jb
First Lieutenant
Posts: 25
|
Post by jb on Mar 30, 2020 18:59:53 GMT
There are medals such as Freedom Medal that are awarded on Chapter X Challenge Conquest. Do we have an approximate drop rate? I have already fought all of the chapters and the rewards are very little. I am just trying to figure out if those medals are worth the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Svetozar Boroević von Bojna on Mar 31, 2020 1:08:59 GMT
There are medals such as Freedom Medal that are awarded on Chapter X Challenge Conquest. Do we have an approximate drop rate? I have already fought all of the chapters and the rewards are very little. I am just trying to figure out if those medals are worth the time. I think that would be released in an later update, as we can see a button similar to the switch to challenges button in the conquest page. Its probably what you gain after defeating a Challenge Conquest of 1861,1865,1914 or 1917 |
|
|
|
Post by ambitiousace on Mar 31, 2020 3:59:38 GMT
There are medals such as Freedom Medal that are awarded on Chapter X Challenge Conquest. Do we have an approximate drop rate? I have already fought all of the chapters and the rewards are very little. I am just trying to figure out if those medals are worth the time. I think that would be released in an later update, as we can see a button similar to the switch to challenges button in the conquest page. Its probably what you gain after defeating a Challenge Conquest of 1861,1865,1914 or 1917 Conquest challenges would be amusing |
|
|
|
Post by Naveen Hanza on Mar 31, 2020 4:43:56 GMT
There is a button in Conquest mode like in campaign mode which allows to switch to challenges. But in Conquest mode it does not work even I tap on it a thousand times. I think Easy Tech will allow it for players in next update.
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Mar 31, 2020 8:23:53 GMT
With Conquest Challenges come challenge objectives. Imagine being forced to do a 1917 no generals run, possible but sure is tedious
|
|
|
|
Post by Naveen Hanza on Mar 31, 2020 12:57:17 GMT
With Conquest Challenges come challenge objectives. Imagine being forced to do a 1917 no generals run, possible but sure is tedious NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Never. I will have to play only the best, most powerful countries to win. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Mar 31, 2020 13:22:13 GMT
With Conquest Challenges come challenge objectives. Imagine being forced to do a 1917 no generals run, possible but sure is tedious NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Never. I will have to play only the best, most powerful countries to win. Hopefully you can choose to play as any countries as well, I don't think they will force you to complete the challenge as a specific country only |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Mar 31, 2020 13:22:36 GMT
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Never. I will have to play only the best, most powerful countries to win. Hopefully you can choose to play as any countries as well, I don't think they will force you to complete the challenge as a specific country only Imagine this: Serbia 1914 no generals  |
|
|
|
Post by Naveen Hanza on Mar 31, 2020 13:32:47 GMT
I can't even play Serbia conquest with generals
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Mar 31, 2020 13:36:12 GMT
I can't even play Serbia conquest with generals I shudder at the possibility of this monstrous nightmare  |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 31, 2020 16:10:53 GMT
I don't believe "no-generals" stuff is a fun. The main point of ET games is to create a capable team and to achieve success using coordination, strategy and team synergy. Playing without generals is an artificial difficulty, imo. It is like playing chess without Queen... The real difficulty should be obtained by other means. An example - some EW5 missions: you can have 40-plus generals, but some missions are as difficult as humanly possible to compete them. I have no objections if we had more tactical games like GoG Classic or Pacific when tactical approach is far more important than our generals (f2p players could not have more than 2 anyway, so speaking of a team is rather impractical). But in conventional ET games like EW or WC series our generals play a leading part, so I don't see any particular reason to play without them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naveen Hanza on Apr 1, 2020 1:30:08 GMT
Stoic, I must admit you are correct. Generals are important but in challenge conquest mode, they can limit maximum number of generals or ban a certain type. They can also limit number of turns or will take neutral countries into war. I think sometimes ET will give rewards for each country because it is a challenge and all countries have their own advantage. I might be wrong at least I can imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Apr 1, 2020 4:36:23 GMT
Stoic, I must admit you are correct. Generals are important but in challenge conquest mode, they can limit maximum number of generals or ban a certain type. They can also limit number of turns or will take neutral countries into war. I think sometimes ET will give rewards for each country because it is a challenge and all countries have their own advantage. I might be wrong at least I can imagine. I presume it is possible to make life difficult for players in various ways  But I would prefer more complex strategic decisions than a simple ban on using our generals.It is a simplistic solution and I don't like the latest pattern. In EW6 1806 the most difficult missions were arguably Siege and Balaclava. But it was so because there were certain bans on using Infantry and Cavalry generals. And I recall there were not as difficult if we ignored the ban and were content with 2 stars instead of 3. The same is the case in 1914. The most difficult missions are those with restrictions. That means these missions were made artificially difficult because of starting conditions and not because of strategic/tactical complexity. I would be glad to see tactical finesse in ET games more often. For example, this is the map of the last mission of GoG Pacific:  F2p players could use only 2 generals in this game, so it was out of the question to beat this missions (and to tell the truth dozen more similar missions) by brute force. So, deep strategy and thinking were the only solution. I would be happy if we had: 1. Difficult missions with all generals available, but difficult because of powerful opposition, geographical peculiarities and so on... (example Volgograd, Rio, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Wuhan etc in EW5). 2. Difficult missions as mentioned above with interesting tactical decisions (it was the way used in GoG Classic and Pacific and in some interesting missions of EW4). But I am not so happy to see missions made artificially difficult because of bans of different sorts... |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 1, 2020 9:32:13 GMT
Yes, especially with a few missions here that dont even allow you to beat it with only your strategy. The only thing that would allow you to clear the missions would be medical packs, which are hard to get and pose a gap between f2p and p2w players. The idea of no generals would be to force the players to rely on ingenious tactics, but when ET designs those kind of missions to also include hopelessly weak and incompetent allies, a heavy unit and enemy general spam, and with a significant general-normal unit ability gap, relying on pure military wisdom will not work.
Honestly I feel that the emphasis on generals, although inevitable for a gaming company, is too much. Strategy games should champion strategy, yet it is the capitalist mindset that prevents this from being made available to players.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naveen Hanza on Apr 1, 2020 11:19:46 GMT
Yes, especially with a few missions here that dont even allow you to beat it with only your strategy. The only thing that would allow you to clear the missions would be medical packs, which are hard to get and pose a gap between f2p and p2w players. The idea of no generals would be to force the players to rely on ingenious tactics, but when ET designs those kind of missions to also include hopelessly weak and incompetent allies, a heavy unit and enemy general spam, and with a significant general-normal unit ability gap, relying on pure military wisdom will not work. Honestly I feel that the emphasis on generals, although inevitable for a gaming company, is too much. Strategy games should champion strategy, yet it is the capitalist mindset that prevents this from being made available to players. Now I feel if USSR is not dissolved and if USSR won the cold war so a Communist world will be born. |
|
But I would prefer more complex strategic decisions than a simple ban on using our generals.It is a simplistic solution and I don't like the latest pattern. In EW6 1806 the most difficult missions were arguably Siege and Balaclava. But it was so because there were certain bans on using Infantry and Cavalry generals. And I recall there were not as difficult if we ignored the ban and were content with 2 stars instead of 3. The same is the case in 1914. The most difficult missions are those with restrictions. That means these missions were made artificially difficult because of starting conditions and not because of strategic/tactical complexity. I would be glad to see tactical finesse in ET games more often. For example, this is the map of the last mission of GoG Pacific:
