|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on May 15, 2020 1:41:49 GMT
Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus , when considering buying a general, should we consider first if he is into History Mode? Cause buying a general that is replaceable by another that is also usable in History Mode might resulting in buying two generals when you could buy just one. Yes. If a general can't be used in history mode, he/she better be really strong. Generals such as Straussenberg are exempt from the checklist due to how good they are. However, he is among the very few exceptions |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 15, 2020 9:30:04 GMT
Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus , when considering buying a general, should we consider first if he is into History Mode? Cause buying a general that is replaceable by another that is also usable in History Mode might resulting in buying two generals when you could buy just one. Yes. If a general can't be used in history mode, he/she better be really strong. Generals such as Straussenberg are exempt from the checklist due to how good they are. However, he is among the very few exceptions May as well phrase it as such: he/Bochkareva  |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on May 15, 2020 11:13:19 GMT
Yes. If a general can't be used in history mode, he/she better be really strong. Generals such as Straussenberg are exempt from the checklist due to how good they are. However, he is among the very few exceptions May as well phrase it as such: he/Bochkareva Bochkareva is actually pretty good |
|
|
|
Post by ambitiousace on May 15, 2020 12:44:08 GMT
May as well phrase it as such: he/Bochkareva Bochkareva is actually pretty good Staph pls..I'm losing medals here and there from your post |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on May 15, 2020 13:20:14 GMT
I was just going to write up why I don't think Bochkareva isn't that good, and she isn't, cuz she's infantry. And then I actually noticed that you can use her in History mode. Only for Russo-Turkish war though. And she's honestly still not really good there since you just get one HMG and it's tough to justify using her over Kuropatkin due to his free ambulance. So yeah, I thought she was terrible, but she's actually ok, not good, but ok.
Infantry is terrible and should only be fielded if you absolutely can't field other generals, which is what constantly happens in History Mode. Macmahon is much better off in that regard. Take Marne for example. There you get an HMG and an Old Guard. Your 2 fieldable infantry generals are Petain and Macmahon. Petain is an IAP, so you must have MacMahon if you're F2P. And even if you have Petain, MacMahon's still going to be handy because those infantry units aren't complete trash. Grant is also a pretty good in this regard and I almost think he should be considered good just because investing in him isn't a bad idea.
I'd also splurge a little and get Boroevic since he requires very little investment to be a competent HMG general, but investing in any other infantry generals (unless they can be used in History Mode) seems wasteful since I'm never going to use more than 1 or 2 infantry generals in campaign or conquest.
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on May 15, 2020 15:32:13 GMT
I was just going to write up why I don't think Bochkareva isn't that good, and she isn't, cuz she's infantry. And then I actually noticed that you can use her in History mode. Only for Russo-Turkish war though. And she's honestly still not really good there since you just get one HMG and it's tough to justify using her over Kuropatkin due to his free ambulance. So yeah, I thought she was terrible, but she's actually ok, not good, but ok. Infantry is terrible and should only be fielded if you absolutely can't field other generals, which is what constantly happens in History Mode. Macmahon is much better off in that regard. Take Marne for example. There you get an HMG and an Old Guard. Your 2 fieldable infantry generals are Petain and Macmahon. Petain is an IAP, so you must have MacMahon if you're F2P. And even if you have Petain, MacMahon's still going to be handy because those infantry units aren't complete trash. Grant is also a pretty good in this regard and I almost think he should be considered good just because investing in him isn't a bad idea. I'd also splurge a little and get Boroevic since he requires very little investment to be a competent HMG general, but investing in any other infantry generals (unless they can be used in History Mode) seems wasteful since I'm never going to use more than 1 or 2 infantry generals in campaign or conquest. Indeed. She is not a top tier general nor mandatory but she can pretty useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 15, 2020 19:03:51 GMT
Doesn’t it feel nice when each category has at least 2 very good generals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 15, 2020 19:05:07 GMT
