|
|
Post by STILETT0 on Apr 6, 2021 20:56:49 GMT
you see? @vonmanstein77 understands! Or was it Shaposhnikov who wrecked Yama? I don’t remember I think we can all agree that I am better than Shaposhnikov, correct? |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Apr 8, 2021 14:25:56 GMT
I actually haven't really gotten that far into the game yet since I've been doing and playing other stuff so I can't really speak for endgame, but I'm still pretty confident that this is drivel, no offense. - He's good at using Karl:
Now here's where my inexperience with late game comes in, but anyway, do you get enough heavy artillery late game to ever justify using Karl over Elefant? Axis are significantly weaker than allies since they have no AoE so you really need all the damage output that you can get (helps that they get the highest damage generals though). Plus why are you tunnel visioning on his XP boost from scouting? (how does scout XP work anyway?) You'd probably get more XP from just killing more stuff from having higher damage.
Also is the XP boost good enough to actually counter the levels you lose from replenishing? Training has always seemed like the only really viable "XP skill" to me, though that one sucks since it's only represented by terrible people.
- He's good at infantry:
You just need a lot of damage as infantry as you're only going to be hitting once per player phase and you die really fast on enemy phase for being infantry. +15 damage base, +25 damage with big stacks. Student should be able to maintain +30 damage if we're assuming that we can keep our infantry together by only attacking ideal targets, like we have to if we're going to utilize crowd tactics, and he's cheaper.
- Desperate can tank enemy morale:
You want to get attacked three times by the same enemy? You're either playing too slow or you're trying to die. Plus playing around morale seems really lousy since the actions that are the most effective at tanking enemy morale also means that they get closer to death, so you're really not going to get much mileage out of dropping their morale.
- Counter navy:
Too slow. I do take the opportunity to attack a naval unit with an infantry unit from coastal artillery if the situation arises and there's nothing better to do, but I usually don't end up standing there for too long since I've got other stuff to do.
Basically I think you're kind of getting at what he's good at, but you don't really explain why those things are valuable, or more valuable than some things you might be giving up. The only thing I'd concede is that he doesn't cost a slot for 1942 and that's actually nice since you'd probably want to spend those three slots on Guderian, Leeb and Bock, leaving you with no infantry general, though you should probably just get Yamashita in that case. Faster, more damaging, more consistent and slightly more durable for 110 more.I broke my promise  1. You most definitely get enough heavy artillery late game, and it is not even Karl over Elefant, rather it is more like Karl over Maresal. Also, I don't think that I am "tunnel-visioning" on his Scout, rather, I am saying that it is a plus. Is it tunnel-visioning to focus on Guderian's Blitzkrieg, Rommel's PL, Vatutin's ToI, or Roko's Anti-Armor? I personally do not think so, but feel free to disagree. I also agree that Training is the best XP skill (with no good gens with it), but Scout is all we can make do with. I do personally like Scout, because it is free XP ( as an example to how Scout works [IMO], Ushi has done 300 dmg, making 300 XP. He goes into the fog of war, finds someone, and an extra 30 XP.), however, I also think that it is only good on infantry, who must recruit often. 2. Ushi's real appeal is that he is also good on the enemy turn, unlike gens like Rundstedt or Yamashita. For this reason I place Crowd Tactics (I play slow and steady, and therefore always have high stacks) higher than Bayonet Charge. However, it is very playstyle dependent, and for some (and I do like Student), Student is better, but for me, I prefer a gen that, As well as have High Base Damage, has other useful skills. 3. On tanking enemy morale, It is not necessarily wanted, but you are going to be attacked anyway, and If you are, it is excellent to destroy the enemy's morale in doing so. I don't want to be attacked by Triple 442nd, but If I am, I also want to lower their morale, and when Ushi is coupled with more units, that 442nd can be tamed very easily. 