|
|
Post by conkueror on Oct 24, 2022 17:18:14 GMT
I have Richard, Barbarossa and Matilda already, so I was thinking about getting Richards bonds. With two bonds active at the same time (they do work together, right?) he could be quite the beast.
But I still doubt whether it is actually worth it? Barbarossa is pretty bad, and he is melee cav, Philip is archer and totally useless compared to what other choices I could use instead of him just becouse the bond (And said bond only boosts charge cav = only Richard).
The other bond on the other hand boosts all three since it is not related to any specific unit type, but again there is one useless general (Henry II of England).
So I would have to use two useless gens, which would likely limit the use of those bonds to conquests only (and maybe territory). Also, those two gens cost quite a lot to buy only for activating some bonds.
Does anyone use those bonds, and what do you think about them? Are they worth it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ππ²πΌπͺπ΄πͺ on Oct 24, 2022 17:38:43 GMT
The two bonds are both compatible with each other and so far, I only use Richard's bond in Conquest and Territory. Except for the Mathilda and Henry bond which I use just for health regen and morale purpose, regardless these bonds have little effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by conkueror on Oct 24, 2022 21:07:58 GMT
Yeah... so not really worth it. Some of the bonds are really weird. Justinian & Theo, Beli & Narses, Roland & Charles and the viking and arab ones are good. First one for economy and the rest actually add nice benefit for all included gens, not just one of them. And vikings excluded all of those combat bond gens have weapons too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boss Tweed on Oct 25, 2022 2:29:11 GMT
I have Richard, Barbarossa and Matilda already, so I was thinking about getting Richards bonds. With two bonds active at the same time (they do work together, right?) he could be quite the beast. But I still doubt whether it is actually worth it? Barbarossa is pretty bad, and he is melee cav, Philip is archer and totally useless compared to what other choices I could use instead of him just becouse the bond (And said bond only boosts charge cav = only Richard). The other bond on the other hand boosts all three since it is not related to any specific unit type, but again there is one useless general (Henry II of England). So I would have to use two useless gens, which would likely limit the use of those bonds to conquests only (and maybe territory). Also, those two gens cost quite a lot to buy only for activating some bonds. Does anyone use those bonds, and what do you think about them? Are they worth it? Disagree with Barbarossa's usability because melee cavalry is not useless and Barbarossa active ability can be useful in a pinch (it restores unit to full hp during transfer). Philip is totally useless, imo worse than Justinian on offense. Henry II tries too hard to be many things and fails at all he tries to be, so I believe he is useless. Matilda is not an offensive general either. Overall, I think the crusader bond is decent if you are willing to overlook Philip's uselessness. The Angevin one is pretty bad (seriously the perks are something a couple of tents and gems can't fix). |
|
|
|
Post by conkueror on Oct 25, 2022 4:50:24 GMT
I didn't say melee cav is useless but the crusader bond only buffs charge cav. And I know that about Barbarossa but I'd still rather use someone else.
|
|
|
|
Post by conkueror on Oct 25, 2022 11:28:19 GMT
Does the last part of Crusader bond increase Charge chance? That is how I understood it, but there is no %-symbol. If it means chance, then Richard with templars would have 100% eventually, which could make it worth it.
|
|
|
|
Post by yuanzhong on Oct 25, 2022 12:19:30 GMT
Does the last part of Crusader bond increase Charge chance? That is how I understood it, but there is no %-symbol. If it means chance, then Richard with templars would have 100% eventually, which could make it worth it. 15% additional charge rate. Checked and confirm. |
|
