If you don't have Caesar, or your commander isn't archer oriented like me. Drusus would be the best 2nd or 3rd archer gen choice though. I did not add any bronze tier generals, because nobody really keeps them or even hires them except for our boy Pacorus. Therefore they can't really be labelled under or overrated. Feel free to chip in your opinions and sharp arguments below (looking at you, andrei ). |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jul 23, 2019 17:47:04 GMT
A bit of a disagreement, but you are on the ball for most of them.
1. Tiberius isn’t underrated. He simply isn’t good enough. He is probably 5th or even 6th best cavalry general in the game. He is good but not even close to good enough. If you buy him, you will get a walmart version of anthony. Labelling him as underrated might result in some unexperienced player purchasing him.
2. Octavian is overrated and counterattack is a garbage skill.
Archers only take damage when they are attacked. Archers can counterattack anything that doesn’t have guerilla or ambush. This means this happens a lot. Octavian’s counterattack will probably have an enormous effect. He can defend cities well, he can take on tough cavarly generals and win.
Secondly, the fact that you think Octavian is overrated. Whether you dislike him or not, no one can deny that he is the second best archer general in the game. Unless you plan on making your free general an archer and plan on getting cleopatra, you will most likely buy him. I have yet to see any one really both use him and praise him on this forum.
3. Cassius: if you are going to buy cassius, you might as well spend the extra 300 medals and get vercingetorix. The quality difference between the two is enormous
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jul 23, 2019 17:50:05 GMT
On a more positive note, i do strongly agree with every other slot on this list. It is very accurate
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 23, 2019 18:09:26 GMT
I would agree, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 23, 2019 18:12:34 GMT
Is there a similar list for WC4, just for curiosity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 18:12:40 GMT
I think Scipio isn't overrated, although if you think that giving him a 3/5 is too kind, then I guess he is overrated  . He's a much more situational Crassus, and is more of a boss general to deal with in campaigns. Although I agree on your point about Octavian, I think your point on Octavian's counterattack being bad isn't a strong point. Giving Octavian a defense item like the one item that gives 25% hp will make him a pretty weird sort of Frontline Archer. Although it's a bad thing to put archers in the front, having him move with other slow moving units like Vercingatorix towards nearer objectives to prevent him from being flanked and make it so only 1 or 2 enemy units can attack him will be a really interesting strategy. Will not touch him tho, since Mithridates will be a better pick overall. Tiberius can be great with investment to rank him up and upgrade his skills, but why go for him if Antony exists. Great thread overall. I may also suggest Cleopatra in the overrated list. She's a great general, but I think she's too hyped up. She's a 8.9/10 in terms of usefulness, although people seem to give her an 11/10  . She definitely is more useful than Octavian, although the lack of naval missions hurts her a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 23, 2019 18:16:29 GMT
Hi all, after quietly observing discussions about some gens, I decided to create a thread about which generals I think are underrated and which are overrated. Disclaimer: by putting a general in the underrated category does not mean that I recommend you purchase him, and likewise an overrated general is not always a general to avoid. This list is purely based on my personal opinion and understanding of the game. Underrated:CrassusObviously there wouldn't be too many underrated gold tier generals, plus he wasn't a strong military general in history, but Deleted 's efficient usage of Crassus changed my opinion on him. The forum's reception towards him isn't great as well, with even someone putting a 1-star rating on him. Crassus has 3 universal skills, which makes him an awesome hybrid, plus he is the best city cracker in the game. Along with march, he is very appealing to speedrunners like me. Agrippa
I don't think he gets the attention he deserves. Only other 9-star navy hybrid. He's capable of reaching 8 stars in infantry as well. All his skills are useful, and if we're going to have navy based campaigns/expeditions (Battle of Actium etc) then hiring him temporarily or permanently would help a lot. With Cleopatra buffing him on a ship, his damage could be off the charts. He starts off as general which also isn't bad at all. Tiberius
He has great skills, meh talent, good early game gen, but since he's only Legatus, save up and get Antony instead Labienus & Bato
Both are beasts with terrible talents. Labienus can get on a tear offensively, and Bato is a budget Vercingetorix. Both endgame worthy. Commius
Pacorus I but he hits harder and is better at cracking cities. Don't recommend touching him until later, when Pacorus becomes useless. Cassius
Decent skills, quite cheap, and rumor would be an interesting talent. CommanderInvest more on him; he will be your best general. OverratedOctavian
Too expensive in my opinion. Counterattack is a garbage skill on an archer, and he can't even reach 9 stars. Mithridates IV would be a better purchase. Don't recommend buying him until the endgame. Vercingetorix
