|
|
Post by andrei on Feb 5, 2017 12:13:10 GMT
I was thinking about Barbarossa as possible substitute for Alexander. He are their stats at 6 stars: Alexander  Barbarossa  So, due to a gold status Alexander is a bit better. But personally I think that the difference is marginal. Barbarossa has Leadership which is much better than Spy and his Samurai perk additionally contributes if using him as a tank. Moreover, he is a bit cheaper to upgrade as he is purple. For the infantry focused teams his value increases even much as he has infantry comander skill. But in case You are using just one infantry general Barbarossa is a good and cheaper alternative for Alexander. |
|
|
|
Post by odm on Feb 5, 2017 13:14:37 GMT
From I counter-point, I just say I like Alexander (and I will have to use of since I have uprgraded his skills to 10-9-9). Firstly , due to Spy, very good attack and Siege, he is the best general to deal the first blow to a defense Tower. Secondly, while a bit worse than infantry commander especially when both are upgraded, formation allows hitting enemies without taking damage in many situations. Infantry is still the worst at getting rage for special ability and I think nobody will need that ability anyway, since we will probably just use Caesar and Alexander.
As for Barbarossa, Marshall is not that great and is also extremely expansive to upgrade with a grand total of about 4000-5000 medals I think ( same for Attack Masterz but 115 bonus attack is pretty good). That ability would have better on a Logistics/Plunder general, like Li Shimin ( whcih has an insane amount of health and cam he used very agressivelly despite being arty). They both have rage, which is good, since infantry is more often attacked than attacks, but samurai ability is again pretty useless, because 1. The attack and defense penalties for low health are not that great (about 1/3) and 2. It encourages you to use him when he is most certain to die ( ussually by a mix of hidden arties and a charging cavalry)
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Feb 5, 2017 13:38:53 GMT
Yeah, I like Alexander also. But I found myself using him only as a support. Yes, it is great when Alexander contributes into the walls destruction, but to be the first to hit... normally it means one time debuff, as mainly there are archers behind the wall plus walls artillery. I found it not very good idea to be the first with Alexander. The main issue about infantry for my playstyle is to use it as a shield for Archers and Cavalry. And yes, You are right they are the first to die  But isn't it infantry main niche? To be a frontliner. And here Barbarossa's Leadership is obviously better than anything else. Don't know why everybody is saying Samurai is useless. It's a free bonus to attack power. And there are not so much good perks for infantry, that are not situational. Samurai works all the time against every enemy and that is good (especially for a unit absorbing damage from the very begining) imo. Regarding other skills.. I am not upgrading it for now as I consider "payback on investments" as unsatisfactory |
|
|
|
Post by odm on Feb 5, 2017 13:53:09 GMT
The problem here is that the debuff takes place after the attack ( which means he still takes a lot of damage)
|
|
|
|
Post by jrdsandstorm on Feb 5, 2017 13:57:37 GMT
I disagree, as Alexander is a free general, there is no reason to substitute him with Barbarossa. Plus, Formation Master is much better than Infantry Commander IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Feb 5, 2017 14:10:06 GMT
The problem here is that the debuff takes place after the attack ( which means he still takes a lot of damage) Yes, but he is not a oneshot unit. Before he dies he (toggether with Nobunaga - I suppose everybody uses Nobunaga) can debuff all the dangerous enemies. Moreover You can always equip him with a proper set. In case he is the main team tank You can either give Paladin/Keel set or purple HP raising gear. I don't know what is the best solution for an infantry focused team though. Maybe someone using both Ceaser and Barbarossa could contribute into the discussion. That is interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Feb 5, 2017 14:14:49 GMT
I disagree, as Alexander is a free general, there is no reason to substitute him with Barbarossa. Plus, Formation Master is much better than Infantry Commander IMO. It depends on the team You are building. In case it is an infantry focused infantry comander is definetely better. In caseit is not... I'ld better upgrade Sniper Master or Assault Master rather than spending medals to upgrade Formation Master. When I was saying about substitution I ment that Alexander could be left aside without investing at all even though he is free. The only problem is that we receive Alexander earlier and normally use him a lot more than Barbarossa. |
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Feb 5, 2017 14:57:28 GMT
Yeah, I like Alexander also. But I found myself using him only as a support. Yes, it is great when Alexander contributes into the walls destruction, but to be the first to hit... normally it means one time debuff, as mainly there are archers behind the wall plus walls artillery. I found it not very good idea to be the first with Alexander. The main issue about infantry for my playstyle is to use it as a shield for Archers and Cavalry. And yes, You are right they are the first to die But isn't it infantry main niche? To be a frontliner. And here Barbarossa's Leadership is obviously better than anything else. Don't know why everybody is saying Samurai is useless. It's a free bonus to attack power. And there are not so much good perks for infantry, that are not situational. Samurai works all the time against every enemy and that is good (especially for a unit absorbing damage from the very begining) imo. Regarding other skills.. I am not upgrading it for now as I consider "payback on investments" as unsatisfactory Though I normally prefer Leadership to Spy, but if your main attacking force is archer, then I think Leadership is not that useful. If the attacking enemy is melee, you can attack from range and it cannot counter. And if the attacking enemy is range, it won't get debuffed since your infantry can't counter. Regarding Formation Master VS Infantry Commander, I think it's just up to your preference. Infantry cant fill rage bar as quickly as cavalry so you won't get a permanent 50% attack bonus like Attila. Currently my team has no room for infantry so I use neither of them. Skill-wise I like Barbarossa, but still I would pick Alexander because he is Alexander. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Feb 5, 2017 15:36:24 GMT
Woah. I'd stick with Alexander I guess, but considering how weak he was before 6 stars...its amazing how close he comes to Alexander! Regardless of whether he actually equals him.
