|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Sept 29, 2016 17:20:17 GMT
 Something we all didnt hope for, yet we get them!!! |
|
cweesy
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 10 
|
Post by cweesy on Sept 29, 2016 17:42:21 GMT
Are they like manstein/zhukov/eisenhower?
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington on Sept 29, 2016 18:40:08 GMT
Are they like manstein/zhukov/eisenhower? Unfortunately yes |
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall Jackson on Sept 29, 2016 23:55:58 GMT
Are they like manstein/zhukov/eisenhower? Unfortunately yes That is way too much. You could buy 2-3 generals at 8 emblems in EW4 for that price. |
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Sept 30, 2016 0:40:32 GMT
Who are those premium generals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Sept 30, 2016 0:43:00 GMT
Who are those premium generals? Napoleon is one, and onw of the other 2 is Washington, the third (red/purple one) might be Genghis Khan. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Sept 30, 2016 0:48:41 GMT
Who are those premium generals? Genghis Khan($2) Washington($7) Napoleon($11) |
|
|
|
Post by Philip II of Macedon on Sept 30, 2016 1:16:13 GMT
Who are those premium generals? Genghis Khan($2) Washington($7) Napoleon($11) Washington is > Ghengis Khan? What? |
|
|
|
Post by Bismarck Jr on Sept 30, 2016 1:17:29 GMT
This is disturbing news to me.
Townsmen, light the beacons, we must warn the other villages of this failure!
|
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Sept 30, 2016 1:20:53 GMT
Genghis Khan($2) Washington($7) Napoleon($11) Washington is > Ghengis Khan? What? Yay!  In your face, Mongols!   (I think it was because of time progression... notice the earlier general is cheaper, the later general is more expensive?) |
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall Jackson on Sept 30, 2016 1:21:46 GMT
Genghis Khan($2) Washington($7) Napoleon($11) Washington is > Ghengis Khan? What? Yup |
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall Jackson on Sept 30, 2016 1:23:44 GMT
Washington is > Ghengis Khan? What? Yay! In your face, Mongols! (I think it was because of time progression... notice the earlier general is cheaper, the later general is more expensive?) Washington and Napoleon were roughly the same time though, still some years between the two, but not much. |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Sept 30, 2016 1:25:42 GMT
Yay! In your face, Mongols! (I think it was because of time progression... notice the earlier general is cheaper, the later general is more expensive?) Washington and Napoleon were roughly the same time though, still some years between the two, but not much. But Napoleon Bonaparte is still better than Washington in terms of generaling, no? |
|
|
|
Post by Desophaeus on Sept 30, 2016 1:28:38 GMT
Yay! In your face, Mongols! (I think it was because of time progression... notice the earlier general is cheaper, the later general is more expensive?) Washington and Napoleon were roughly the same time though, still some years between the two, but not much. In comparison to the timeline of history, you're right but consider this... George Washington - Died December 14, 1799 (aged 67) Lil Nappy wasn't even 30 at that time. He was practically a baby in Washington's time, or Washington was totally a senior citizen in Napoleon's time, either way. Plus the military technology was considerably different. The muskets had been improved in their range and accuracy leading to some evolution in military tactics, but what really was the huge game-changer in the Napoleonic Age was the vast improvement in producing a light cannon that could be pulled quickly by a team of horses then set up a surprise barrage from an unexpected direction (not with just one cannon aiming at the enemy, of course). |
|
|
|
Post by Stonewall Jackson on Sept 30, 2016 1:31:29 GMT
Washington and Napoleon were roughly the same time though, still some years between the two, but not much. But Napoleon Bonaparte is still better than Washington in terms of generaling, no? Well, Washington succeeded at what he was trying to do. On the other hand, Napoleon did not. But that also doesn't solely define a general. Washington was probably better at Leadership and Politics, while Napoleon was more of a strategist. |
|
In your face, Mongols! 