4. Countering the enemy's navy is a very important thing. I am honestly surprised you do not do it as often. Maybe it was after I was traumatized after losing both my Guderians at Calais in Fall Gelb, but I try to destroy any navy possible, for they pack a powerful punch, and my navy honestly never really stands up to the enemy's. I cannot stress enough how important naval superiority is, even in a mostly land operation. It makes Pacific '42, N. Africa, and Western '44 far easier for the Axis. 5. As for Yamashita being a better buy, I would have to disagree. Yamashita is obviously better star-wise, but Ushijima is a far better Artillery Hybrid. I already mentioned why I prefer Crowd Tactics to Bayonet Charge. I dislike Guerilla because 1. It is very Inconsistent, and 2. Because Infantry generally will be attacking Infantry, Navy, and Artillery (which all do little damage to Infantry), not tanks, which do a lot of damage to infantry. Antitank troops make that possible, but there should always be a city around to fix the utterly destroyed infantry after they are done. Therefore, I have to rank Desperate above it, because Desperate is actually pretty useful. Lastly, in Samurai vs. Scout, Scout is very useful on an infantry general, and Samurai is replaceable with Special Forces, but I have to give the win to Samurai for its convenience. Therefore, I think Ushijima and 90 medals is better than Yamashita. Again, you explain what he's good at, but don't really get into why we value these things. I also disagree with the notion that you should put playstyle into consideration when comparing generals unless you can clearly explain why that playstyle is actually good. Not all playstyles are equal, stoic has mentioned that he doesn't like using Guderian, and that's fine as long as he acknowledges that that's probably not the most efficient thing to do. I guess I'll start with it though. As a whole, I find that the game encourages you to play fast, but coordinated. And it also encourages using player phase a lot more than enemy phase. Why does it encourage you to move fast? Since you have goals that you have to accomplish in time on every mission that can occasionally be pretty challenging. Why do you have to be coordinated? So you don't leave your general crippled for the rest of the mission, especially since player phase is more important than enemy phase. This doesn't mean that you need to turtle. It means that you should optimally allocate your resources during a mission so that every "front" has enough people to complete your tasks. And to occasionally pull a general back to heal, or send some disposable infantry or whatever with your guy if a situation calls for it. If your guy dies, that's fine as long as he contributes enough while doing so. Why does the game encourage player phase more than enemy phase? Several reasons. You control better who fights who on your turn. You can avoid counterattacks from enemies that you kill. And probably most importantly, you deal a lot more damage per turn this way since the multi-attack trait is incredibly powerful (albeit unreliable) in this game. Lots of SFs have this trait (allies have more) and you trigger it for every stack you kill like in GCR, but unlike that game, you're not capped at doing it only once. Also, killing stuff faster lets you get through the enemies quicker so you can accomplish your goals easier. Of course, SOME maps might encourage you to play differently, but as a general rule of thumb, the game wants you to play like this. I also encourage you to not compare skills the way you did in point 5, I didn't do it since it's really really dumb. It's way easier to illustrate that in Monty vs Roko than Ushi vs Yamashita. Ace Forces vs Anti-Tank should be a no-brainer, but that's not what you're comparing. You're actually comparing slightly more consistency against infantry/artillery and air utility vs more damage to tanks. Likewise we're comparing inconsistent enemy-phase damage + artillery hybrid potential vs consistent player-phase damage + more movement and slightly more durability. Now you just argue which of these traits you care more about in regards to how the game works. You could maaaaybe argue that desperate constitutes equal or more durability than Guerilla does, and if you do care to find out, you can go ahead and wrangle out some math. Oh and XP seems completely worthless since apparently tech just puts a minimum cap on what level a unit can be. So XP gets a lot less valuable later on in the game. Lv 6 to lv 7 seems to only be like 3 or something attack. Training seems bad in a vacuum too huh. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Oct 4, 2021 19:02:41 GMT
I don't know if he has become a meme to everyone, or just me. In GOG3, there is Boris, and there is Ushijima. But I stand unwavering that he is a good buy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boss Tweed on Oct 4, 2021 19:53:06 GMT
I don't know if he has become a meme to everyone, or just me. In GOG3, there is Boris, and there is Ushijima. But I stand unwavering that he is a good buy. Also De Gaulle ones. |
|
