“Ah, yes, mere infantry - poor beggars...”
Mar 13, 2017 6:38:48 GMT
best75, andrei, and 5 more like this
Post by stoic on Mar 13, 2017 6:38:48 GMT
“Ah, yes, mere infantry - poor beggars...”
This extraction (or at least this line of thought ) from Plautus is very popular on the forum. I do not agree with this point of view at all. So these are my reasons:
Theoretical consideration.
In principle old way of thinking in EW5 was something like that: “We should take as many golden generals as possible and with few purple generals it will be a perfect team for an endgame”. But (as some players know from experience) winning in EW5 is a very complex issue to which there are no straightforward answers. Some experienced players with great team at their disposal still could not finish the game. Basically they now buy legendary sets of items or reconsider overall strategy in completely new way. This new way has its own label “skills of a general are as important as strength of a general”. And skill that could drastically improve a team is “Commander” skill. So there is a question: how many generals with commander skill could be of great use for the whole team. Problem is that no golden generals have that skill and only 4 purple generals have it. So the player basically bound to use blue and gray generals. But how many of them? The obvious answer is as many as possible. But I personally do not think that it is that simple either:
1. In chess there is concept “geometry of the board”. I think it is possible to speak about “geometry of the field” in EW5. EW5 is definitely not Plato’s ideal world where we could line up our team as we want to.
So ideal line for example for archer’s team will be
Washington-Nobunaga
Li Hongzhang-Jhansi-Nelson
Or
Washington-Nobunaga
Li Hongzhang-Jhansi
Nelson
And in one single piece and without any gap between them!
In theory it is very impressive, but I really doubt that it is practically achievable. It is something like monster ships of Hellenistic kings – cool but short-lived. This construction easily falls apart.
2. Team with “Commander” skills works great only with star players in it. For example, archer’s team is great with Washington and Nobunaga in it. But that means that they should be in the center of our line-up (to maximize their attack) and our “Commanders” on the flanks (that means they could NOT benefit from "Commander" skill of other generals).
3. Many missions imply that our team SHOULD be deliberately divided (or is divided from beginning) to achieve the main goal
So I think we should think in “lines” instead of “teams”.
1. Lines with 3 or 2 generals are more flexible.
2. They could work together as well as separately.
3. It is easier to benefit from “Commander” skills (though even with only 3 generals in line it is not always possible!).
4. Even simple units in each line could be now very useful for they benefit from commander skills as well.
Probably 2 generals with “Commander” skill are optimal number (for each line).
Ranged units are an obvious second line. For example, Nobunaga-Nelson-Li Hongzhang.
But for the first line infantry is a good choice. I use Barbarossa, Peter the Great and Caesar. Of curse main reason behind this line was Ceasar. So I build up team around him. This inf line has a good set of skills:
1. Strike without retaliation (Caesar and Peter)
2. Rumor (Peter. He is only one general outside artillery who could trigger Rumor without retaliation in his turn).
3. Leadership (Barbarossa).
4. 50% bonus in defense (Barbarossa).
5. Attack remains constant (Barbarossa).
6. 50% bonus against infantry (Caesar).
7. Minus 50% damage from archers (Caesar).
8. Healing skill (Caesar. For he is strong enough (and can kill with one shot) it is possible to trigger this skill very often).
9. Commander skills (Barbarossa and Peter).
So Peter and Barbarossa give Caesar (and each other) attack bonus and he can cure the damage they take.
Of course, first line could be cavalry line (with its strengths and weaknesses). But that the way we go…
Practical implementation.
I’m in gunpowder age campaigns (I am playing from the end of December and in my opinion it is not a bad result) and it goes smoothly enough. I have 3 stars for most missions (and where I have 2 stars I definitely could finish with better results even without major improvements). Of course, I know that Industrial age campaigns are another league, but I think I have good chances to finish them as well. My reasons are:
1. My first line is not strong enough yet. Peter has commander skill lvl 6 and Barbarossa lvl 8. Barbarossa is still lvl 5 general. So there is plenty room for improvement.
2. My second line is undeveloped yet. I do not have Nelson yet. Only Nobunaga is lvl 6. And I bought Li Hongzhang only recently. So, I basically play now without Commanders in second line.
3. My support units (Li Shimin, Bismarck, Saladin) are still lvl 5.
4. I have not bought any legendary items yet.
So if I will finish all campaigns, I’ll do this with 3 INFANTRY generals in my team!
