|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 6, 2021 16:19:03 GMT
I'm gonna attempt to create an objective ranking system for all the Tank (and later all) Generals in this game (I previously made some tier lists, pls ignore them cause they're all trash except for the infantry and navy power rankings), so before I actually make a list I'd like you guys to offer your opinions on a scoring system. This is a crude scoring system that I came up with, which I think is... kinda bad, so I hope that people can help me improve the scoring system (There's no scoring penalties, except maybe for cost, which I haven't figured out yet): 
IMO there's 3 types of Generals, and this may help include everyone's opinions more (ex. Different people's opinions on Graziani): Assault: For attacking but not holding cities, and destroying enemies (think "most infantry, tank, and navy generals"). Support: For attacking cities, and helping other people destroy enemies (ex. by Rumor locking), but won't dish out tons of damage. More survivability than Assault (think "most low-damage generals, and certain artillery generals") Defence: Not really defence, just holding cities, being able to tank a lot of hits, and dealing less damage per turn than assault and support generals (think "air generals when on land, Graziani, and generals you would find useful when playing as 1939 or 1943 USA") And also RNG depends on how lucky you are (ex. My RNG sucks so I'd rate Cover a 0 but it might be more useful to people who s/l) |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 6, 2021 16:35:51 GMT
S/l should definitely not be taken into account. The problem is that rating systems based on skills and stars don't make the comparison much more objective unless there's a system to calculate skill efficiency. Also the general ratings depend on use. For example, I find Explosives pretty useless, but someone like journeykeen or George Rudi will definitely rate it very high. |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 6, 2021 16:51:01 GMT
S/l should definitely not be taken into account. The problem is that rating systems based on skills and stars don't make the comparison much more objective unless there's a system to calculate skill efficiency. Also the general ratings depend on use. For example, I find Explosives pretty useless, but someone like journeykeen or George Rudi will definitely rate it very high. Yeah, I agree with your point, which is why I'm probably gonna do separate lists for the different types of generals and skills (one for assault, support, and defence). I'll also only use this as a VERY rough guideline, as in it doesn't say which generals you should absolutely get or not get, but it just recommends generals based on your playstyle. Also I won't take S/l into account, it's just a very extreme example of good RNG (although it doesn't have anything to do with RNG). If you have better RNG you'll rate cover higher than people who have worse RNG. |
|
|
|
Post by torvestareturn on Oct 6, 2021 18:59:18 GMT
why do you not rate explosive highly? it's the best skill you can on a general that is for assault + taking cities. if you manage to fully destroy the city but an enemy unit is still alive, you can hit them again and being able to hit twice is super useful. You can literally take a lot of cities in 1 turn if you have a high damage general. Machinist on the other hand is just meh, even if you don't s/l, if you coordinate your attacks properly so weaker units chip away enemy damage and then your tank general can just 1 shot them (can kill multiple units at once), you don't take any damage in return. So machinist is really not that useful if you know what you are doing. if you are a beginner or just not experienced in easytech games then machinist makes sense to have
|
|
|
|
Post by torvestareturn on Oct 6, 2021 19:00:55 GMT
i also forgot to mention, i played all the european war games before wc4 and i remember in ew6 1914, they also had an explosive skill you can put on generals (mainly artillery generals) and that works the same way, it's just an amazing skill and not having it limits you in campaigns + speedrun conquests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 6, 2021 19:04:30 GMT
why do you not rate explosive highly? it's the best skill you can on a general that is for assault + taking cities. if you manage to fully destroy the city but an enemy unit is still alive, you can hit them again and being able to hit twice is super useful. You can literally take a lot of cities in 1 turn if you have a high damage general. Machinist on the other hand is just meh, even if you don't s/l, if you coordinate your attacks properly so weaker units chip away enemy damage and then your tank general can just 1 shot them (can kill multiple units at once), you don't take any damage in return. So machinist is really not that useful if you know what you are doing. if you are a beginner or just not experienced in easytech games then machinist makes sense to have I like explosives, but I think that some generals really aren't suited for Assault, so putting explosives may not be as good for them as say, a typical damage-increasing skill, and while I don't like Machinist either, some generals could benefit from this if they have a relatively low damage output, or are designed to tank a lot of hits |
|
|
|
Post by micky on Oct 6, 2021 19:04:54 GMT
Darth Nihilus, the idea itself sounds really interesting! I will try to think about it later, but now I'd just like to wish you good luck)
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 6, 2021 19:05:53 GMT
