|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 16:07:58 GMT
Bayonet Charge exists. Besides, I was referring to how you treat the consistency of infantry leader to be equal to that of assault. Infantry leader is good when it procs, but really, is it as consistent as Blitzkrieg and Guerrilla? Your argument against these skills is that they aren't consistent enough. With Blitzkrieg and Guerilla, you are counting on them to trigger when you attack dangerous enemies. With IL, it's just a nice perk. "I love IL because it is the only way for infantry to do serious damage to a unit they are not specialized against". Based on this, it's not "just a nice perk". You are counting on infantry leader to proc when you want to do more damage to cripple or destroy an enemy. Leader skills are good, but Blitzkrieg and Guerrilla can be counted on more (With the exception of Panzer Leader). |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 16:12:48 GMT
I do this in conquests, when I can put a KV-6 on Rommel. Sorry, I should have specified. But in conquest mode, you have unlimited special forces. I could put all my tank gens + Rundstedt on KV-6's and Maus's. I should have specified that I was taking about Campaign mode. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 5, 2021 16:15:50 GMT
With Blitzkrieg and Guerilla, you are counting on them to trigger when you attack dangerous enemies. With IL, it's just a nice perk. "I love IL because it is the only way for infantry to do serious damage to a unit they are not specialized against". Based on this, it's not "just a nice perk". You are counting on infantry leader to proc when you want to do more damage to cripple or destroy an enemy. Leader skills are good, but Blitzkrieg and Guerrilla can be counted on more (With the exception of Panzer Leader). I fail to see how those two statements are incompatible. |
|
|
|
Post by eeeeef on May 5, 2021 16:16:22 GMT
Bayonet Charge exists. Besides, I was referring to how you treat the consistency of infantry leader to be equal to that of assault. Infantry leader is good when it procs, but really, is it as consistent as Blitzkrieg and Guerrilla? Your argument against these skills is that they aren't consistent enough. With Blitzkrieg and Guerilla, you are counting on them to trigger when you attack dangerous enemies. With IL, it's just a nice perk. I see you've acquired new skills in my absence Gerd von Rundstedt, no doubt you've grown stronger without me to combat you. I shall dub these new abilities of yours "Tunnel vision" and "Dominion of nihility". |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 16:17:10 GMT
I would think Patton has higher tank stats than Monty with 2 tank skills, while Monty's Machinist is not technically a tank skill, and also somewhat hard to use. Patton, I'd say, is the best general for Blitzkrieg, with his Panzer Leader. I don't understand. What exactly disqualifies Monty from being a specialized tank gen? If it is him having one tank skill, then I don't see how that helps your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 16:19:16 GMT
With Blitzkrieg and Guerilla, you are counting on them to trigger when you attack dangerous enemies. With IL, it's just a nice perk. I see you've acquired new skills in my absence Gerd von Rundstedt , no doubt you've grown stronger without me to combat you. I shall dub these new abilities of yours "Tunnel vision" and "Dominion of nihility" He's too dangerous to be left alive! |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 16:27:36 GMT
Joseph Stalin , I have to agree with you on konev and vasilevsky, but not on OP deleting their post. They said that "They'll probably improve/extend this, once they progress further", so the guide just needs an update once they have the time to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 17:15:53 GMT
"I love IL because it is the only way for infantry to do serious damage to a unit they are not specialized against". Based on this, it's not "just a nice perk". You are counting on infantry leader to proc when you want to do more damage to cripple or destroy an enemy. Leader skills are good, but Blitzkrieg and Guerrilla can be counted on more (With the exception of Panzer Leader). I fail to see how those two statements are incompatible. I did explain that you are counting on infantry leader for a purpose, just like any chance-dependent skill. So, it's not just a nice perk by your definition of the word. Now, how are those two statements compatible? |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 5, 2021 17:25:22 GMT
