|
Post by Thaddeus Kościuszko on Dec 27, 2022 9:31:04 GMT
I read 6Johnny23 post but wanted to bring this issue back. This post is addressed to anyone that can wholeheartedly recomend one above the other. I've been reading a ton of forums and trying to make the best decision in the titled regard: Bismarck vs Washington? Progress-wise I am on the 7th mission of the Crimea War and I'm trying to progress further. My current deck/roster of Generals is: Infantry: Karl & Massena Cavalry: Blücher, Murat, Desaix, Dąbrowski Artillery: Napoleon, Mahmud II Navy: Nelson, Treville, + 4 free gens, All are maxed out and I'm looking for someone to fill in the infantry spot. I don't plan on getting any more Cav, maybe John for Arty, and Hood for Navy in the future. Also, price is not a factor I greatly care for in making the decision because I want to have the best. My style of play depends on the scenario but I'd say I'm more of a "hold the line/wedge formation" tactician. I really don't know who to take for my inf general. My current approach is this: Bismark: - Capped at King - Tunnel - Microscopically better stats Washington: - Emperor (+10 battle ability) - Formation master (not better than tunnel i think) Is Bismark better in the end? Idk if Washington's Emperor title compensates for the slightly worse stats and lack of tunnel? Thoughts? Thank for any help!
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Dec 30, 2022 17:24:21 GMT
If you wanted to only choose Bismarck or Washington, I would get Bismarck. WIll be a strain on the wallet but will be a good investment. However, I would recommend Lannes over Bismarck and Washington, since stats really don't matter that much unless there is a large difference. Unless your unit has over 100 damage, 1% in attack doesn't matter (since ET rounds down).
But mostly, I would recommend Barclay as another infantry general, since he fields an aura. Much more useful than a plain infantry general like Lannes if you don't have all of them already.
|
|