|
|
Post by willianwallace on Apr 27, 2021 17:55:37 GMT
Do you guys think there's any good general in the two lowest tiers, which worth to buy ?
I think the only ones who maybe can be useful are, King and Spruance.
There's some others that look like good (Voronov, Simonds, List, smigly) but i don't know if they can be useful late on the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 27, 2021 18:12:23 GMT
None of them are worth buying. Bad investments that will bite you in the behind later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by NotRandom on Apr 27, 2021 19:01:12 GMT
Spruance too? HangryBird , he seemed to be decent enough as a replacement for Nimitz if you don't want to spend the money. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Apr 27, 2021 19:06:29 GMT
So the one and only reason to buy a «low tier» general in any ET game has been if you start off super bare-bones, like in WC3 and WC4. Which you don’t do in this game courtesy of the free gens they give you right off the bat.
Now the reason why «cost-effective» low-tier generals usually go nowhere is because it’s not cost-effective in regards to your other limited resources: Usually deployment slots and units available in a mission. So usually you’re just paying less for less power, which is not our goal here, we want to pay less for the same power. We could probably match the performance of 6 or so elite generals with 20-ish low tier generals. But we can’t ever do the latter.
The ONLY game that has some parts where quantity beats quality is EW5. Precisely since some of the game modes aren’t limited by these resources.
Edit: okay so there’s one more instance where getting a low tier general might be worthwhile. And that is if demand for the job is so low that you might make it through with a middling general. Navy usually falls into this area. So you might try something like Spruance if you can. But don’t do this for land generals.
|
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on Apr 27, 2021 20:27:37 GMT
Spruance too? HangryBird , he seemed to be decent enough as a replacement for Nimitz if you don't want to spend the money. Spruance isn't good enough on his own. With Cunningham, yes, but that's two general slots. Better to just to buy Nimitz and save yourself a slot. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Apr 27, 2021 20:49:29 GMT
Only spraunce. Then, the next cheapest general that is good enough for end game is Student
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Apr 27, 2021 20:51:36 GMT
Simonds looks op but who needs a third artillery general other than alexander.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alexyx on Apr 27, 2021 20:57:53 GMT
They are just worse than most high tier gens
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2021 9:30:15 GMT
So the one and only reason to buy a «low tier» general in any ET game has been if you start off super bare-bones, like in WC3 and WC4. Which you don’t do in this game courtesy of the free gens they give you right off the bat. Now the reason why «cost-effective» low-tier generals usually go nowhere is because it’s not cost-effective in regards to your other limited resources: Usually deployment slots and units available in a mission. So usually you’re just paying less for less power, which is not our goal here, we want to pay less for the same power. We could probably match the performance of 6 or so elite generals with 20-ish low tier generals. But we can’t ever do the latter. The ONLY game that has some parts where quantity beats quality is EW5. Precisely since some of the game modes aren’t limited by these resources. Edit: okay so there’s one more instance where getting a low tier general might be worthwhile. And that is if demand for the job is so low that you might make it through with a middling general. Navy usually falls into this area. So you might try something like Spruance if you can. But don’t do this for land generals. Atleast Badoglio, Ozawa and Crerar wc3 were recommended. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Apr 29, 2021 11:01:41 GMT
So the one and only reason to buy a «low tier» general in any ET game has been if you start off super bare-bones, like in WC3 and WC4. Which you don’t do in this game courtesy of the free gens they give you right off the bat. Now the reason why «cost-effective» low-tier generals usually go nowhere is because it’s not cost-effective in regards to your other limited resources: Usually deployment slots and units available in a mission. So usually you’re just paying less for less power, which is not our goal here, we want to pay less for the same power. We could probably match the performance of 6 or so elite generals with 20-ish low tier generals. But we can’t ever do the latter. The ONLY game that has some parts where quantity beats quality is EW5. Precisely since some of the game modes aren’t limited by these resources. Edit: okay so there’s one more instance where getting a low tier general might be worthwhile. And that is if demand for the job is so low that you might make it through with a middling general. Navy usually falls into this area. So you might try something like Spruance if you can. But don’t do this for land generals. Atleast Badoglio, Ozawa and Crerar wc3 were recommended. Yeah because of the circumstances I mentioned. It’s partially why Pacorus and Messe is good in GCR/WC4 too. But since ET has started to give us free stuff I doubt we’ll ever need to get people like that in future games. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on May 2, 2021 0:24:49 GMT
I bought Novikov, King, and Voronov.