Alex seems to have considerably more attack though.
Im not surprised samurai is weak skill, considering that attack decrease by health loss is so low in this game. Has to be one of the lowest decreases in any easy-tech game that has this mechanic. Should work better for a general, but still not the best skill.
Annoying in early conquests, where the enemy tower can have like 2 health left, but still deal heavy damage to anyone attacking.
My plan, is to replace Bismarck with Alexander! Bismarck becomes weak at 6 stars, while Alex obviously will have more attack, which will make up for his siege skill only have half the damage to forts. Only difference is Bismarck can attack at range.
|
|
|
|
Post by odm on Feb 5, 2017 16:46:18 GMT
IMO the perfect team ia the following:(in the Order of importance)
With IAP: Washington, Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Caesar, Li Shimin, Alexander, Suleiman, Nobunaga
Without IAP:Nobunaga, Li Shimin, Caesar, Alexander, Suleiman, Saladin, Bismark, Attila
As you can see, they have just 2 infantry generals each, with no need for Barbarossa. I we need him till we get Caesar, one of the best but last to get generals (we need 3 strong cavs.. Saladin and Attila are not enough and also Nobunaga and Li Shimin are very good)
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Feb 5, 2017 17:07:45 GMT
IMO the perfect team ia the following:(in the Order of importance) With IAP: Washington, Ghenghis Khan, Napoleon, Caesar, Li Shimin, Alexander, Suleiman, Nobunaga Without IAP:Nobunaga, Li Shimin, Caesar, Alexander, Suleiman, Saladin, Bismark, Attila As you can see, they have just 2 infantry generals each, with no need for Barbarossa. I we need him till we get Caesar, one of the best but last to get generals (we need 3 strong cavs.. Saladin and Attila are not enough and also Nobunaga and Li Shimin are very good) Well, that's the matter of preference. Personally I see no any reason in having mixed team. In that case You can't gain all benefits from You generals. Team bonuses are much better. Team buffs from Comander/Deffence master skills are quite visible. Your most powerful generals with best items become even more powerful, so You benefit both from upgraded skills and the items used. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Feb 5, 2017 17:13:10 GMT
Woah. I'd stick with Alexander I guess, but considering how weak he was before 6 stars...its amazing how close he comes to Alexander! Regardless of whether he actually equals him. Alex seems to have considerably more attack though. Im not surprised samurai is weak skill, considering that attack decrease by health loss is so low in this game. Has to be one of the lowest decreases in any easy-tech game that has this mechanic. Should work better for a general, but still not the best skill. Annoying in early conquests, where the enemy tower can have like 2 health left, but still deal heavy damage to anyone attacking. My plan, is to replace Bismarck with Alexander! Bismarck becomes weak at 6 stars, while Alex obviously will have more attack, which will make up for his siege skill only have half the damage to forts. Only difference is Bismarck can attack at range. Hmm. Could anyone explain why do You like for instance Formation master which You can benefit from once every 5-6 turns to deal additional 200 damage (and which You need to invest huge amount of medals in) and at the same time You don't like FREE Samurai perk giving You a possibility to deal additional 200 damage EVERY turn. I simply don't understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Feb 5, 2017 17:58:27 GMT
Woah. I'd stick with Alexander I guess, but considering how weak he was before 6 stars...its amazing how close he comes to Alexander! Regardless of whether he actually equals him. Alex seems to have considerably more attack though. Im not surprised samurai is weak skill, considering that attack decrease by health loss is so low in this game. Has to be one of the lowest decreases in any easy-tech game that has this mechanic. Should work better for a general, but still not the best skill. Annoying in early conquests, where the enemy tower can have like 2 health left, but still deal heavy damage to anyone attacking. My plan, is to replace Bismarck with Alexander! Bismarck becomes weak at 6 stars, while Alex obviously will have more attack, which will make up for his siege skill only have half the damage to forts. Only difference is Bismarck can attack at range. Hmm. Could anyone explain why do You like for instance Formation master which You can benefit from once every 5-6 turns to deal additional 200 damage (and which You need to invest huge amount of medals in) and at the same time You don't like FREE Samurai perk giving You a possibility to deal additional 200 damage EVERY turn. I simply don't understand. Samurai may be better than marching, but free? Alex gets fury in that slot, and phalanx for free. I might prefer +100% fort damage to samurai. Every turn when your general is near death. I am biased against samurai because its nearly useless on the generic unit. Damage reduction is very small in this game, only benefit is in conquest when samurai reach the castle wounded. It may be more useful on a *good* general, who will have a reduction of 1-300 damage. However, you should be comparing skills, not skill to ability. Its almost disingenuous. Barbarossa's infantry commander to Alex's Formation master. Both abilities cost medals. However, Infantry commander is less useful if you only use Barbarossa, while Formation master will always do its best. Probably 1st or 2nd weakest commander ability, as infantry have no range, and many don't use more than alex or Barba. However, I can understand if you think infantry commander is better. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Feb 5, 2017 18:15:33 GMT
