|
|
Post by Gone on Mar 18, 2020 14:28:40 GMT
At this point, I’m quite confused. I’m not sure if I should have 2 generals designed to be on HMGs and 2 generals designed to be on units without marching or just 2 of one type.
HMGs are universal, which helps Boroevic’s case, but Plain Fighting is widely considered to be the best terrain bonus for Infantry.
Should I even have a general with Plain Fighting + the other 2 terrain bonuses? Sorry, but I’m deeply confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Mar 18, 2020 15:32:10 GMT
At this point, I’m quite confused. I’m not sure if I should have 2 generals designed to be on HMGs and 2 generals designed to be on units without marching or just 2 of one type. HMGs are universal, which helps Boroevic’s case, but Plain Fighting is widely considered to be the best terrain bonus for Infantry. Should I even have a general with Plain Fighting + the other 2 terrain bonuses? Sorry, but I’m deeply confused. I would just stick to jungle fighting alone like my cavarly generals. Maybe sacrifice tactics master for mf. For example on e lee, do not give him plain, instead give him jungle. On haig, keep plain. Its very confusing indeed |
|
|
|
Post by ambitiousace on Mar 19, 2020 4:11:12 GMT
Since I have Strau now,Lee might just not be essential anymore..I would get Macmohon given he is the french wall now.Haig/Boro can wait lol
|
|
|
|
Post by TheAmir259 on Mar 19, 2020 5:18:45 GMT
If you don't consider Tactics Master-ing for your infantries (like i do), then you shouldn't have any problems with trying to terrain them (no pun intended).
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Mar 19, 2020 15:59:03 GMT
If you don't consider Tactics Master-ing for your infantries (like i do), then you shouldn't have any problems with trying to terrain them (no pun intended). What if you like both |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Mar 20, 2020 6:49:27 GMT
If you don't consider Tactics Master-ing for your infantries (like i do), then you shouldn't have any problems with trying to terrain them (no pun intended). What if you like both Congratulations, you are Stonewall Jackson  |
|
|
|
Post by Naveen Hanza on Apr 3, 2020 17:16:43 GMT
Congratulations, you are Stonewall Jackson I think Tactics Master is good skill on infantry because still double hitting is not that bad. If you worry about retaliation just don't use the second attack. If you worry about the waste, think it is useful. One 125 damage is no better than two 100 damage( It is not definite, just for example ). It also grants with movement if you didn't use it in first turn. |
|
|
|
Post by ambitiousace on Apr 5, 2020 9:56:01 GMT
Congratulations, you are Stonewall Jackson I think Tactics Master is good skill on infantry because still double hitting is not that bad. If you worry about retaliation just don't use the second attack. If you worry about the waste, think it is useful. One 125 damage is no better than two 100 damage( It is not definite, just for example ). It also grants with movement if you didn't use it in first turn. Pair it with pierce to make a fierce dmg to the enemy |
|
|
|
Post by Naveen Hanza on Apr 5, 2020 12:36:55 GMT
I think Tactics Master is good skill on infantry because still double hitting is not that bad. If you worry about retaliation just don't use the second attack. If you worry about the waste, think it is useful. One 125 damage is no better than two 100 damage( It is not definite, just for example ). It also grants with movement if you didn't use it in first turn. Pair it with pierce to make a fierce dmg to the enemy Think of a Powerful general with Tactics and Pierce with mountain forests and assault with Kugelpritz and Enfield on a HMG on a mountain forest against heavy cavalry or howitzer. However Pierce and Fierce |
|