Absolute tank, but he lacks offense in my opinion. Sure he has roar, but he is more defense oriented. Even if you give him a good item, he's either going to lack in punch or mobility. Even though I hired him, I'd rather have Pompey or even Crassus. Sertorius
Though he is by no means highly popular, I think we are treating him too nicely. He's absolute trash in my opinion. Starts off as Legatus, weird talent, so-so skills. Nothing stands out particularly well about him, so I see no reason of buying him at all. ScipioAll gold tier cav gens have their shortcomings (wouldn't it be a great thing if they could trade talents). Scipio's skills seem too defensive and could be replaced with much better ones. He lacks cavalry commander, which is probably the most important cavalry skill, because it would be highly likely for your general to attack again due to the 60% chance we automatically get after destroying a legion. Antony is a better choice for speed, Huo hits slightly harder, and Arminius is all around good even though he lacks the commander skill. Generally, Scipio is the worst out of the gold cavalry gens. Drusus
Controversial, and even under the heavy endorsement of stoic I have to say that I don't think he is that great. He certainly hits hard, and his talent works well with advantage, but it almost seems like he has one skill. Archers are not that important early game, as you usually won't deploy more than one general on an archer especially in campaigns. I'd take Mithridates over Drusus because of his bonus against cavalry and second attack probability, plus Mithridates' critcal chance against a smaller enemy force would be much higher than Drusus if he is orated or has the ring activated. If you don't have Caesar, or your commander isn't archer oriented like me. Drusus would be the best 2nd or 3rd archer gen choice though. I did not add any bronze tier generals, because nobody really keeps them or even hires them except for our boy Pacorus. Therefore they can't really be labelled under or overrated. Feel free to chip in your opinions and sharp arguments below (looking at you, andrei ). Umm, does the fact that Huo hits slightly harder really matter? I don’t know if slightly more damage matters more here than WC4, but the fact that Nagumo only deals 12 more damage than Kuznetsov in navy doesn’t make him better. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 23, 2019 18:19:52 GMT
I think Scipio isn't overrated, although if you think that giving him a 3/5 is too kind, then I guess he is overrated . He's a much more situational Crassus, and is more of a boss general to deal with in campaigns. Although I agree on your point about Octavian, I think your point on Octavian's counterattack being bad isn't a strong point. Giving Octavian a defense item like the one item that gives 25% hp will make him a pretty weird sort of Frontline Archer. Although it's a bad thing to put archers in the front, having him move with other slow moving units like Vercingatorix towards nearer objectives to prevent him from being flanked and make it so only 1 or 2 enemy units can attack him will be a really interesting strategy. Will not touch him tho, since Mithridates will be a better pick overall. Tiberius can be great with investment to rank him up and upgrade his skills, but why go for him if Antony exists. Great thread overall. I may also suggest Cleopatra in the overrated list. She's a great general, but I think she's too hyped up. She's a 8.9/10 in terms of usefulness, although people seem to give her an 11/10 . She definitely is more useful than Octavian, although the lack of naval missions hurts her a bit. But when the naval missions DO appear, you will want to have Cleopatra. It's better to vaccinate than taking the medicine. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 18:26:41 GMT
Gone, other generals do damage in the navy just fine, but yes, better to have her when you don't need her than not have her when you need her.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsongop on Jul 23, 2019 18:27:46 GMT
I think Scipio isn't overrated, although if you think that giving him a 3/5 is too kind, then I guess he is overrated . He's a much more situational Crassus, and is more of a boss general to deal with in campaigns. Although I agree on your point about Octavian, I think your point on Octavian's counterattack being bad isn't a strong point. Giving Octavian a defense item like the one item that gives 25% hp will make him a pretty weird sort of Frontline Archer. Although it's a bad thing to put archers in the front, having him move with other slow moving units like Vercingatorix towards nearer objectives to prevent him from being flanked and make it so only 1 or 2 enemy units can attack him will be a really interesting strategy. Will not touch him tho, since Mithridates will be a better pick overall. Tiberius can be great with investment to rank him up and upgrade his skills, but why go for him if Antony exists. Great thread overall. I may also suggest Cleopatra in the overrated list. She's a great general, but I think she's too hyped up. She's a 8.9/10 in terms of usefulness, although people seem to give her an 11/10 . She definitely is more useful than Octavian, although the lack of naval missions hurts her a bit. You and Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus are correct about Octavian's counterattack, but I still hold my position on him. In addition, I think Tiberius just lacks attention tbh, won't touch him either. I thought about putting Cleopatra in, but her aura and 2 commander skills could not be overlooked, even though she won't get much time on the battlefield. Cleopatra was the first general I got, but now I would advise players to hesitate on getting her, instead focus on non-hybrid land gens first. She really doesn't have much use early on, but her potential and impact in the future Crimean War equivalent of GCR is going to be enormous. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2019 18:27:49 GMT