Hmm. Could anyone explain why do You like for instance Formation master which You can benefit from once every 5-6 turns to deal additional 200 damage (and which You need to invest huge amount of medals in) and at the same time You don't like FREE Samurai perk giving You a possibility to deal additional 200 damage EVERY turn. I simply don't understand. Samurai may be better than marching, but free? Alex gets fury in that slot, and phalanx for free. I might prefer +100% fort damage to samurai. Every turn when your general is near death. I am biased against samurai because its nearly useless on the generic unit. Damage reduction is very small in this game, only benefit is in conquest when samurai reach the castle wounded. It may be more useful on a *good* general, who will have a reduction of 1-300 damage. However, you should be comparing skills, not skill to ability. Its almost disingenuous. Barbarossa's infantry commander to Alex's Formation master. Both abilities cost medals. However, Infantry commander is less useful if you only use Barbarossa, while Formation master will always do its best. Probably 1st or 2nd weakest commander ability, as infantry have no range, and many don't use more than alex or Barba. However, I can understand if you think infantry commander is better. Well, why not to compare? As it has same function. Let's say it is the same as skill, but with no need to invest medals. Regarding the players using only Alex and Barbarossa.. I think You are wrong probably more than half use Ceaser as well. It is very popular general. And I don't understand why not to increase his output with Barbarossa help. It's better to use Ceaser+Barbarossa than Ceaser+Alex imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Feb 5, 2017 18:34:48 GMT
Samurai may be better than marching, but free? Alex gets fury in that slot, and phalanx for free. I might prefer +100% fort damage to samurai. Every turn when your general is near death. I am biased against samurai because its nearly useless on the generic unit. Damage reduction is very small in this game, only benefit is in conquest when samurai reach the castle wounded. It may be more useful on a *good* general, who will have a reduction of 1-300 damage. However, you should be comparing skills, not skill to ability. Its almost disingenuous. Barbarossa's infantry commander to Alex's Formation master. Both abilities cost medals. However, Infantry commander is less useful if you only use Barbarossa, while Formation master will always do its best. Probably 1st or 2nd weakest commander ability, as infantry have no range, and many don't use more than alex or Barba. However, I can understand if you think infantry commander is better. Well, why not to compare? As it has same function. Let's say it is the same as skill, but with no need to invest medals. Regarding the players using only Alex and Barbarossa.. I think You are wrong probably more than half use Ceaser as well. It is very popular general. And I don't understand why not to increase his output with Barbarossa help. It's better to use Ceaser+Barbarossa than Ceaser+Alex imo. Right, sorry. Id say Caesar is the 3rd most popular, but Barbarossa is certainly the weakest, at least till 6th age. It was more that I think infantry arent most peoples favourite, so you are boosting 1-3 generals with commander. Ignoring that 3 infantry might be unable to attack same target. Well, you can compare formation to samurai, but it would make more sense to compare the same thing. Both have fury, so should compare samurai to phalanx. Both are "free". You can't really say samurai is cheaper than formation, because their is a reason for that-they arent in the same category. You have a point. It is common to use "weaker" generals to boost stronger gens of the same type. I think Alex is stronger, but he does not boost anyone. Formation is a active offensive skill, but commander can be both passive and offensive, if upgraded. Actually, now that I think of that. When unupgraded, pretty sure formation is better. Say, 300+ damage to main target, 1-200 damage to 1-2 other enemies each. Meanwhile, commander is +5%. Depending on whether you are boosting 1-3 generals, you get extra damage of 15-45 points. Formation at base wins by -300 damage. fully upgraded? Commander might win. |
|
But isn't it infantry main niche? To be a frontliner. And here Barbarossa's Leadership is obviously better than anything else. Don't know why everybody is saying Samurai is useless. It's a free bonus to attack power. And there are not so much good perks for infantry, that are not situational. Samurai works all the time against every enemy and that is good (especially for a unit absorbing damage from the very begining) imo.
