|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 18, 2021 12:52:56 GMT
Hoth is terrible, but the massive discrepancy in unit ability is so much that it makes them equal. Guderian cannot beat Rommel in a 1 v 1 when he is on a med tank (I thought that this is what you said he could do), nor can he clear a ton of enemies in a region in one turn like Rommel can. I understand that 1 v 1s don't exist. Being fast I didn't say was bad, I said that it isn't useful. A slow approach leads to both increased damage (via support from other units) as well as increased survivability for the same reason. I think that the ability of ACs is their machine guns, level two vision, and cheap cost, which is why I put them at the front. An MT is certainly better, but also almost double the cost and less damage to Infantry, the main other unit. The deficiencies it has is not being able to soak as much damage due to lower defense. Next is med tanks, which although useful in clearing out enemy tanks and Heavy Artillery, still are super expensive, so I generally don't repair them. M thoughts on them are that they are useful, but too weak to e worth putting a top-tier general on. Next is infantry, because it can hit whatever wasn't killed by the other units with its incredible versatility. HT go around massacring infantry with light artillery support. Lastly, the H Artillery take out the Heavy tanks. I try to be careful in this doctrine, so I generally fix my generals, heavy artillery, light artillery if I am running low on support by them, Infantry in needed positions (e.g. defending a city, ones that will be paratrooping somewhere), and sometimes ACs for scouting and general use. MT and HT without generals are simply too expensive for what they are worth. They need not be fast to be a spearhead, all they need to be is at the front. I said Guderian on an MT (for me) does more damage than Rommel on an HT. Just because you don't have 2 range doesn't mean you can't effectively clear out units. A quick approach minimizes damage to softer units and can take objectives in a campaign quicker and more effectively. If you wait for Rundstedt to catch up to Rommel, you will be letting the enemy muster up some units and lose time. With generals, AC seems bad, because in a spearhead, you will be putting your best foot forward (generals). MTs being expensive (and HTs for that matter) can be nullified with Blitzkrieg giving more time on the clock and 2 range for some survivability. Light arty is slow and space, and you are better off with using H arty, which is slow. Infantry is good, but are horribly fragile and will crumble very easily in campaigns. I doubt a spearhead that shatters itself is very useful. Infantry is better for sweeping unprepared units, and if you use a base infantry, that support is negligible. You will rarely use tanks without generals, they are not worth the cost (unless you are rich in an AG), and ACs ae better, yes, but since you will be using the tanks with generals that make the cost of fixng up the units worth it, ACs are overshadowed. That is surprising, considering that even to Armor an HT does I think +20% damage than an MT. Maybe not, but having a 75% instead of a 60% chance to attack again certainly assists. In a slow approach, you will be facing the same number of enemy units, just with more of your own support. Of course AC is bad with generals (except for the amazing Dragoon Corps of Leclerc). In a spearhead, I put my scouts forward and have them blow up stuff. If I put my generals first, then the enemy has direct access to them, because they will be unprotected. Infantry gens are the only ones who can do that, not HT or HA gens. I will use MT and HT without gens for as long as they last, but I still won't fix them. MTs are still (even with blitzkrieg) very quick to die if I want them to do any damage at all with a Panther (i.e. destroying multiple stacks of enemy units). With Guderian, he is so much better on an HT. Surely you saw the difference in ability between Case Yellow and Barbarossa Middle. However, Rommel is still better on an HT, so he gets the Maus. Yes light artillery is slow, but they have great anti-armor capabilities with range two and high damage. Infantry is fragile, yes, but very, very easy to fix. A spearhead is only made to break through at one point. Once that job is done, then it can expand. I agree that I won't fix ACs and MT without generals, but I just think that a gen on an HT is so much better than one on an MT, and from 44 on we get two HT, that Rommel gets supremacy in all the hard missions. |
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Sept 18, 2021 15:58:04 GMT
0I said Guderian on an MT (for me) does more damage than Rommel on an HT. Just because you don't have 2 range doesn't mean you can't effectively clear out units. A quick approach minimizes damage to softer units and can take objectives in a campaign quicker and more effectively. If you wait for Rundstedt to catch up to Rommel, you will be letting the enemy muster up some units and lose time. With generals, AC seems bad, because in a spearhead, you will be putting your best foot forward (generals). MTs being expensive (and HTs for that matter) can be nullified with Blitzkrieg giving more time on the clock and 2 range for some survivability. Light arty is slow and space, and you are better off with using H arty, which is slow. Infantry is good, but are horribly fragile and will crumble very easily in campaigns. I doubt a