Glory of Generals 2 reviews

i think the campaign mode is better than wc3, but ew4 campaign stays the best. the fact that there isnt a story is a bit bad. there are also no geographic locations inside the campaign mode. but this dont bothers me, its very unlogical that like in wc3, there are only like 8 hexes between warsaw and moscow.

as for the unit, i love the fact that units has die-animation. also the range of units is great and brings a new kind of straregy in the game: out-ranging. ofc it was also possible in ew4 and wc3, but this strategy becomes more important in this game. also i love the weather, its amazing!

i cant say anything yet about the conquest, since it will be there with the update. the game is easier than ew4 and wc3 (at least till middle east). but im sure it will provide challences in endgame.

i dont like the general system, its terrible and a big downgrade from the elder games.

overall i think its a great game. but ew4 and wc3 are simply better.

i think thats the best, it gives 60 health for 4 turns to me. i think shes much better than the unit generals and wolf is totally useless

I gave my review already when poll started at other spot of forum..

@ Napoleon Bonaparte, really.. Angel is great (now lvl 6 +60HP for 5 rounds... almost lvl7 +70Hp for 5 rounds), Guardian is also great (the defence dude.. I will advice to upgrade these two and Duke, the tank guy!

In addition to my question if i should spend medals not only to upgrade generals, I tested the influence on attack strength of wolf vs duke...

Setting: blue dragon 5x same target (restart level) damage average 157, with duke lvl 6 (+14 iron tide) average damage 225, with wolf lvl 5 (+35 inner rage) average damage 158.

Probably influence of other specific generals is also this strong.. Ergo: invest in you generals

EW4 is my top game

I was kind of disappointed with the game.
EW4 will always be the top game, but I feel as if from there the games just dropped.
With WC3, I didn't see much variety with the nations and whatnot, and that geography...
WC3 introduced a lot of things, but it also felt a bit... eh.
Now, onto GoG2.

I was disappointed.
It took away the whole, "Glory of Generals" idea, imo.
I thought each general would be given it's own character and stats, but instead the ones on the field weren't even given information and stats about them and the ability ones didn't seem just as well thought-out as the previous GoGs did.
I do like how you could build your own army, but as far as I know the multiplayer sucks, and hopefully they will implement a conquest mode soon.
So yeah.

The Good:

I like the way you can choose & upgrade individual units (seems more important to spend medals on upgrades/ACE than generals).
That once a day you can do some easy autoplay farming
The graphics are pretty nice too.


The Bad:

The computer autoplay for PvP, Tourneys, & the extra missions is F'ing *Auto Corrected*ed. OG Starcraft dragoons made better choices.

The battle maps are generally much smaller and seem way less epic. With most battles over in 12-16 rounds instead of 28-34.  

There is nothing Glorious about these generals.  Except for Angel I sometimes forget to even use them until the battle is almost over. Medals seem much better spent ACEing your units.  I would much rather have them back on individual units as the fist of blitzkrieg tactics.  

Overall, I'm a little disappointed, but still worth playing. I haven't got to aliens yet where WC3 went into the crapper.