|
|
Post by STILETT0 on Mar 12, 2021 21:14:24 GMT
yes. Tito, Winkelmann, and Nasser, all worthwhile in International. No, only Badoglio, Crerar and Ozawa. Honourable Mention- Auchinlek(if you need infantry). I would personally rather Wavell over Auchinleck. Wavell is a great general for defending 1* countries like Belgium and Yugoslavia because of his defense tactic and camoflauge. Auchinleck has the barebones three* and some terrain skills. I will agree on the infantry generals, but those are some of the best generals for their price. I got confused with Winkelmann, and somehow got him confused with Papagos. Winkelmann sucks. Also, Auchinleck for infantry? I remember him being good for armor, but little else. There is also Pound, which is just Ozawa with more useful skills, and only 20 medals more expensive, though, he is a bit more battleship centric, with fleet leader. I use Badoglio, Pound and Govorov, and they have gotten me to the last missions in cold war, though Sea Road was a pain, but I was able to achieve it. I'm not the best at this game, not very good, and often frustrated with the medal economy, but I love the game for the generals, and trying to figure out the storyline, which makes no sense. Really tho, two NATO Middle East games fighting over almost the same ground. One is just more African centric. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 2:13:15 GMT
No, only Badoglio, Crerar and Ozawa. Honourable Mention- Auchinlek(if you need infantry). I would personally rather Wavell over Auchinleck. Wavell is a great general for defending 1* countries like Belgium and Yugoslavia because of his defense tactic and camoflauge. Auchinleck has the barebones three* and some terrain skills. I will agree on the infantry generals, but those are some of the best generals for their price. I got confused with Winkelmann, and somehow got him confused with Papagos. Winkelmann sucks. Also, Auchinleck for infantry? I remember him being good for armor, but little else. There is also Pound, which is just Ozawa with more useful skills, and only 20 medals more expensive, though, he is a bit more battleship centric, with fleet leader. I use Badoglio, Pound and Govorov, and they have gotten me to the last missions in cold war, though Sea Road was a pain, but I was able to achieve it. I'm not the best at this game, not very good, and often frustrated with the medal economy, but I love the game for the generals, and trying to figure out the storyline, which makes no sense. Really tho, two NATO Middle East games fighting over almost the same ground. One is just more African centric. I used Auckinleck on infantry for some challenges. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 13, 2021 10:32:42 GMT
No, only Badoglio, Crerar and Ozawa. Honourable Mention- Auchinlek(if you need infantry). I would personally rather Wavell over Auchinleck. Wavell is a great general for defending 1* countries like Belgium and Yugoslavia because of his defense tactic and camoflauge. Auchinleck has the barebones three* and some terrain skills. I will agree on the infantry generals, but those are some of the best generals for their price. I got confused with Winkelmann, and somehow got him confused with Papagos. Winkelmann sucks. Also, Auchinleck for infantry? I remember him being good for armor, but little else. There is also Pound, which is just Ozawa with more useful skills, and only 20 medals more expensive, though, he is a bit more battleship centric, with fleet leader. I use Badoglio, Pound and Govorov, and they have gotten me to the last missions in cold war, though Sea Road was a pain, but I was able to achieve it. I'm not the best at this game, not very good, and often frustrated with the medal economy, but I love the game for the generals, and trying to figure out the storyline, which makes no sense. Really tho, two NATO Middle East games fighting over almost the same ground. One is just more African centric. Beginners shouldn't do Belgium or Yugoslavia. I backed Auchinleck mainly because back then people were using Meyer and Crerar isn't the most beginner-friendly general; compared to Crerar, Auchinleck deals less damage but is easier to use as a tank general. I advise against getting any general for infantry until aliens. For Ozawa and Pound, I feel like you are missing the point why Ozawa is recommended for beginners. In early discussions, Ozawa's main opponent was Greim. Ozawa eventually became the more popular choice primarily because his aerial ability is only slightly worse than Greim but that sacrifice comes with higher health, 1 movement, and navy stars for Missile Crisis the mission. Simply put, people are not buying Ozawa the admiral. They are buying Ozawa the air general with good navy stars. Of course, if your goal isn't completing all campaigns, feel free to get any general you like. |
