|
|
Post by kanue on Aug 5, 2016 12:48:44 GMT
Even with that i would say itagaki>montgommery sonce itagaki also has explosives which fit him more than montgommery on conquest. Especially for his price Yeah, I actually mean any generals with good supply skills. I just mention Montgomery because he's the center of discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 5, 2016 20:25:01 GMT
Graziani>Itagaki or Vatutin any day in my opinion, high health (the main lure) and pretty good skills. The issue with Vatutin is that he dies too fast. While you can upgrade him, theres a problem with that:
You're going to end up spending a lot more than you initially did, basically meaning that if you wanted him as a general just to keep pushing onwards to someone like Guderian, you're really just wasting money when you could spend it on someone else like Graziani.
But I do agree that Montgomery is bad and very unrepresented.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 5, 2016 20:27:54 GMT
Graziani>Itagaki or Vatutin any day in my opinion, high health (the main lure) and pretty good skills. The issue with Vatutin is that he dies too fast. While you can upgrade him, theres a problem with that: You're going to end up spending a lot more than you initially did, basically meaning that if you wanted him as a general just to keep pushing onwards to someone like Guderian, you're really just wasting money when you could spend it on someone else like Graziani. But I do agree that Montgomery is bad and very unrepresented. But output>health since you'll have medal wonders, but you can't inprove Grazianis skills. Better to have a glass cannon than have a brick wall. Unless if you are defending something. THen why are you defending something? But yes, I also agree that Monty is a poor gen ingame. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 5, 2016 20:30:56 GMT
Graziani>Itagaki or Vatutin any day in my opinion, high health (the main lure) and pretty good skills. The issue with Vatutin is that he dies too fast. While you can upgrade him, theres a problem with that: You're going to end up spending a lot more than you initially did, basically meaning that if you wanted him as a general just to keep pushing onwards to someone like Guderian, you're really just wasting money when you could spend it on someone else like Graziani. But I do agree that Montgomery is bad and very unrepresented. Graziani is a brick wall. He's good at defense, but too dang slow and has low output |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 5, 2016 20:34:21 GMT
Graziani>Itagaki or Vatutin any day in my opinion, high health (the main lure) and pretty good skills. The issue with Vatutin is that he dies too fast. While you can upgrade him, theres a problem with that: You're going to end up spending a lot more than you initially did, basically meaning that if you wanted him as a general just to keep pushing onwards to someone like Guderian, you're really just wasting money when you could spend it on someone else like Graziani. But I do agree that Montgomery is bad and very unrepresented. Graziani is a brick wall. He's good at defense, but too dang slow and has low output Only use: end-game, when you are playing missions and Campaigns. He's a brick wall, he'll soak up damage nicely! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 18:48:44 GMT
Montgomery was not well-represented in the game. In real life, he was one of the first, but not the last, to win a significant battle against the Germans. Montgomery managed to push all the Germans out of Africa. And EasyTech gave him a bad name... He almost screwed up the operation though. But at least in the gameplay of 1943 itself, Montgomery was quite a monster in Africa and a sensible Axis player wouldn't waste one of his own generals on Africa anyway, so a player has to put up with him, normally. Pay attention dude. When montgomery won in africa against us, he was helped by numbers and remember that rommel lost the battle in el alamein for fuel shortages. That' s why montgomery isn' t that good. |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 10, 2016 18:52:14 GMT
He almost screwed up the operation though. But at least in the gameplay of 1943 itself, Montgomery was quite a monster in Africa and a sensible Axis player wouldn't waste one of his own generals on Africa anyway, so a player has to put up with him, normally. Pay attention dude. When montgomery won in africa against us, he was helped by numbers and remember that rommel lost the battle in el alamein for fuel shortages. That' s why montgomery isn' t that good. No. He planned well, but he was to boastful for his own good. Also, Rommel won most of his wars with less materiel and men than the opposing force. Calling backup: Jean-Luc Picard, Ivan Kolev, @coolguy14. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 18:56:57 GMT
Pay attention dude. When montgomery won in africa against us, he was helped by numbers and remember that rommel lost the battle in el alamein for fuel shortages. That' s why montgomery isn' t that good. No. He planned well, but he was to boastful for his own good. Also, Rommel won most of his wars with less materiel and men than the opposing force. Calling backup: Jean-Luc Picard, Ivan Kolev, @coolguy14. That's what i'm trying to say. As montgomery won against rommel with more materials, we can consider that rommel is better than montgomery. So, if rommel is a 5 star tank general, i think it is right for montgomery to have only 4 and worst skills. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 19:02:34 GMT
Pay attention dude. When montgomery won in africa against us, he was helped by numbers and remember that rommel lost the battle in el alamein for fuel shortages. That' s why montgomery isn' t that good. No. He planned well, but he was to boastful for his own good. Also, Rommel won most of his wars with less materiel and men than the opposing force. Calling backup: Jean-Luc Picard, Ivan Kolev, @coolguy14. Not sure why you called me, but I must say that Montgomery is better than Rommel. Why? At a point in time where Britain was pushed back to Egypt and had lack of supplies and soldiers, Montgomery pulled through. In the end, Britain managed to push the Germans out of Africa. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2016 21:04:36 GMT
Did you understand how IA works? Iv tried to let the IA complete world conquest when i was very powerful ( e.g. When i've the whoole asia, europe, africa and i dont want to finish mooving all my troops to australia . So boring )
When i tried it, i saw the ia just put troops in useless place . Keep paratrooping in places i already hold .
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 10, 2016 21:55:41 GMT
Well, AI operates on the fact that all cities need to be secured (with no cities, you lose), so it will do that.
Only do it in the mid game, when you have a >75 chance of winning, and open it once most naitons are ded so you can wipe up (AI doesn't know what wipe up means).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2016 3:37:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by panzermeyer on Aug 11, 2016 3:42:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Aug 11, 2016 14:28:21 GMT
He almost screwed up the operation though. But at least in the gameplay of 1943 itself, Montgomery was quite a monster in Africa and a sensible Axis player wouldn't waste one of his own generals on Africa anyway, so a player has to put up with him, normally. Pay attention dude. When montgomery won in africa against us, he was helped by numbers and remember that rommel lost the battle in el alamein for fuel shortages. That' s why montgomery isn' t that good. I'm actually referring to the in-game play, not history. I'm in favor of the view that Rommel was a more skilled commander than Montgomery. He was in dire straits far more frequently and got himself out of them by sheer talent/luck until finally he had no choice but to follow Hilter's orders to return to Germany and guard against a potential D-day invasion. Also... He fought against Hilter's opinion on various subjects such as Operation Herkules (planned invasion of British Malta) and placements for defense units in Normandy. Anyway, my original point is still true, in playing a game, a good player wouldn't waste putting one of his generals on Africa. Europe and elsewhere are too valuable in reaching critical mass (strong income, good strategic position, etc... you know what I mean). |
|