spearhead that shatters itself is very useful. Infantry is better for sweeping unprepared units, and if you use a base infantry, that support is negligible. You will rarely use tanks without generals, they are not worth the cost (unless you are rich in an AG), and ACs ae better, yes, but since you will be using the tanks with generals that make the cost of fixng up the units worth it, ACs are overshadowed. That is surprising, considering that even to Armor an HT does I think +20% damage than an MT. Maybe not, but having a 75% instead of a 60% chance to attack again certainly assists. In a slow approach, you will be facing the same number of enemy units, just with more of your own support. Of course AC is bad with generals (except for the amazing Dragoon Corps of Leclerc). In a spearhead, I put my scouts forward and have them blow up stuff. If I put my generals first, then the enemy has direct access to them, because they will be unprotected. Infantry gens are the only ones who can do that, not HT or HA gens. I will use MT and HT without gens for as long as they last, but I still won't fix them. MTs are still (even with blitzkrieg) very quick to die if I want them to do any damage at all with a Panther (i.e. destroying multiple stacks of enemy units). With Guderian, he is so much better on an HT. Surely you saw the difference in ability between Case Yellow and Barbarossa Middle. However, Rommel is still better on an HT, so he gets the Maus. Yes light artillery is slow, but they have great anti-armor capabilities with range two and high damage. Infantry is fragile, yes, but very, very easy to fix. A spearhead is only made to break through at one point. Once that job is done, then it can expand. I agree that I won't fix ACs and MT without generals, but I just think that a gen on an HT is so much better than one on an MT, and from 44 on we get two HT, that Rommel gets supremacy in all the hard missions. Surprising, but not unbelievable. In my experience, the enemy tends to target HTs rather than MTs, and even without any damage taken, they have about equal output, but about half of the time Guderian does more damage. Generals will most likely take small amounts of damage and will fight back, maybe killing the enemy in retaliation. Guderian survives longer usually in a campaign. Guderian on an HT I see as a downgrade, as enemy arty are scarce and can be dealt with easily and HTs are pretty rare, thus making Blitzkrieg unusable. That might be the principle, but there is a flaw. Guderian is better than Rommel by a bit, and if you get outdone by an inferior unit and die easier than said unit, that speaks. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 18, 2021 16:08:18 GMT
That is surprising, considering that even to Armor an HT does I think +20% damage than an MT. Maybe not, but having a 75% instead of a 60% chance to attack again certainly assists. In a slow approach, you will be facing the same number of enemy units, just with more of your own support. Of course AC is bad with generals (except for the amazing Dragoon Corps of Leclerc). In a spearhead, I put my scouts forward and have them blow up stuff. If I put my generals first, then the enemy has direct access to them, because they will be unprotected. Infantry gens are the only ones who can do that, not HT or HA gens. I will use MT and HT without gens for as long as they last, but I still won't fix them. MTs are still (even with blitzkrieg) very quick to die if I want them to do any damage at all with a Panther (i.e. destroying multiple stacks of enemy units). With Guderian, he is so much better on an HT. Surely you saw the difference in ability between Case Yellow and Barbarossa Middle. However, Rommel is still better on an HT, so he gets the Maus. Yes light artillery is slow, but they have great anti-armor capabilities with range two and high damage. Infantry is fragile, yes, but very, very easy to fix. A spearhead is only made to break through at one point. Once that job is done, then it can expand. I agree that I won't fix ACs and MT without generals, but I just think that a gen on an HT is so much better than one on an MT, and from 44 on we get two HT, that Rommel gets supremacy in all the hard missions. Surprising, but not unbelievable. In my experience, the enemy tends to target HTs rather than MTs, and even without any damage taken, they have about equal output, but about half of the time Guderian does more damage. Generals will most likely take small amounts of damage and will fight back, maybe killing the enemy in retaliation. Guderian survives longer usually in a campaign. Guderian on an HT I see as a downgrade, as enemy arty are scarce and can be dealt with easily and HTs are pretty rare, thus making Blitzkrieg unusable. That might be the principle, but there is a flaw. Guderian is better than Rommel by a bit, and if you get outdone by an inferior unit and die easier than said unit, that speaks. The enemy generally only attacks an HT with infantry and Heavy Artillery. The idea that Guderian does more damage to non-tank units is preposterous. Guderian on an MT does not last longer than HT Rommel in a campaign. Guderian on an HT is still an upgrade. If you don't need Blitzkrieg, then that can hardly be described as a downgrade. Guderian does not outdo Rommel on an inferior unit. |
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Sept 18, 2021 16:27:14 GMT