Is there a similar list for WC4, just for curiosity? Just search it up if there is. If not, you can always make one yourself |
|
|
|
Post by dsongop on Jul 23, 2019 18:33:30 GMT
Umm, does the fact that Huo hits slightly harder really matter? I don’t know if slightly more damage matters more here than WC4, but the fact that Nagumo only deals 12 more damage than Kuznetsov in navy doesn’t make him better. Yes, it's like panzers in WC4. If Rommel kills an enemy because of his higher output, he will attack again (assuming the tech is there), but if Rokossovsky leaves the unit at 1hp, then he can't. Unit type matters. Plus, Huo has guerilla, a fantastic skill that Scipio lacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jul 23, 2019 18:40:58 GMT
Makes sense. Thanks a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsongop on Jul 23, 2019 18:45:56 GMT
A bit of a disagreement, but you are on the ball for most of them. 1. Tiberius isn’t underrated. He simply isn’t good enough. He is probably 5th or even 6th best cavalry general in the game. He is good but not even close to good enough. If you buy him, you will get a walmart version of anthony. Labelling him as underrated might resolve in some unexperienced player purchasing him. 2. Octavian is overrated and counterattack is a garbage skill. Archers only take damage when they are attacked. Archers can counterattack anything that doesn’t have guerilla or ambush. This means this happens a lot. Octavian’s counterattack will probably have an enormous effect. He can defend cities well, he can take on tough cavarly generals and win. Secondly, the fact that you think Octavian is overrated. Whether you dislike him or not, no one can deny that he is the second best archer general in the game. Unless you plan on making your free general an archer and plan on getting cleopatra, you will most likely buy him. I have yet to see any one really both use him and praise him on this forum. 3. Cassius: if you are going to buy cassius, you might as well spend the extra 300 medals and get vercingetorix. The quality difference between the two is enormous Appreciate the feedback, Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus 1.Tiberius isn't a terrible early game buy, just like Commius, but of course he isn't a must. I just think that he's generally ignored, and by a general being underrated doesn't mean he has to be hired. 2. I agree on this mostly, but I would still prefer a terrain skill let's say. If Octavian had plain fighting instead and he is stationed in a plain, he would benefit from plain fighting both when he is attacking and counterattacking. Imagine a scenario where that extra damage from the terrain skill kills a unit too; that would spare some damage dealt. I'd also argue that Drusus and Octavian are pretty much level, and I don't know if you counted Caesar in or not. 3. I haven't seen anyone really use him a lot. I used him for my Rome-Crassus conquest and he seemed pretty effective, maybe it's a little biased, but it does seem like rumor isn't as effective as it was in WC4. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jul 23, 2019 19:06:19 GMT
Makes sense. Thanks a lot. Depends on the unit. Infantry you want as beefy as possible, well at least that’s how I like mine as they get not one but too good damage reducing perks. However, you could also make a Vasilevksy type general where you add infantry commander + 3 damage boosting skills and get a good general. Cavalry: You want these to have both guerilla and too attack as heavily as possible. If a cavarly hits really hard, it can oneshot some units and keep attacking. I would personally go with Archers: you definitely want these hitting like a nuke and nothing else. Every skill on them must boost output in one way or another. |
|
. He's a much more situational Crassus, and is more of a boss general to deal with in campaigns. Although I agree on your point about Octavian, I think your point on Octavian's counterattack being bad isn't a strong point. Giving Octavian a defense item like the one item that gives 25% hp will make him a pretty weird sort of Frontline Archer. Although it's a bad thing to put archers in the front, having him move with other slow moving units like Vercingatorix towards nearer objectives to prevent him from being flanked and make it so only 1 or 2 enemy units can attack him will be a really interesting strategy. Will not touch him tho, since Mithridates will be a better pick overall. Tiberius can be great with investment to rank him up and upgrade his skills, but why go for him if Antony exists. Great thread overall. I may also suggest Cleopatra in the overrated list. She's a great general, but I think she's too hyped up. She's a 8.9/10 in terms of usefulness, although people seem to give her an 11/10 
. She definitely is more useful than Octavian, although the lack of naval missions hurts her a bit. 
