|
|
Post by xerexes on Jan 21, 2020 19:11:21 GMT
Lee is made to be a powerful generalist, being able to deal high damage to anything. Assault gives him an overall bonus, Intercept gives him a bonus against cavalry and Tunnel allows him to minimize the defense boost that enemy units inside a city have, while making it easier for him to reduce the HP of cities. I kept my tunnel on my Lee too  |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 21, 2020 19:15:07 GMT
The best replacement for Tunnel would be Formation Master which would be sort of useless for Lee. He can already deal very high damage consistently, therefore Formation Master seems unnecessary. Infantry master? Not that valuable since ReasonsWhy has Petain. As an individual bonus, it would be like him having another Assault. However, I believe that it would diminish his generalist value because it would make him less effective against cities and units defending them. With him having tunnel, I have seen him deal 100+ damage against city defense. Very strong if you ask me. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Jan 21, 2020 19:32:27 GMT
Not that valuable since ReasonsWhy has Petain. As an individual bonus, it would be like him having another Assault. However, I believe that it would diminish his generalist value because it would make him less effective against cities and units defending them. With him having tunnel, I have seen him deal 100+ damage against city defense. Very strong if you ask me. Master, not commander. Though admittedly 10% isn’t a lot. Pierce might be better and I have it on him. 100 damage, fair enough, you can keep it if you want to. Tunnel doesn’t have any value to me since I never ever deploy infantry generals in conquest except to fight in a rough start (or if I’m playing France). As any serious country it’s a total waste because infantry is a bad unit type. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 21, 2020 19:40:06 GMT
Not that valuable since ReasonsWhy has Petain. As an individual bonus, it would be like him having another Assault. However, I believe that it would diminish his generalist value because it would make him less effective against cities and units defending them. With him having tunnel, I have seen him deal 100+ damage against city defense. Very strong if you ask me. Master, not commander. Though admittedly 10% isn’t a lot. Pierce might be better and I have it on him. 100 damage, fair enough, you can keep it if you want to. Tunnel doesn’t have any value to me since I never ever deploy infantry generals in conquest except to fight in a rough start (or if I’m playing France). As any serious country it’s a total waste because infantry is a bad unit type. You might change my mind about Tunnel. How is Pierce at Level 5? 40% chance to ignore enemy's defense by 15? |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Jan 21, 2020 19:40:38 GMT
Master, not commander. Though admittedly 10% isn’t a lot. Pierce might be better and I have it on him. 100 damage, fair enough, you can keep it if you want to. Tunnel doesn’t have any value to me since I never ever deploy infantry generals in conquest except to fight in a rough start (or if I’m playing France). As any serious country it’s a total waste because infantry is a bad unit type. Oh, I already was sending you an answer about Master. Well, this is a game where you have to be ready for anything, really. You can’t expect to always play with major powers, especially when the highest conquest rewards come from minor powers. I did talk about playing as a minor power. Afterall, I beat Serbia and one or two infantry generals are totally crucial for that, but only because you need to fight with tooth and nail with terrible units. Tunnel means nothing when you do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 21, 2020 19:41:18 GMT
Oh, I already was sending you an answer about Master. Well, this is a game where you have to be ready for anything, really. You can’t expect to always play with major powers, especially when the highest conquest rewards come from minor powers. I did talk about playing as a minor power. Afterall, I beat Serbia and one or two infantry generals are totally crucial for that, but only because you need to fight with tooth and nail with terrible units. Tunnel means nothing when you do that. You have a point! |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Jan 21, 2020 19:42:33 GMT
Master, not commander. Though admittedly 10% isn’t a lot. Pierce might be better and I have it on him. 100 damage, fair enough, you can keep it if you want to. Tunnel doesn’t have any value to me since I never ever deploy infantry generals in conquest except to fight in a rough start (or if I’m playing France). As any serious country it’s a total waste because infantry is a bad unit type. You might change my mind about Tunnel. How is Pierce at Level 5? 40% chance to ignore enemy's defense by 15? 55% chance to ignore 15 def. Actually really good. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 21, 2020 19:43:21 GMT