Novikov has been useful as a third (cheap!) allied air after Arnold and Halsey.
King has been useful as his output seems similar to Nimitz.
I bought King and Novikov and Arnold because IRL they are interesting commanders and eacb represent something to me. (The argument could be made that each noted above deserves more stars than he was given in-game.) In game they are useful BUT NOT EFFICIENT, and only Voronov hasn't felt worth the investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 2, 2021 0:54:59 GMT
I bought Novikov, King, and Voronov. Novikov has been useful as a third (cheap!) allied air after Arnold and Halsey. King has been useful as his output seems similar to Nimitz. I bought King and Novikov and Arnold because IRL they are interesting commanders and eacb represent something to me. (The argument could be made that each noted above deserves more stars than he was given in-game.) In game they are useful BUT NOT EFFICIENT, and only Voronov hasn't felt worth the investment. Nimitz hits much harder than King. Nimitz gets one more navy star, a stronger naval gun strike, and wolfpack in exchange for a 12% torpedo expert. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on May 2, 2021 3:26:29 GMT
I bought Novikov, King, and Voronov. Novikov has been useful as a third (cheap!) allied air after Arnold and Halsey. King has been useful as his output seems similar to Nimitz. I bought King and Novikov and Arnold because IRL they are interesting commanders and eacb represent something to me. (The argument could be made that each noted above deserves more stars than he was given in-game.) In game they are useful BUT NOT EFFICIENT, and only Voronov hasn't felt worth the investment. Nimitz hits much harder than King. Nimitz gets one more navy star, a stronger naval gun strike, and wolfpack in exchange for a 12% torpedo expert. Well I did say *seems like* Nimitz. When he low rolls I dismiss it because I am biased (which I also mentioned) but when he crits, he hits for like 120-150, which stands out as close to Nimitz. This further stands out to me because of the discrepancies in stats between the two, which makes me feel like King is a "good" investment IMO because I am biased towarda him. Maybe a better choice of words would have been "can occasionally hit as hard as Nimitz" |
|
|
|
Post by HangryBird on May 2, 2021 3:30:27 GMT
Nimitz hits much harder than King. Nimitz gets one more navy star, a stronger naval gun strike, and wolfpack in exchange for a 12% torpedo expert. Well I did say *seems like* Nimitz. When he low rolls I dismiss it because I am biased (which I also mentioned) but when he crits, he hits for like 120-150, which stands out as close to Nimitz. Maybe a better choice of words would have been "can occasionally hit as hard as Nimitz" By that logic, List occasionally hits as hard as Guderian. Every unit can crit anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on May 2, 2021 3:40:25 GMT
Well I did say *seems like* Nimitz. When he low rolls I dismiss it because I am biased (which I also mentioned) but when he crits, he hits for like 120-150, which stands out as close to Nimitz. Maybe a better choice of words would have been "can occasionally hit as hard as Nimitz" By that logic, List occasionally hits as hard as Guderian. Every unit can crit anyway. As per my last response, the reason I bought King is mostly due to personal reasons. He literally created the fleet carrier doctrine that was integral to the US winning the naval war in the Pacific. There is no "logic", and per my original post I am not defending my purchase of them as an efficient way to play the game. What I am saying is that if you want to buy a commander, them buy him. The game gives you medals over time and many ways to earn them, and if it brings you enjoyment to see the face of a person that means something to you over a unit instead of the meta pick, then do it. You don't *have* to play the most optimal way, it is just what most people on this forum do. Why are you so keen on attacking my position? |
|