|
|
|
Post by STILETT0 on Mar 13, 2021 15:35:43 GMT
I would personally rather Wavell over Auchinleck. Wavell is a great general for defending 1* countries like Belgium and Yugoslavia because of his defense tactic and camoflauge. Auchinleck has the barebones three* and some terrain skills. I will agree on the infantry generals, but those are some of the best generals for their price. I got confused with Winkelmann, and somehow got him confused with Papagos. Winkelmann sucks. Also, Auchinleck for infantry? I remember him being good for armor, but little else. There is also Pound, which is just Ozawa with more useful skills, and only 20 medals more expensive, though, he is a bit more battleship centric, with fleet leader. I use Badoglio, Pound and Govorov, and they have gotten me to the last missions in cold war, though Sea Road was a pain, but I was able to achieve it. I'm not the best at this game, not very good, and often frustrated with the medal economy, but I love the game for the generals, and trying to figure out the storyline, which makes no sense. Really tho, two NATO Middle East games fighting over almost the same ground. One is just more African centric. Beginners shouldn't do Belgium or Yugoslavia. I backed Auchinleck mainly because back then people were using Meyer and Crerar isn't the most beginner-friendly general; compared to Crerar, Auchinleck deals less damage but is easier to use as a tank general. I advise against getting any general for infantry until aliens. For Ozawa and Pound, I feel like you are missing the point why Ozawa is recommended for beginners. In early discussions, Ozawa's main opponent was Greim. Ozawa eventually became the more popular choice primarily because his aerial ability is only slightly worse than Greim but that sacrifice comes with higher health, 1 movement, and navy stars for Missile Crisis the mission. Simply put, people are not buying Ozawa the admiral. They are buying Ozawa the air general with good navy stars. Of course, if your goal isn't completing all campaigns, feel free to get any general you like. OK, so now I understand what you are talking about. I just feel that there could be some better alternatives. I looked at Ozawa mainly as a naval general instead of an air force one. I like looking for alternatives to the strong set Guderian/Govorov/Ozawa/Student mold. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 13, 2021 15:51:12 GMT
Beginners shouldn't do Belgium or Yugoslavia. I backed Auchinleck mainly because back then people were using Meyer and Crerar isn't the most beginner-friendly general; compared to Crerar, Auchinleck deals less damage but is easier to use as a tank general. I advise against getting any general for infantry until aliens. For Ozawa and Pound, I feel like you are missing the point why Ozawa is recommended for beginners. In early discussions, Ozawa's main opponent was Greim. Ozawa eventually became the more popular choice primarily because his aerial ability is only slightly worse than Greim but that sacrifice comes with higher health, 1 movement, and navy stars for Missile Crisis the mission. Simply put, people are not buying Ozawa the admiral. They are buying Ozawa the air general with good navy stars. Of course, if your goal isn't completing all campaigns, feel free to get any general you like. OK, so now I understand what you are talking about. I just feel that there could be some better alternatives. I looked at Ozawa mainly as a naval general instead of an air force one. I like looking for alternatives to the strong set Guderian/Govorov/Ozawa/Student mold. For non-IAP attempt to beat alien campaigns, there's no way to replace Guderian, Govorov, or Patton because you only have 3 ECs and the other replacements are weaker. Ozawa can be skipped if you can get Guderian without him. I like Student a lot but ended up selling him. He isn't a great price performer. Most people wouldn't get both Student and Ozawa since they treat Ozawa as an air general. But if you want an extra one there's Greim. For endgame you have Goring, Halsey, and Yamamoto. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2021 16:09:56 GMT
Is there anyway to get Guderian after Badoglio?