Surprising, but not unbelievable. In my experience, the enemy tends to target HTs rather than MTs, and even without any damage taken, they have about equal output, but about half of the time Guderian does more damage. Generals will most likely take small amounts of damage and will fight back, maybe killing the enemy in retaliation. Guderian survives longer usually in a campaign. Guderian on an HT I see as a downgrade, as enemy arty are scarce and can be dealt with easily and HTs are pretty rare, thus making Blitzkrieg unusable. That might be the principle, but there is a flaw. Guderian is better than Rommel by a bit, and if you get outdone by an inferior unit and die easier than said unit, that speaks. The enemy generally only attacks an HT with infantry and Heavy Artillery. The idea that Guderian does more damage to non-tank units is preposterous. Guderian on an MT does not last longer than HT Rommel in a campaign. Guderian on an HT is still an upgrade. If you don't need Blitzkrieg, then that can hardly be described as a downgrade. Guderian does not outdo Rommel on an inferior unit. It is not preposterous. Guderian I have seen do more on some regular units too. Mainly inf. You don't NEED Blitzkrieg, but it's still useful and will save some HP. Have you tried both in a campaign? Rommel can get shredded while Guderian only gets shredded later when almost everything is dead. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 18, 2021 16:40:37 GMT
The enemy generally only attacks an HT with infantry and Heavy Artillery. The idea that Guderian does more damage to non-tank units is preposterous. Guderian on an MT does not last longer than HT Rommel in a campaign. Guderian on an HT is still an upgrade. If you don't need Blitzkrieg, then that can hardly be described as a downgrade. Guderian does not outdo Rommel on an inferior unit. It is not preposterous. Guderian I have seen do more on some regular units too. Mainly inf. You don't NEED Blitzkrieg, but it's still useful and will save some HP. Have you tried both in a campaign? Rommel can get shredded while Guderian only gets shredded later when almost everything is dead. That doesn't make sense, considering that HT have both much more Attack, Machine Guns, and Maus compared to Panther. How can Guderian on MT do more to Inf? Of course Blitzkrieg will still save HP on an HT, but you were saying that putting him on an HT was something of a downgrade because his blitzkrieg is less useful, so I said that if you go from needing something to needing something less, that is not a downgrade. Yes, I have tried both in a campaign, in groups of Double Med, Rommel HT Guderian MT, and Double HT (Guderian with and without unranked Maus), and Rommel did much better whenever he was on an HT, even when Guderian got the Maus. The only time Guderian is more useful is when there are absolutely no HT, which is pretty common until 1944, but it is easy even when Rommel is on a med tank all the way until NA, where he gets to use his DF. After that you ALWAYS get an HT. |
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Sept 18, 2021 17:49:35 GMT
It is not preposterous. Guderian I have seen do more on some regular units too. Mainly inf. You don't NEED Blitzkrieg, but it's still useful and will save some HP. Have you tried both in a campaign? Rommel can get shredded while Guderian only gets shredded later when almost everything is dead. That doesn't make sense, considering that HT have both much more Attack, Machine Guns, and Maus compared to Panther. How can Guderian on MT do more to Inf? Of course Blitzkrieg will still save HP on an HT, but you were saying that putting him on an HT was something of a downgrade because his blitzkrieg is less useful, so I said that if you go from needing something to needing something less, that is not a downgrade. Yes, I have tried both in a campaign, in groups of Double Med, Rommel HT Guderian MT, and Double HT (Guderian with and without unranked Maus), and Rommel did much better whenever he was on an HT, even when Guderian got the Maus. The only time Guderian is more useful is when there are absolutely no HT, which is pretty common until 1944, but it is easy even when Rommel is on a med tank all the way until NA, where he gets to use his DF. After that you ALWAYS get an HT. RNG is, well, random. I have found that Guderian with some exp is more willing to attack again than Rommel (for me), and Guderian can sometimes overpower Rommel. On a HT, Rommel is better, because Blitzkrieg doesn't matter, and even if the argument is "Rommel does more damage in 1 hit", Guderian will survive more hits and in total will do more damage. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Sept 18, 2021 17:59:58 GMT
That doesn't make sense, considering that HT have both much more Attack, Machine Guns, and Maus compared to Panther. How can Guderian on MT do more to Inf? Of course Blitzkrieg will still save HP on an HT, but you were saying that putting him on an HT was something of a downgrade because his blitzkrieg is less useful, so I said that if you go from needing something to needing something less, that is not a downgrade. Yes, I have tried both in a campaign, in groups of Double Med, Rommel HT Guderian MT, and Double HT (Guderian with and without unranked Maus), and Rommel did much better whenever he was on an HT, even when Guderian got the Maus. The only time Guderian is more useful is when there are absolutely no HT, which is pretty common until 1944, but it is easy even when Rommel is on a med tank all the way until NA, where he gets to use his DF. After that you ALWAYS get an HT. RNG is, well, random. I have found that Guderian with some exp is more willing to attack again than Rommel (for me), and Guderian can sometimes overpower Rommel. On a HT, Rommel is better, because Blitzkrieg doesn't matter, and even if the argument is "Rommel does more damage in 1 hit", Guderian will survive more hits and in total will do more damage. It is all just RNG. The majority of the time Rommel should do a lot more damage than Guderian, and if you play smart, Rommel should be alive for quite a long time, maybe Guderian's Blitz on an HT will save him 50-100 HP if you play hyperaggressively. That is still not a big deal. Rommel lasts just as long as Guderian when both are on HT, and longer when Guderian is on MT. |