I was just going to write up why I don't think Bochkareva isn't that good, and she isn't, cuz she's infantry. And then I actually noticed that you can use her in History mode. Only for Russo-Turkish war though. And she's honestly still not really good there since you just get one HMG and it's tough to justify using her over Kuropatkin due to his free ambulance. So yeah, I thought she was terrible, but she's actually ok, not good, but ok. Infantry is terrible and should only be fielded if you absolutely can't field other generals, which is what constantly happens in History Mode. Macmahon is much better off in that regard. Take Marne for example. There you get an HMG and an Old Guard. Your 2 fieldable infantry generals are Petain and Macmahon. Petain is an IAP, so you must have MacMahon if you're F2P. And even if you have Petain, MacMahon's still going to be handy because those infantry units aren't complete trash. Grant is also a pretty good in this regard and I almost think he should be considered good just because investing in him isn't a bad idea. I'd also splurge a little and get Boroevic since he requires very little investment to be a competent HMG general, but investing in any other infantry generals (unless they can be used in History Mode) seems wasteful since I'm never going to use more than 1 or 2 infantry generals in campaign or conquest. Still not worth buying. History mode missions are 100% optional and actually intended for farming. You don’t want to farm a mission where you are FORCED to get an ok general for. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on May 15, 2020 19:20:10 GMT
Actually I forgot that you can use Esperey but that guy is bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 16, 2020 0:33:53 GMT
Actually I forgot that you can use Esperey but that guy is bad. That’s why you forgot that he is usable. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 16, 2020 2:49:01 GMT
Free tho, may as well combine him with MacMahon and Joffre since I lack Petain :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 17, 2020 13:25:42 GMT
Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus, I would just like to let you know that some of the IAP descriptions don’t make sense. Example: Ludendorff’s. You say that he is still great and that you can’t make a general as good as him without pouring lots of textbooks. Then you proceed to say that you can turn many generals as equals as him with sufficient textbooks investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Navia Lanoira on May 17, 2020 14:11:42 GMT
I was just going to write up why I don't think Bochkareva isn't that good, and she isn't, cuz she's infantry. And then I actually noticed that you can use her in History mode. Only for Russo-Turkish war though. And she's honestly still not really good there since you just get one HMG and it's tough to justify using her over Kuropatkin due to his free ambulance. So yeah, I thought she was terrible, but she's actually ok, not good, but ok. Infantry is terrible and should only be fielded if you absolutely can't field other generals, which is what constantly happens in History Mode. Macmahon is much better off in that regard. Take Marne for example. There you get an HMG and an Old Guard. Your 2 fieldable infantry generals are Petain and Macmahon. Petain is an IAP, so you must have MacMahon if you're F2P. And even if you have Petain, MacMahon's still going to be handy because those infantry units aren't complete trash. Grant is also a pretty good in this regard and I almost think he should be considered good just because investing in him isn't a bad idea. I'd also splurge a little and get Boroevic since he requires very little investment to be a competent HMG general, but investing in any other infantry generals (unless they can be used in History Mode) seems wasteful since I'm never going to use more than 1 or 2 infantry generals in campaign or conquest. She isnt that much needed in history mode (russo turkish war) as kuropatkin can do the work, as he has already an ambulance coach. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on May 17, 2020 19:19:02 GMT
Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus, I would just like to let you know that some of the IAP descriptions don’t make sense. Example: Ludendorff’s. You say that he is still great and that you can’t make a general as good as him without pouring lots of textbooks. Then you proceed to say that you can turn many generals as equals as him with sufficient textbooks investment. Fixed. Yeah some of them I updated but forgot to change parts of the original on |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 18, 2020 20:08:08 GMT
Revenge is actually a decent skill, but yeah, definitely worth replacing it with Surprise Attack.
Just like Suppress, which is also a decent skill, but definitely worth replacing with Tactics Master.
|
|
