|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Jan 27, 2016 16:16:59 GMT
geograpy is a MUST for artillery....
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jan 29, 2016 1:11:44 GMT
Why make a new when we already have the best?
Lasalle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jan 29, 2016 18:22:12 GMT
Why make a new when we already have the best? Lasalle. Because he's not perfect. A: Sailor is hella situational B: As Fritz showed, Mobility isn't that good. Hence the right skills can make a better pack. I'd say Leadership and Geography/Assault Art (depending on whether you want movement or output). |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Jan 29, 2016 19:37:39 GMT
General are close to perfect on skills(one skill to perfect):
Infantry: Lannes, Suvorov, Brock, Washington, Wellesley, Victoria(perfect).
Cavalry: Berthier, Radetzky, Davout, Murat, Dombrowski(closest to perfect), Lan(perfect).
Artillery: Moreau, Davout, Isabela, Nelson.
Navy: Nelson, Kate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jan 29, 2016 21:32:42 GMT
General are close to perfect on skills(one skill to perfect): Infantry: Lannes, Suvorov, Brock, Washington, Wellesley, Victoria(perfect). Cavalry: Berthier, Radetzky, Davout, Murat, Dombrowski(closest to perfect), Lan(perfect). Artillery: Moreau, Davout, Isabela, Nelson. Navy: Nelson, Kate. Brock? Seriously? |
|
|
|
Post by Jean Lannes on Jan 29, 2016 21:42:11 GMT
Why make a new when we already have the best? Lasalle. Because he's not perfect. A: Sailor is hella situational B: As Fritz showed, Mobility isn't that good. Hence the right skills can make a better pack. I'd say Leadership and Geography/Assault Art (depending on whether you want movement or output). it's a joke. But he's the general that served me the best. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Jan 29, 2016 21:42:55 GMT
General are close to perfect on skills(one skill to perfect): Infantry: Lannes, Suvorov, Brock, Washington, Wellesley, Victoria(perfect). Cavalry: Berthier, Radetzky, Davout, Murat, Dombrowski(closest to perfect), Lan(perfect). Artillery: Moreau, Davout, Isabela, Nelson. Navy: Nelson, Kate. Brock? Seriously? I AM serious. Bugle+Assault Art+Banner, not a bad one at all. p.s. I really want a Brock like the one in 1812 America!  |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jan 29, 2016 21:43:43 GMT
Banner is a horrible skill.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Jan 29, 2016 22:02:40 GMT
Banner is a horrible skill. It is not horrible though, not horrible for supporting your allies(at least is is not nothing). |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jan 29, 2016 22:06:49 GMT
Banner is a horrible skill. It is not horrible though, not horrible for supporting your allies(at least is is not nothing). Well to even use the skill you need to spend ~800 medals for a flag. How can I spare that many medals when I'm grinding 5,000 for Berthier? |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jan 30, 2016 1:39:16 GMT
General are close to perfect on skills(one skill to perfect): Infantry: Lannes, Suvorov, Brock, Washington, Wellesley, Victoria(perfect). Cavalry: Berthier, Radetzky, Davout, Murat, Dombrowski(closest to perfect), Lan(perfect). Artillery: Moreau, Davout, Isabela, Nelson. Navy: Nelson, Kate. A: I (and much of the forum) think banner is not worth it, hence cross off Nelson B: Brock is one off if you look at conquest Brock, store Brock is 2 off C: Wellesley is poor infantry, as Econ he is 2 off from PERFECT. Washington, at the same price is 1 off. Dearborn is far from perfect, but he is strong at inf AND has architecture (which cannot be replaced by items) for the same price. To amount to this and other factors I'd change the name to: Excellent In-game Generals And adjust the list to: Infantry (in no particular order): Suvorov, Lannes, Brock (Conquest Version), Victoria