You might change my mind about Tunnel. How is Pierce at Level 5? 40% chance to ignore enemy's defense by 15? 55% chance to ignore 15 def. Actually really good. 55%?! That’s almost as high as Blitzkrieg Level 5! |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 21, 2020 19:44:31 GMT
And oh my god, it has a medal!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 21, 2020 20:27:08 GMT
It’s making IAP Generals obsolete and many people ain’t that happy about it. It's really expensive too change all the skills though 1 skill change = 5 2 skill change = 5+10 = 15 3 skill change = 5+10+20 = 35 4 skill change = 5+10+20+40 = 75 5 skill change + 5+10+20+40+80 = 155 So it cost 155 Books to change every skill the general has Ah, ok. I thought the given price for the second skill change was 15 and that the given price for the third skill change was 35. |
|
|
|
Post by Kurt von Schleicher on Jan 22, 2020 7:49:14 GMT
Pierce skill on artillery seem to be good Idea, Remove Storm Fortifications and add Pierce. I feel like change Bunker Buster to Anti-Material Cannon. Maybe I should try it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jan 22, 2020 9:55:15 GMT
My newly reworked pair of artillery...   Err, stoic, don't you think that a Canvas Tent on an Artillery General is an exaggeration? Those generals usually stay far away and thus a Medpack is enough to guarantee that they will remain alive. In most missions we can use 6 generals. I have one ambulance and 5 tents, so, why not... Besides, I really use my Ivanov in a more aggressive style provoking counterattack, so, that dogfight might trigger more often. For the same reason two out of my 3 Infantry generals have Counterattack and Revenge. All that I need is to put them onto their favorable terrain and wait for an attack  |
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Jan 22, 2020 12:38:28 GMT
Not that valuable since ReasonsWhy has Petain. As an individual bonus, it would be like him having another Assault. However, I believe that it would diminish his generalist value because it would make him less effective against cities and units defending them. With him having tunnel, I have seen him deal 100+ damage against city defense. Very strong if you ask me. Master, not commander. Though admittedly 10% isn’t a lot. Pierce might be better and I have it on him. 100 damage, fair enough, you can keep it if you want to. Tunnel doesn’t have any value to me since I never ever deploy infantry generals in conquest except to fight in a rough start (or if I’m playing France). As any serious country it’s a total waste because infantry is a bad unit type. In 1804, crit coefficient is only 1.35 so +10% crit chance skill adds less than 3.5% (consider that the base crit chance is not 0%), which, in my opinion, is pretty weak. The -15 def from Pierce can be translated into about 12% extra damage if the target def is 40 (typical for inf and arty generals) and about 9% if the target def is 80 (cav generals on horses). Since the proc chance of Pierce is pretty high, the skill is quite decent. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 22, 2020 12:42:08 GMT
Err, stoic , don't you think that a Canvas Tent on an Artillery General is an exaggeration? Those generals usually stay far away and thus a Medpack is enough to guarantee that they will remain alive. In most missions we can use 6 generals. I have one ambulance and 5 tents, so, why not... Besides, I really use my Ivanov in a more aggressive style provoking counterattack, so, that dogfight might trigger more often. For the same reason two out of my 3 Infantry generals have Counterattack and Revenge. All that I need is to put them onto their favorable terrain and wait for an attack We can have 5 tents?! Wow. I don’t blame you, then. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Jan 22, 2020 12:44:04 GMT
Master, not commander. Though admittedly 10% isn’t a lot. Pierce might be better and I have it on him. 100 damage, fair enough, you can keep it if you want to. Tunnel doesn’t have any value to me since I never ever deploy infantry generals in conquest except to fight in a rough start (or if I’m playing France). As any serious country it’s a total waste because infantry is a bad unit type. In 1804, crit coefficient is only 1.35 so +10% crit chance skill adds less than 3.5% (consider that the base crit chance is not 0%), which, in my opinion, is pretty weak. The -15 def from Pierce can be translated into about 12% extra damage if the target def is 40 (typical for inf and arty generals) and about 9% if the target def is 80 (cav generals on horses). Since the proc chance of Pierce is pretty high, the skill is quite decent. Conclusion: It’s better than Tunnel. Not a problem. After I replaced 2 of Lee's skills, I already have 5 textbooks and just need 10 more to replace Tunnel with Pierce. |
|
