|
|
Post by Just One Bite on Feb 28, 2023 2:33:13 GMT
I would say unless you are speedrunning, attacking USA first makes sense because it gives you access to Ottawa and Alaska, which in turn allow you to springboard into UK and Japan without being cut off from air support for too long. You can only reach Spain and Portugal from Washington's missile silo. It true that conquering US and Canada will give you more income than Iberia, but the west coast will take you a while to reach and North America without the west coast is just Iberia income wise. It should be the exact opposite. Go for Iberia in a regular run because Europe means everything. In speedrunning you need to force your way into NA to get quick access to Asia and the islands. That's exactly what I did when I only have level 1 ion cannon |
|
|
|
Post by Just One Bite on Feb 28, 2023 2:44:02 GMT
I returned after a short break and see this post filled with arguments, good job Erich von Manstein for handling this well. Arguments should benefit a thread or else it's dangerous since non-constructive arguments may drive away people from reading and commenting on that thread.
This post has been moderated by Saltin Edited for content.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 1, 2023 5:45:21 GMT
I'm more worried about lineup too good than not good enough. A weaker set of generals used is a plus for me in guides because that means the guide is more robust given the players will likely have more and better generals. However, in this guide he is making up for the general's lack of quantity and quality with tech levels beyond my standard instead of tactical choices. No player will have high level AA and supply until very late game, let alone that ion cannon. Compared to this, his decision to attack NA is indeed less problematic. Well, he specified the try should be attempted post alien so I think the tech level except for ion cannon is relatively realistic for a player progress that far, but the generals of choice is bad even for self-imposed handicap: too expensive compared to a combination of Sansonetti (with Lv1 AF medal, replacing Goring), Weygand (promote to Lt Gen (cost +940) and maybe with tank medals with total Lv up to 5, replacing Guderian, Vatutin will do if low movement ability is acceptable), Weidling or art EC (replacing Konev, Govorov will do if low movement ability is acceptable) and Zhu De (with Lv1 inf medal, replacing Mannerheim), which is way cheaper for that purpose. Not really from my perspective. With the new tech levels consuming hundreds of thousands of resources, it will take a player much longer to get their hands on the more marginal tech like AA. As for general, the trio + Sansonetti is perfectly reasonable. There's no need for an infantry specialist at all in this version, and I would like to know why you picked Weygand. |
|
|
|
Post by resiphius on Mar 4, 2023 10:01:03 GMT
Well, he specified the try should be attempted post alien so I think the tech level except for ion cannon is relatively realistic for a player progress that far, but the generals of choice is bad even for self-imposed handicap: too expensive compared to a combination of Sansonetti (with Lv1 AF medal, replacing Goring), Weygand (promote to Lt Gen (cost +940) and maybe with tank medals with total Lv up to 5, replacing Guderian, Vatutin will do if low movement ability is acceptable), Weidling or art EC (replacing Konev, Govorov will do if low movement ability is acceptable) and Zhu De (with Lv1 inf medal, replacing Mannerheim), which is way cheaper for that purpose. Not really from my perspective. With the new tech levels consuming hundreds of thousands of resources, it will take a player much longer to get their hands on the more marginal tech like AA. As for general, the trio + Sansonetti is perfectly reasonable. There's no need for an infantry specialist at all in this version, and I would like to know why you picked Weygand. I picked Weygand and even Zhu De is to comply with op’s use of 4 generals composite of AF, Art, Tank and Inf while cutting cost, on the premise of his guide is one with self-imposted limitations elements, as well as the use of ECs being not preferable (or I assumed that way). Otherwise, I would prefer Patton or Tank EC over Weygand and go for a 6-man team to spread the workload and stress on each general. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 6, 2023 2:45:40 GMT
Not really from my perspective. With the new tech levels consuming hundreds of thousands of resources, it will take a player much longer to get their hands on the more marginal tech like AA. As for general, the trio + Sansonetti is perfectly reasonable. There's no need for an infantry specialist at all in this version, and I would like to know why you picked Weygand. I picked Weygand and even Zhu De is to comply with op’s use of 4 generals composite of AF, Art, Tank and Inf while cutting cost, on the premise of his guide is one with self-imposted limitations elements, as well as the use of ECs being not preferable (or I assumed that way). Otherwise, I would prefer Patton or Tank EC over Weygand and go for a 6-man team to spread the workload and stress on each general. Well for endgame lineup it's perfectly reasonable to assume the player has Guderian, Govorov, and Patton. No need to go that far. |
|
|
|
Post by STILETT0 on May 4, 2023 1:46:14 GMT
But not everyone seeking a guide is for speedrun, some of them merely want to clear a run, so unless you can prove this guide is deficient enough to exceed even the objective acceptable margin of casual run, otherwise no need to nitpick. Also, what you think optimal doesn’t mean it is in deed optimal in reality, and sometimes there could be more than one optimal way to get a thing done. Of course the definition of optimal varies by a player's lineup and style, and there can be more than 1 optimal way. One example is STILETT0 's and my opinions on 1950 UK. Both would work out and while there is a difference, it's not huge enough to call his infeasible. However I don't think that's the case for this one mainly because I think he is relying too heavily on ion cannon. Apparently he assumes the player's ion cannon level is high enough to one-shot capital cities and a super tank marshal or almost there, which is too high for me to consider acceptable, in addition to high AA and supply tech. I don't depend on Ion cannon as much as you think. I had a low-mid level one at the time and I guess I overstated the power on it because it was able to take out a sizeable portion of Chongking's health. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on May 4, 2023 2:23:18 GMT
Of course the definition of optimal varies by a player's lineup and style, and there can be more than 1 optimal way. One example is STILETT0 's and my opinions on 1950 UK. Both would work out and while there is a difference, it's not huge enough to call his infeasible. However I don't think that's the case for this one mainly because I think he is relying too heavily on ion cannon. Apparently he assumes the player's ion cannon level is high enough to one-shot capital cities and a super tank marshal or almost there, which is too high for me to consider acceptable, in addition to high AA and supply tech. I don't depend on Ion cannon as much as you think. I had a low-mid level one at the time and I guess I overstated the power on it because it was able to take out a sizeable portion of Chongking's health. I was referring to Joseph Gallieni when talking about ion cannon. |
|