Cavalry: Berthier, Radetzky, Davout, Murat, Dombrowski, Lan, Poniatowski, Lannes, Lasalle Artillery: Moreau, Davout, Isabela, Poniatowski, Lannes Navy: Kate Business/Econ: Fatimah, Wellesley, Washington, Dearborn Honorable mentions (Not top quality in the particular unit but still very strong) Infantry: Poniatowski, Dobeln, Oudinot, Dearborn, Soult Cavalry: Golitsyn, Sulkowski Artillery: Sophia, Jourdan, Scharnhorst, Sokolnicki, Marmont Navy: Sidney, Collingwood, Nelson, Jervis, Poniatowski, Lannes Econ/Business: Bennigsen, Jervis, Alexander I |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Jan 30, 2016 1:54:43 GMT
General are close to perfect on skills(one skill to perfect): Infantry: Lannes, Suvorov, Brock, Washington, Wellesley, Victoria(perfect). Cavalry: Berthier, Radetzky, Davout, Murat, Dombrowski(closest to perfect), Lan(perfect). Artillery: Moreau, Davout, Isabela, Nelson. Navy: Nelson, Kate. A: I (and much of the forum) think banner is not worth it, hence cross off Nelson B: Brock is one off if you look at conquest Brock, store Brock is 2 off C: Wellesley is poor infantry, as Econ he is 2 off from PERFECT. Washington, at the same price is 1 off. Dearborn is far from perfect, but he is strong at inf AND has architecture (which cannot be replaced by items) for the same price. To amount to this and other factors I'd change the name to: Excellent In-game Generals And adjust the list to: Infantry (in no particular order): Suvorov, Lannes, Brock (Conquest Version), Victoria Cavalry: Berthier, Radetzky, Davout, Murat, Dombrowski, Lan, Poniatowski, Lannes, Lasalle Artillery: Moreau, Davout, Isabela, Poniatowski, Lannes Navy: Kate Business/Econ: Fatimah, Wellesley, Washington, Dearborn Honorable mentions (Not top quality in the particular unit but still very strong) Infantry: Poniatowski, Dobeln, Oudinot, Dearborn, Soult Cavalry: Golitsyn, Sulkowski Artillery: Sophia, Jourdan, Scharnhorst, Sokolnicki, Marmont Navy: Sidney, Collingwood, Nelson, Jervis, Poniatowski, Lannes Econ/Business: Bennigsen, Jervis, Alexander I Agree with most. Maybe you can replace Bennigsen by J. Bonaparte. Bennigsen is only expert, and ONLY Assault Art is not enough to fight. And if Jourdan can be in, Yermolov can be in also. Lasalle=Golitsyn, except 2 movement. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Jan 30, 2016 7:12:11 GMT
A: I (and much of the forum) think banner is not worth it, hence cross off Nelson B: Brock is one off if you look at conquest Brock, store Brock is 2 off C: Wellesley is poor infantry, as Econ he is 2 off from PERFECT. Washington, at the same price is 1 off. Dearborn is far from perfect, but he is strong at inf AND has architecture (which cannot be replaced by items) for the same price. To amount to this and other factors I'd change the name to: Excellent In-game Generals And adjust the list to: Infantry (in no particular order): Suvorov, Lannes, Brock (Conquest Version), Victoria Cavalry: Berthier, Radetzky, Davout, Murat, Dombrowski, Lan, Poniatowski, Lannes, Lasalle Artillery: Moreau, Davout, Isabela, Poniatowski, Lannes Navy: Kate Business/Econ: Fatimah, Wellesley, Washington, Dearborn Honorable mentions (Not top quality in the particular unit but still very strong) Infantry: Poniatowski, Dobeln, Oudinot, Dearborn, Soult Cavalry: Golitsyn, Sulkowski Artillery: Sophia, Jourdan, Scharnhorst, Sokolnicki, Marmont Navy: Sidney, Collingwood, Nelson, Jervis, Poniatowski, Lannes Econ/Business: Bennigsen, Jervis, Alexander I Agree with most. Maybe you can replace Bennigsen by J. Bonaparte. Bennigsen is only expert, and ONLY Assault Art is not enough to fight. And if Jourdan can be in, Yermolov can be in also. Lasalle=Golitsyn, except 2 movement. 1) The lists aren't limited-space, J Bonaparte should be there 2) I suppose you're right about Yermolov 3) Mobility isn't fully Uselss, just the worst, so Bennigsen has a tiny bit going for him. |
|