|
|
|
Post by stevke on Sept 18, 2021 18:48:04 GMT
To be honest, Rommel doesn't last as long as Guderian. As I said I have both, so I talk from expirience. Guderian has slightly better output, but it doesn't really matter because Rommel can attack like 5 times in a round. Also Rommel is just so so much better against Infantry it isn't really close, but Guderian does better against tanks. Both are needed and work extremely wellt together when paired. I use Maus on Rommel and Panther on Guderian
|
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Sept 18, 2021 19:12:49 GMT
RNG is, well, random. I have found that Guderian with some exp is more willing to attack again than Rommel (for me), and Guderian can sometimes overpower Rommel. On a HT, Rommel is better, because Blitzkrieg doesn't matter, and even if the argument is "Rommel does more damage in 1 hit", Guderian will survive more hits and in total will do more damage. It is all just RNG. The majority of the time Rommel should do a lot more damage than Guderian, and if you play smart, Rommel should be alive for quite a long time, maybe Guderian's Blitz on an HT will save him 50-100 HP if you play hyperaggressively. That is still not a big deal. Rommel lasts just as long as Guderian when both are on HT, and longer when Guderian is on MT. For me, the majority of the time, Guderian can outclass Rommel. Playing smart is not always the best way to play, and playing aggressively can be the only way to win some campaigns. You can alwas use the 2 range, but you will need a meatshield to shield Rommel. Blitz saves HP when you attack, making it extremely reliable to attack a strong general. If you can dodge 50% of the damage someone like Roko or MacArthur deals, that would be more reliable than gambling that the AI won't move up and attack Rommel. Rommel may last just as long as Guderian on a HT, but not when Guderian is on a MT. |
|
|
|
Post by YDE on Nov 16, 2022 7:59:09 GMT
Your guys favorite special force to use on your panzer generals? I personally use Panther on Guderian and Maus on Rommel Guderian with 44TMS The huge speed of a medium, Guderian's 3 star speed, and the special terrain bonus makes him run rings around everyone. For HT, I use the E-100, but I'd use KV-6 with Rommel if I could. If not, then yeah, Maus if my E-100 dies. Idk if Maus is worth if you have E-100, but I'll upgrade it regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by Josip Broz Tito on Nov 16, 2022 8:36:25 GMT
Your guys favorite special force to use on your panzer generals? I personally use Panther on Guderian and Maus on Rommel Guderian with 44TMS The huge speed of a medium, Guderian's 3 star speed, and the special terrain bonus makes him run rings around everyone. For HT, I use the E-100, but I'd use KV-6 with Rommel if I could. If not, then yeah, Maus if my E-100 dies. Idk if Maus is worth if you have E-100, but I'll upgrade it regardless. Haven’t you done some elite? |
|
|
|
Post by Zaxer Unixan on Nov 16, 2022 13:22:09 GMT
I voted Guderian Over 100 replays of Elite Battle, El Alamein, using Rommel and Guderian in each game separately, as well as using different Special Forces on them My conclusion: Guderian > Rommel  Guderian obliterated an AI E-100 Rommel at least 80% of the time (Most of Guderian's loses are from other units such as the many anti-tank artilleries supporting AI Rommel). His Blitzkrieg is just insanely powerful |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Nov 16, 2022 18:37:52 GMT
I voted Guderian Over 100 replays of Elite Battle, El Alamein, using Rommel and Guderian in each game separately, as well as using different Special Forces on them My conclusion: Guderian > Rommel Guderian obliterated an AI E-100 Rommel at least 80% of the time (Most of Guderian's loses are from other units such as the many anti-tank artilleries supporting AI Rommel). His Blitzkrieg is just insanely powerful Obviously in a 1-on-1 tank duel Guderian will win due to his Blitzkrieg and Anti-Armor, but Rommel is certainly more useful at destroying infantry, and even artillery. Rommel is a absolute destroying machine, and Guderian, even if he will win against Rommel in a fight, can't come close to that damage. |
|
|
|
Post by YDE on Nov 17, 2022 6:10:52 GMT
Guderian with 44TMS The huge speed of a medium, Guderian's 3 star speed, and the special terrain bonus makes him run rings around everyone. For HT, I use the E-100, but I'd use KV-6 with Rommel if I could. If not, then yeah, Maus if my E-100 dies. Idk if Maus is worth if you have E-100, but I'll upgrade it regardless. Haven’t you done some elite? Not yet, but I know you can use SFs from both sides. I was more so talking about campaigns where I'm limited to E-100 and Maus for Rommel |
|