|
|
|
|
Post by STILETT0 on Mar 13, 2021 16:11:15 GMT
OK, so now I understand what you are talking about. I just feel that there could be some better alternatives. I looked at Ozawa mainly as a naval general instead of an air force one. I like looking for alternatives to the strong set Guderian/Govorov/Ozawa/Student mold. For non-IAP attempt to beat alien campaigns, there's no way to replace Guderian, Govorov, or Patton because you only have 3 ECs and the other replacements are weaker. Ozawa can be skipped if you can get Guderian without him. I like Student a lot but ended up selling him. He isn't a great price performer. Most people wouldn't get both Student and Ozawa since they treat Ozawa as an air general. But if you want an extra one there's Greim. For endgame you have Goring, Halsey, and Yamamoto. Finally, someone notices Halsey! Best non IAP carrier general if it wasnt for Yamamoto. I see where you are coming from, I also would like to know if Vasilevsky and Mannerheim are the best you can get? From what ive heard, Runstedt is a pretty good general, and I cant help but admire the tankiness of Okamura, and the raw power and speed behind Yamashita. I was also thinking of making a Britain 1943 guide, not really to help people, because with correctly distributed generals, UK is easy, but I have a way with UK 1943 and 1950 that work well with winning under 65 rounds. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 13, 2021 17:05:02 GMT
For non-IAP attempt to beat alien campaigns, there's no way to replace Guderian, Govorov, or Patton because you only have 3 ECs and the other replacements are weaker. Ozawa can be skipped if you can get Guderian without him. I like Student a lot but ended up selling him. He isn't a great price performer. Most people wouldn't get both Student and Ozawa since they treat Ozawa as an air general. But if you want an extra one there's Greim. For endgame you have Goring, Halsey, and Yamamoto. Finally, someone notices Halsey! Best non IAP carrier general if it wasnt for Yamamoto. I see where you are coming from, I also would like to know if Vasilevsky and Mannerheim are the best you can get? From what ive heard, Runstedt is a pretty good general, and I cant help but admire the tankiness of Okamura, and the raw power and speed behind Yamashita. I was also thinking of making a Britain 1943 guide, not really to help people, because with correctly distributed generals, UK is easy, but I have a way with UK 1943 and 1950 that work well with winning under 65 rounds. If you don't appreciate Yamamoto's artillery stars and think 30 less HP isn't a big deal then a promoted Halsey will be a better buy than Yamamoto. I actually see their role as the opposite of Ozawa's in early game, which is a battleship commander with air ability. These two and Donitz are the only non-IAP admirals that can move 3 grids on battleships, the main naval unit against aliens. Rundstedt is for MF beginners, at the end Schorner will be a better MF infantry than him. Okamura is weaker than Yamashita in everything except tank. Mannerheim's defensive ability looks appealing but the most important thing is to attack so I rate him lower. Theoretically, Yamashita is the best infantry general in the game; however, WC3 brings the best out of Vasilevsky. Infantry generals don't last long whatsoever and we only need them for challenges and perhaps alien 5, both of which have relatively small maps and require high damage. This minimizes Vasilevsky's weaknesses and maximizes his strength. For 3 stars nation in 1943 I prefer Germany. UK and USSR are definitely easier but I want to finish 1943 in 3 runs. |
|
|
|
Post by STILETT0 on Mar 13, 2021 17:32:26 GMT
Finally, someone notices Halsey! Best non IAP carrier general if it wasnt for Yamamoto. I see where you are coming from, I also would like to know if Vasilevsky and Mannerheim are the best you can get? From what ive heard, Runstedt is a pretty good general, and I cant help but admire the tankiness of Okamura, and the raw power and speed behind Yamashita. I was also thinking of making a Britain 1943 guide, not really to help people, because with correctly distributed generals, UK is easy, but I have a way with UK 1943 and 1950 that work well with winning under 65 rounds. If you don't appreciate Yamamoto's artillery stars and think 30 less HP isn't a big deal then a promoted Halsey will be a better buy than Yamamoto. I actually see their role as the opposite of Ozawa's in early game, which is a battleship commander with air ability. These two and Donitz are the only non-IAP admirals that can move 3 grids on battleships, the main naval unit against aliens. Rundstedt is for MF beginners, at the end Schorner will be a better MF infantry than him. Okamura is weaker than Yamashita in everything except tank. Mannerheim's defensive ability looks appealing but the most important thing is to attack so I rate him lower. Theoretically, Yamashita is the best infantry general in the game; however, WC3 brings the best out of Vasilevsky. Infantry generals don't last long whatsoever and we only need them for challenges and perhaps alien 5, both of which have relatively small maps and require high damage. This minimizes Vasilevsky's weaknesses and maximizes his strength. For 3 stars nation in 1943 I prefer Germany. UK and USSR are definitely easier but I want to finish 1943 in 3 runs. I like Egypt for 1*, India or ROC for 2*, and UK or Italy for 3* Eisenhower seems to be a waste on a Carrier, because of his