|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 24, 2020 3:11:51 GMT
Apparently for those who have completed the game its extremely easy. I have done so, and found none of the 1861 challenge conquests to be hard at all, on the contrary they were tutorials as compared to the slug fests of 1865, 1914 and 1917. I dont even want to think about Greece 1865 (tho i did it), Tribal Union 1914 (pls no) and Morroco 1917 (:/) For comparison, I'm pretty sure Im never going to get the plain fighting medal (European Powder Keg, impossible challenge campaigns sheesh) 1861 is a cakewalk? I don’t believe that. Which countries are you struggling with? It might be tech since you just restarted, but I can vouch for players with everything maxed that 1861 is definitely doable, and easy even, if the right tactics are employed. So far, the majority of people having trouble with the 1861 conquests (more on wegamers forum) employ the tedious and non-optimal strategies, e.g. moving up mexico or leaving the confederates to your allies. Each conquest has a unique strategy that can increase your chances of victory |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 24, 2020 3:28:21 GMT
1861 is a cakewalk? I don’t believe that. Which countries are you struggling with? It might be tech since you just restarted, but I can vouch for players with everything maxed that 1861 is definitely doable, and easy even, if the right tactics are employed. So far, the majority of people having trouble with the 1861 conquests (more on wegamers forum) employ the tedious and non-optimal strategies, e.g. moving up mexico or leaving the confederates to your allies. Each conquest has a unique strategy that can increase your chances of victory Then tell me one that can win Challenge Lybia 1917. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 24, 2020 6:27:13 GMT
Then tell me one that can win Challenge Lybia 1917. ^^^ 1861 conquests, not the rest haha. The rest are too hard. But since 1861 has a smaller map things are indeed more manageable. That being said its not that Libya is impossible, we just have yet to find the suitable approach for it |
|
|
|
Post by Navia Lanoira on May 24, 2020 14:21:16 GMT
Then tell me one that can win Challenge Lybia 1917. ^^^ 1861 conquests, not the rest haha. The rest are too hard. But since 1861 has a smaller map things are indeed more manageable. That being said its not that Libya is impossible, we just have yet to find the suitable approach for it Well the problem in the challenge conquests that et ignored constantly is much visible in 1914-17. They didnt know how it sometimes can be impossible to make a winning strategy for some nations, due to the ai tech disadvantage of 1/2 of current tech to the enemy. And also, not all can actually find a good strategy to win. The 1861 and 1865 is still bearable, much nations can be easily winnable. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on May 24, 2020 14:23:51 GMT
Imo it isnt too bad to have PF. I have two generals, Boroevic and Strassenberg for infantry. The former has jf and mf, while the latter has pf, enabling me to deploy them in all kinds of situations. You could consider Pierce as well (100% chance to ignore 20/25% defense is really great) Pierce sounds like an interesting choice. I think I'll run with it. As for JF, I think I'll pass. After all, to use it on typical inf is more of a waste of its marching trait, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on May 24, 2020 15:21:42 GMT
Imo it isnt too bad to have PF. I have two generals, Boroevic and Strassenberg for infantry. The former has jf and mf, while the latter has pf, enabling me to deploy them in all kinds of situations. You could consider Pierce as well (100% chance to ignore 20/25% defense is really great) Pierce sounds like an interesting choice. I think I'll run with it. As for JF, I think I'll pass. After all, to use it on typical inf is more of a waste of its marching trait, no? Good point, but most of the time I'd reckon my generals will be going on HMGs haha, unless there are specialized units like in France, Russia and Germany. |
|
|
|
Post by Gone on May 25, 2020 3:28:57 GMT
Imo it isnt too bad to have PF. I have two generals, Boroevic and Strassenberg for infantry. The former has jf and mf, while the latter has pf, enabling me to deploy them in all kinds of situations. You could consider Pierce as well (100% chance to ignore 20/25% defense is really great) Pierce sounds like an interesting choice. I think I'll run with it. As for JF, I think I'll pass. After all, to use it on typical inf is more of a waste of its marching trait, no? Most Infantry that have marching are useless general-wise. |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Beast on Jul 16, 2020 14:38:07 GMT
Should I replace ambush for infantry master and plain fighting for tactic master?
|
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Jul 16, 2020 15:17:04 GMT
Then tell me one that can win Challenge Lybia 1917. ^^^ 1861 conquests, not the rest haha. The rest are too hard. But since 1861 has a smaller map things are indeed more manageable. That being said its not that Libya is impossible, we just have yet to find the suitable approach for it I find things steamroll a lot faster on the smaller map. I could successfully do 1865 as Spain and 1914 as Belgium before I could do 1861 as anything beyond the USA or CSA. |
|
|
|
Post by kingbutawl on Aug 6, 2020 19:27:03 GMT
Mountain and jungle fighting on him to get the best infantry general of the game (no difference at all with a powered up Lee).
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 30, 2021 15:27:50 GMT
Literally MacArthur is better. The most overrated gen in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 3, 2021 3:54:28 GMT
Literally MacArthur is better. The most overrated gen in the game. No |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Aug 3, 2021 11:33:43 GMT
Literally MacArthur is better. The most overrated gen in the game. No Okay, literally MacArthur is a better buy. |
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Aug 3, 2021 12:35:09 GMT
Okay, literally MacArthur is a better buy. Hilarious. MacArthur caps at Duke, Straussenburg caps at King. Straussenburg's 5 skills vs. MacArthur's 4. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Aug 3, 2021 12:54:13 GMT
Okay, literally MacArthur is a better buy. Does that makes any sense? |
|
