Arminius vs Huo

Yeah, true, I think he's pretty good in conquest with that mobility, but not that good in campaign as all damage comes from Charge and Cavalry Commander + no survivability. I didn't even realise that Arminius doesn't have Cavalry Commander, I thought he didn't have Guerilla, but that makes him even worse.

Have you completed the Sicily DBs yet? Because, I wouldn't farm them if you've already got the scrolls and Ganjing, but I assume not. I personally did it with Cleopatra as my only navy. Despite some restarts she died in the second stage and I got Pothinus for the last ones, but he died immediately. But Pothinus could be an option cause you'll lose only 4 medals. Then, you can always restart them until you have good luck, but I suppose Agrippa will be useful later as infantry too.

I kind of disagree. You presumably put the banner of Apollo to your Commander, which will be probably maxed first if your f2p and after Hannibal's banner if you have him. So Hannibal will have Overlord and one skill level more (my Commander has Hannibal's skillset, but one level in a couple of skills is stilk small) against Commander's +10% crit chance, never falk to chaos, +3 mobility and +15% damage to all units in the surrounding 2 grids, Hannibal only buffs cavalry. You don't often go with your generals alone except maybe conquests and I think you more often don't have the chance to trigger Overlord. Additionally, you often want to attack a specific unit and a light infantry next to it doesn't really matter.

You have very bad luck then. I did with probably like 8 generals a d they weren't even IAPs or fully upgraded.

For the thread’s question, I think Arminius is more useful compared to Huo:
1. Same speed.
2. Arminius has better survivability thanks to his talent.
3. The talent of Huo increase 10% crit chance IN HIS ATTACK TURN ONLY.
4. Huo has better defense thanks to his Counter Attack + Raid, but I think better not keep a cav gen defending.
5. The Banner of Minerva fit Arminius better.
Nevertheless, the two are only third or fourth choice in battles.
And I think Hannibal is better compared to the commander. The mobility we have items, the morale we have items, even buffs we have items too. But the skill Overlord is really unique, and I have Hannibal and he’s really devastating with that skill, even more with the ability to attack many times a turn.

Overlord is unique, but so is buffs to all units. You canget mobility and morale with items, but not both unless you're willing to sacrifce Golden Spear, which will give a great damage advantage to Commander if Hannibal can't have it. I think you will ideally have Golden Spear and Dargon Tripid on them so then the comparison will come to:
1 more level of Guerilla and Overlord against +15% damage to infantry, archers and navy in the surrounding 2 grids as well as cavalry which Hannibal also has, +3 mobility and +10% rate if critical attack when attacking.

As for how good Overlord is, I prefer buffing my allies. In most cases when attacking either there isn't more ene.y units in the surrounding grids or damaging them is irrelevant. However you're rarely going to go solo with your Commander/Hannibal.

Also, Commander has the freedom of choosing skills, although mine has the same as Hannibal.

If you are finding trouble,buy cheap navy generals like Pothinus and Brutus, level them up a bit, give them some item,and let them be sacrificial pawns. Keep your generals at the back, and try to save generals like Pompey for later rounds. You can skip them and go straight for the last han decisive battle, it's much easier compared to the Sicilian Decisive battles.