Also, Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov, do you think the mobility star multiplier should be decreased? Cause after inputting some scores for generals I found that Timoshenko's score was really inflated lol (cause he's got 6 mobility stars but only 4 tank stars) |
|
|
|
Post by micky on Oct 6, 2021 19:10:23 GMT
S/l should definitely not be taken into account. The problem is that rating systems based on skills and stars don't make the comparison much more objective unless there's a system to calculate skill efficiency. Also the general ratings depend on use. For example, I find Explosives pretty useless, but someone like journeykeen or George Rudi will definitely rate it very high. I might be a bit slow, but what does S/l mean? |
|
|
|
Post by torvestareturn on Oct 6, 2021 19:13:33 GMT
why do you not rate explosive highly? it's the best skill you can on a general that is for assault + taking cities. if you manage to fully destroy the city but an enemy unit is still alive, you can hit them again and being able to hit twice is super useful. You can literally take a lot of cities in 1 turn if you have a high damage general. Machinist on the other hand is just meh, even if you don't s/l, if you coordinate your attacks properly so weaker units chip away enemy damage and then your tank general can just 1 shot them (can kill multiple units at once), you don't take any damage in return. So machinist is really not that useful if you know what you are doing. if you are a beginner or just not experienced in easytech games then machinist makes sense to have I like explosives, but I think that some generals really aren't suited for Assault, so putting explosives may not be as good for them as say, a typical damage-increasing skill, and while I don't like Machinist either, some generals could benefit from this if they have a relatively low damage output, or are designed to tank a lot of hits what is the point of having generals not suited for assault, all the best generals are good because of their high damage output. those 'support' or 'tanky' generals are just bad in general. All these generals like guderian, rommel, konev, leeb, rokossovsky benefit from explosives. if you look at alternative skills, there are none which are that useful. |
|
|
|
Post by torvestareturn on Oct 6, 2021 19:14:30 GMT
s/l is when you hit enemy and if you don't like outcome (e.g. no skill triggered), you can leave game, rejoin and hit again, i mentioned it in a thread - how to hit without getting hit back
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 6, 2021 19:15:10 GMT
what is the point of having generals not suited for assault, all the best generals are good because of their high damage output. those 'support' or 'tanky' generals are just bad in general. All these generals like guderian, rommel, konev, leeb, rokossovsky benefit from explosives. if you look at alternative skills, there are none which are that useful. I mean, typically you'd want 1 general that isn't pure firepower, and either is really good at support or can hold cities for you. This is a lot more useful when you're challenging yourself in conquests (eg. South Korea 1950) than in scenario levels though. Machinist is next to useless in scenario, but it's decent in conquest. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 6, 2021 19:19:09 GMT
Also, Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov, do you think the mobility star multiplier should be decreased? Cause after inputting some scores for generals I found that Timoshenko's score was really inflated lol (cause he's got 6 mobility stars but only 4 tank stars) Probably yes, but atleast fast generals are fun to use lol |
|
|
|
Post by Darth Nihilus on Oct 6, 2021 19:24:31 GMT
Probably yes, but atleast fast generals are fun to use lol Yeah, that's true, I like speedrunning with Generals like Yamashita. Mobility is also the biggest reason why I sold Graziani for Rokossovsky. But I will say, mobility matters a lot more for infantry and artillery generals than it does for tanks |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Oct 6, 2021 19:26:16 GMT
what is the point of having generals not suited for assault, all the best generals are good because of their high damage output. those 'support' or 'tanky' generals are just bad in general. All these generals like guderian, rommel, konev, leeb, rokossovsky benefit from explosives. if you look at alternative skills, there are none which are that useful. I mean, typically you'd want 1 general that isn't pure firepower, and either is really good at support or can hold cities for you. This is a lot more useful when you're challenging yourself in conquests (eg. South Korea 1950) than in scenario levels though. Machinist is next to useless in scenario, but it's decent in conquest. In terms of completimg the game, I think Machinist is the opposite. Next to useless in conquest, but as Gerd von Rundstedt said, a godsend in scenario. Usually in conquest the main danger has been blunt already before your generals die, except for some really hard conquests like South Korea of course. Bjt you can get the same achievement with North Korea. But then in scenario it is super useful on Guderian. Yes, Guderian oneshots enemies and has 90% chance to avoid retaliation, but enemy generals and spam still hit very hard in some scenarios. Max level Machinist will get you 190 hp. That is for sure more than max level Cover would give. For Cover to save you that much hp, you should be dealt to around 2000 damage in 20 turns. Despite its usefulness, I am not willing to sacrifice PL, AA, BK, or Rumour for it and that's why I'm not buying Graziani. Also it's the most useful with Guderian who is often the last man standing. |
|