I fail to see how those two statements are incompatible. I did explain that you are counting on infantry leader for a purpose, just like any chance-dependent skill. So, it's not just a nice perk by your definition of the word. Now, how are those two statements compatible? I am not counting on it. i. e. Wishing for it to happen, but when it does happen, that is the only time infantry can do good damage on a unit it is not specialized for. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 17:29:55 GMT
I did explain that you are counting on infantry leader for a purpose, just like any chance-dependent skill. So, it's not just a nice perk by your definition of the word. Now, how are those two statements compatible? I am not counting on it. i. e. Wishing for it to happen, but when it does happen, that is the only time infantry can do good damage on a unit it is not specialized for. Then, you are not counting on Blitzkrieg to proc, but when it does happen, it is the only time tanks can reduce damage. |
|
Dougy Mac
Captain
Douglas MacAurthur's real name
Posts: 68
|
Post by Dougy Mac on May 5, 2021 17:32:54 GMT
I would think Patton has higher tank stats than Monty with 2 tank skills, while Monty's Machinist is not technically a tank skill, and also somewhat hard to use. Patton, I'd say, is the best general for Blitzkrieg, with his Panzer Leader. I don't understand. What exactly disqualifies Monty from being a specialized tank gen? If it is him having one tank skill, then I don't see how that helps your argument. My definition of a specialized tank general is a general who is very good at one thing, but not so much in the others. For example- Guderian is an anti-tank general; so is Roko. Vatutin is for high damage, but is slow and dies quickly. Monty is a mix of survivability, damage, and speed. Not the best in any of them, but decent in all. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 17:37:22 GMT
I don't understand. What exactly disqualifies Monty from being a specialized tank gen? If it is him having one tank skill, then I don't see how that helps your argument. My definition of a specialized tank general is a general who is very good at one thing, but not so much in the others. For example- Guderian is an anti-tank general; so is Roko. Vatutin is for high damage, but is slow and dies quickly. Monty is a mix of survivability, damage, and speed. Not the best in any of them, but decent in all. Okay, that makes more sense. My definition of specialized gens are gens that are best at commanding a single type of unit. Thanks for clarifying! |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 18:17:01 GMT
delete this post, it is extrmely outdated, konev and vasilevsky are bad gens for the first buy, the guide is designed for 39-41 west and east Vasilevsky is pretty Good, Konev is good if you are, like, super poor. He can work as a tank that is better than Devers, an Inf better than Tassigny, and an Arty better than Voronov, all for only 710 medals. Even if you are super poor, you are better off saving for someone better than Konev. Being better than Devers and Voronov is not a high bar to clear. I don't like Tassigny, but although Konev has more reliable damage, Tassigny has Guerrilla, which is why Tassigny is better than Konev to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on May 5, 2021 18:19:41 GMT
Vasilevsky is pretty Good, Konev is good if you are, like, super poor. He can work as a tank that is better than Devers, an Inf better than Tassigny, and an Arty better than Voronov, all for only 710 medals. Even if you are super poor, you are better off saving for someone better than Konev. Being better than Devers and Voronov is not a high bar to clear. I don't like Tassigny, but although Konev has more reliable damage, Tassigny has Guerrilla, which is why Tassigny is better than Konev to me. I wanted to say Timo and Chuikov instead of Devers and Voronov, but they are free, so I couldn't apply the price Arg to that. You know how I feel on Guerilla. |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 5, 2021 18:25:38 GMT
Even if you are super poor, you are better off saving for someone better than Konev. Being better than Devers and Voronov is not a high bar to clear. I don't like Tassigny, but although Konev has more reliable damage, Tassigny has Guerrilla, which is why Tassigny is better than Konev to me. I wanted to say Timo and Chuikov instead of Devers and Voronov, but they are free, so I couldn't apply the price Arg to that. You know how I feel on Guerilla. Yep, I already know how you feel about Guerrilla. That's why I said "to me", as in my opinion. |
|