This extraction (or at least this line of thought ) from Plautus is very popular on the forum. I do not agree with this point of view at all. So these are my reasons:
Theoretical consideration.
In principle old way of thinking in EW5 was something like that: “We should take as many golden generals as possible and with few purple generals it will be a perfect team for an endgame”. But (as some players know from experience) winning in EW5 is a very complex issue to which there are no straightforward answers. Some experienced players with great team at their disposal still could not finish the game. Basically they now buy legendary sets of items or reconsider overall strategy in completely new way. This new way has its own label “skills of a general are as important as strength of a general”. And skill that could drastically improve a team is “Commander” skill. So there is a question: how many generals with commander skill could be of great use for the whole team. Problem is that no golden generals have that skill and only 4 purple generals have it. So the player basically bound to use blue and gray generals. But how many of them? The obvious answer is as many as possible. But I personally do not think that it is that simple either:
1. In chess there is concept “geometry of the board”. I think it is possible to speak about “geometry of the field” in EW5. EW5 is definitely not Plato’s ideal world where we could line up our team as we want to.
So ideal line for example for archer’s team will be
Washington-Nobunaga
Li Hongzhang-Jhansi-Nelson
Or
Washington-Nobunaga
Li Hongzhang-Jhansi
Nelson
And in one single piece and without any gap between them!
In theory it is very impressive, but I really doubt that it is practically achievable. It is something like monster ships of Hellenistic kings – cool but short-lived. This construction easily falls apart.
2. Team with “Commander” skills works great only with star players in it. For example, archer’s team is great with Washington and Nobunaga in it. But that means that they should be in the center of our line-up (to maximize their attack) and our “Commanders” on the flanks (that means they could NOT benefit from "Commander" skill of other generals).
3. Many missions imply that our team SHOULD be deliberately divided (or is divided from beginning) to achieve the main goal
So I think we should think in “lines” instead of “teams”.
1. Lines with 3 or 2 generals are more flexible.
2. They could work together as well as separately.
3. It is easier to benefit from “Commander” skills (though even with only 3 generals in line it is not always possible!).
4. Even simple units in each line could be now very useful for they benefit from commander skills as well.
Probably 2 generals with “Commander” skill are optimal number (for each line).
Ranged units are an obvious second line. For example, Nobunaga-Nelson-Li Hongzhang.
But for the first line infantry is a good choice. I use Barbarossa, Peter the Great and Caesar. Of curse main reason behind this line was Ceasar. So I build up team around him. This inf line has a good set of skills:
1. Strike without retaliation (Caesar and Peter)
2. Rumor (Peter. He is only one general outside artillery who could trigger Rumor without retaliation in his turn).
3. Leadership (Barbarossa).
4. 50% bonus in defense (Barbarossa).
5. Attack remains constant (Barbarossa).
6. 50% bonus against infantry (Caesar).
7. Minus 50% damage from archers (Caesar).
8. Healing skill (Caesar. For he is strong enough (and can kill with one shot) it is possible to trigger this skill very often).
9. Commander skills (Barbarossa and Peter).
So Peter and Barbarossa give Caesar (and each other) attack bonus and he can cure the damage they take.
Of course, first line could be cavalry line (with its strengths and weaknesses). But that the way we go…
Practical implementation.
I’m in gunpowder age campaigns (I am playing from the end of December and in my opinion it is not a bad result) and it goes smoothly enough. I have 3 stars for most missions (and where I have 2 stars I definitely could finish with better results even without major improvements). Of course, I know that Industrial age campaigns are another league, but I think I have good chances to finish them as well. My reasons are:
1. My first line is not strong enough yet. Peter has commander skill lvl 6 and Barbarossa lvl 8. Barbarossa is still lvl 5 general. So there is plenty room for improvement.
2. My second line is undeveloped yet. I do not have Nelson yet. Only Nobunaga is lvl 6. And I bought Li Hongzhang only recently. So, I basically play now without Commanders in second line.
3. My support units (Li Shimin, Bismarck, Saladin) are still lvl 5.
4. I have not bought any legendary items yet.
So if I will finish all campaigns, I’ll do this with 3 INFANTRY generals in my team!
[/url]
[/url]
[/url]
[/url]
[/url]