perks. If I remember correctly, he's maxed out income and industrial expert. He seems good for an Armored Car Air Force general. It seems like all IAPs except for Manstein stretch themselves in too many different ways. Zhukov doesn't need Tide Of Iron, because his main focus is supposed to be artillery/infantry. I understand he played a major part in Kursk, but he seems to acclaim credit for everything the Soviets did. It was Leonid Govorov who defended Leningrad. It was Chuikov and Malinovsky who defended Stalingrad. It was Semyon Timoshenko, who made the Winter Offensive a strange success, even though some of his men, had been given five bullets and a Mosin to last a week. I think all IAPs except for Manstein are overpriced. Arnold is better than Eisenhower with land based air force. Yamamoto is better than Eisenhower on carrier. Govorov and Konev in some instances are better than Zhukov. Sorry about this rant on IAPs, but it really angers me that these generals that you pay actual money for, are worse than a few non paying good generals. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 14, 2021 12:03:59 GMT
If you don't appreciate Yamamoto's artillery stars and think 30 less HP isn't a big deal then a promoted Halsey will be a better buy than Yamamoto. I actually see their role as the opposite of Ozawa's in early game, which is a battleship commander with air ability. These two and Donitz are the only non-IAP admirals that can move 3 grids on battleships, the main naval unit against aliens. Rundstedt is for MF beginners, at the end Schorner will be a better MF infantry than him. Okamura is weaker than Yamashita in everything except tank. Mannerheim's defensive ability looks appealing but the most important thing is to attack so I rate him lower. Theoretically, Yamashita is the best infantry general in the game; however, WC3 brings the best out of Vasilevsky. Infantry generals don't last long whatsoever and we only need them for challenges and perhaps alien 5, both of which have relatively small maps and require high damage. This minimizes Vasilevsky's weaknesses and maximizes his strength. For 3 stars nation in 1943 I prefer Germany. UK and USSR are definitely easier but I want to finish 1943 in 3 runs. I like Egypt for 1*, India or ROC for 2*, and UK or Italy for 3* Eisenhower seems to be a waste on a Carrier, because of his perks. If I remember correctly, he's maxed out income and industrial expert. He seems good for an Armored Car Air Force general. It seems like all IAPs except for Manstein stretch themselves in too many different ways. Zhukov doesn't need Tide Of Iron, because his main focus is supposed to be artillery/infantry. I understand he played a major part in Kursk, but he seems to acclaim credit for everything the Soviets did. It was Leonid Govorov who defended Leningrad. It was Chuikov and Malinovsky who defended Stalingrad. It was Semyon Timoshenko, who made the Winter Offensive a strange success, even though some of his men, had been given five bullets and a Mosin to last a week. I think all IAPs except for Manstein are overpriced. Arnold is better than Eisenhower with land based air force. Yamamoto is better than Eisenhower on carrier. Govorov and Konev in some instances are better than Zhukov. Sorry about this rant on IAPs, but it really angers me that these generals that you pay actual money for, are worse than a few non paying good generals. Zhukov is just a more tanky Konev since you will use him on artillery most of the time. Eisenhower is the best air general on any unit and the best admiral. Arnold is only faster than him on commando, super tank, and FA. But the only one that actually worth spending real money is Manstein. |
|
|
|
Post by STILETT0 on Mar 14, 2021 14:10:50 GMT
I like Egypt for 1*, India or ROC for 2*, and UK or Italy for 3* Eisenhower seems to be a waste on a Carrier, because of his perks. If I remember correctly, he's maxed out income and industrial expert. He seems good for an Armored Car Air Force general. It seems like all IAPs except for Manstein stretch themselves in too many different ways. Zhukov doesn't need Tide Of Iron, because his main focus is supposed to be artillery/infantry. I understand he played a major part in Kursk, but he seems to acclaim credit for everything the Soviets did. It was Leonid Govorov who defended Leningrad. It was Chuikov and Malinovsky who defended Stalingrad. It was Semyon Timoshenko, who made the Winter Offensive a strange success, even though some of his men, had been given five bullets and a Mosin to last a week. I think all IAPs except for Manstein are overpriced. Arnold is better than Eisenhower with land based air force. Yamamoto is better than Eisenhower on carrier. Govorov and Konev in some instances are better than Zhukov. Sorry about this rant on IAPs, but it really angers me that these generals that you pay actual money for, are worse than a few non paying good generals. Zhukov is just a more tanky Konev since you will use him on artillery most of the time. Eisenhower is the best air general on any unit and the best admiral. Arnold is only faster than him on commando, super tank, and FA. But the only one that actually worth spending real money is Manstein. yes, that makes sense, I just wish it was a bit more centric to their field. If Eisenhower is supposed to be an admiral give him something else besides sailor. If Zhukov is supposed to be arty, then take away that Tide Of Iron, and replace it with something more useful. |
|
