|
|
Post by Edelweiss7 on Mar 16, 2020 23:05:21 GMT
That situation is actually 100% irrelevant because every 1 star nation in 1865 and 1914 except for Greece in 1914 starts out with a lv3 capital. In 1917 they all start out at lv4. Upgrading the capital to lv5 to build HMGs is an absolutely terrible idea. Which means that it is nearly impossible to get an Armoured Car anyway! And that you still have more chances to recruit a HMG first. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Mar 16, 2020 23:14:23 GMT
That situation is actually 100% irrelevant because every 1 star nation in 1865 and 1914 except for Greece in 1914 starts out with a lv3 capital. In 1917 they all start out at lv4. Upgrading the capital to lv5 to build HMGs is an absolutely terrible idea. Which means that it is nearly impossible to get an Armoured Car anyway! And that you still have more chances to recruit a HMG first. The same applies to getting HMGs. Getting to a lv5 from a lv3 city costs 450 gold. Impossible. Serbia in 1914 starts out with 100 gold and an income of 21 per turn. The only feasible way to obtain a lv5 city as such a nation is to get one from the AI. A city like that is very likely to have a stable already because the AI loves to build stuff. Again, there’s almost no instance where you can’t build Armored Cars if you can build HMG. |
|
|
|
Post by TheAmir259 on Mar 17, 2020 0:20:29 GMT
Well my opinion is the exact opposite of Edelweiss's, no matter how painful it is to muster up the resources needed to build stable and recruit armored car, i'd rather have something that's only weak against artillery than something that's weak against everything. You'll usually receive around 30 dmg from normal infantries and only around 50 dmg from generals (circa 1860) than compared to what HMGs would take. And even if you're weak against just artillery it doesn't mean you have a hard time dealing with them neither.
Ultimately, i hate this in conquest because it's slow, no march (my generals won't have terrain traits once i retrain them), expensive and weak defensively. Is it just me or did the update buff the Heavy Machine Guns to deal 135% damage against no armor? My memory said it never used to do that much before.
|
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Mar 17, 2020 0:24:08 GMT
Well my opinion is the exact opposite of Edelweiss's, no matter how painful it is to muster up the resources needed to build stable and recruit armored car, i'd rather have something that's only weak against artillery than something that's weak against everything. You'll usually receive around 30 dmg from normal infantries and only around 50 dmg from generals (circa 1860) than compared to what HMGs would take. And even if you're weak against just artillery it doesn't mean you have a hard time dealing with them neither. Ultimately, i hate this in conquest because it's slow, no march (my generals won't have terrain traits once i retrain them), expensive and weak defensively. Is it just me or did the update buff the Heavy Machine Guns to deal 135% damage against no armor? My memory said it never used to do that much before. It’s definetly buffed. It also does 165% against medium armor and 120% against light armor. I definetly remember it being 150% and 100% respectively. Also armored cars being weak to artillery isn’t a huge issue because they’re weak to Armored cars too. Buffing HMGs actually means that they buffed Armored Cars too. Artillery is taking 165% damage from Armored Cars huge 90 base attack. Crazy. |
|
|
|
Post by TheAmir259 on Mar 17, 2020 0:39:28 GMT
Definitely my point there, Armored Cars being weak to artillery doesn't mean you're in a bad spot. The fact that you also have the same guns, and now with the same buffs, is just insanely better! And as previously mentioned, the prices are around the same range and for some countries, you'll need to build a stable first but that doesn't cost as much as a temple or those further to the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Mar 17, 2020 1:23:57 GMT
These have high damage. So its best to use an infantry general like macmahon or borevic on them due to the mobility penalities. Pretty good with the right general but meh without
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Mar 17, 2020 1:26:15 GMT
The damage difference between light machine gunners and this is pretty massive. Like 110 vs 170 difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Mar 17, 2020 5:50:10 GMT
HGM have a use, they're better at defending places then armored cars. And don't say that's not the case because the AI will always use all their arty on your city. But the only times you need to defend a lv 5 city is in some campaign mission Where you need to hold it for a certain amount of turns, in conquests it's always a better option to attack
|
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Mar 17, 2020 7:24:19 GMT
The damage difference between light machine gunners and this is pretty massive. Like 110 vs 170 difference. Yeah that’s because the HMG weapon type have been buffed. It used to be the same as LMG except with 100% against light armor instead of 75%. I could barely tell the difference before. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Mar 17, 2020 7:27:09 GMT
HGM have a use, they're better at defending places then armored cars. And don't say that's not the case because the AI will always use all their arty on your city. But the only times you need to defend a lv 5 city is in some campaign mission Where you need to hold it for a certain amount of turns, in conquests it's always a better option to attack Why is it a better idea to spawn an HMG over an armored car in that case? Which lv5 city doesn’t have a stable? It’s a better idea to spawn an armored car which can kill 5-6 attackers in one turn over trying to tank in a city. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Mar 17, 2020 7:31:29 GMT
HGM have a use, they're better at defending places then armored cars. And don't say that's not the case because the AI will always use all their arty on your city. But the only times you need to defend a lv 5 city is in some campaign mission Where you need to hold it for a certain amount of turns, in conquests it's always a better option to attack Why is it a better idea to spawn an HMG over an armored car in that case? Which lv5 city doesn’t have a stable? It’s a better idea to spawn an armored car which can kill 5-6 attackers in one turn over trying to tank in a city. I said heavy attacks, I mean attacks with generals. Your armored cars will be crushed by artillery gens and the HMG is cheaper for that situation and only then is the HMG far superior to the armored car. There are a few missions like that |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Mar 17, 2020 7:47:18 GMT
Why is it a better idea to spawn an HMG over an armored car in that case? Which lv5 city doesn’t have a stable? It’s a better idea to spawn an armored car which can kill 5-6 attackers in one turn over trying to tank in a city. I said heavy attacks, I mean attacks with generals. Your armored cars will be crushed by artillery gens and the HMG is cheaper for that situation and only then is the HMG far superior to the armored car. There are a few missions like that Hm. I definetly haven’t seen that situation pop up. I mean, mass artillery full of powerful generals? Also, I’d probably be using a Defense Formation general and Nikolayevna in a situation like that. Those buffs help the Armored Car more than HMG. And that’s just what you’d probably normally do anyway. (Very few lv5 cities don’t have palaces) It’s honestly pretty telling when the only arguments for the HMG are very special situations where Cavalry is as disadvantaged as possible. Not in just normal, decent play. And that’s been the argument for infantry all the way since 1804. |
|
|
|
Post by TheAmir259 on Mar 17, 2020 12:11:56 GMT
I must agree with Kevin in this one. I value my generals a lot so having even an infantry general dying on me is depressing. The only time i'd ever think of deploying infantries to combat artilleries are when i actually have firebats.
Artillery generals decimate armored cars? Deploy generals on your armored cars. Don't have any left? Mass produce armored cars. If you're actually thinking of eliminating the arty gen, then you actually aren't in such a desperate situation where your city is under attack.
Even then i've never seen AI arty gens being so dumb as to close the distance and be right outside the your city gates. So you have to move out of your city to actually work, and one HMG vs arty gens? They'd live only as long as armored cars if not shorter, even with generals on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kurt von Schleicher on Mar 17, 2020 16:19:16 GMT
Good against anything but bad mobility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Mar 18, 2020 0:45:47 GMT
Good against anything but bad mobility. Boroevic fixes that completely. Very dangerous if you put him in one of these. |
|
