|
|
Post by TK421 on Mar 27, 2017 19:13:20 GMT
I've learned a decent bit the game, and like to think that I'm a good player. Nonetheless, there are many things which I can't quite decide or calculate.
In another thread, I detailed my final general line-up. Attila, Saladin (?), Blucher, Nobunaga, Nelson, Richard, Barbarossa (?), Alexander (?), and Li Shimin (I've edited it since then. Also, anyone with a ? is inter-changeable). I bought attila first, and just bought Nobunaga. But in what order should I buy the others? I've been leaning towards Li, but am still not quite sure, due to Cleo :/
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 27, 2017 21:30:03 GMT
I've learned a decent bit the game, and like to think that I'm a good player. Nonetheless, there are many things which I can't quite decide or calculate. In another thread, I detailed my final general line-up. Attila, Saladin (?), Blucher, Nobunaga, Nelson, Richard, Barbarossa (?), Alexander (?), and Li Shimin (I've edited it since then. Also, anyone with a ? is inter-changeable). I bought attila first, and just bought Nobunaga. But in what order should I buy the others? I've been leaning towards Li, but am still not quite sure, due to Cleo :/ First you need to decide the style, because Nelson and Attila conflict, so do Saladin and Blucher. Archer, Cavalry or Infantry? |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 28, 2017 1:56:57 GMT
I've learned a decent bit the game, and like to think that I'm a good player. Nonetheless, there are many things which I can't quite decide or calculate. In another thread, I detailed my final general line-up. Attila, Saladin (?), Blucher, Nobunaga, Nelson, Richard, Barbarossa (?), Alexander (?), and Li Shimin (I've edited it since then. Also, anyone with a ? is inter-changeable). I bought attila first, and just bought Nobunaga. But in what order should I buy the others? I've been leaning towards Li, but am still not quite sure, due to Cleo :/ First you need to decide the style, because Nelson and Attila conflict, so do Saladin and Blucher. Archer, Cavalry or Infantry? I do not understand why Nelson and Attila conflict. They are perfect choices for balanced line-up, wehere the first line is a cavalry line (could well be Attila-Asoka-Blucher) with support of a strong archer's line (Nobunaga-Nelson-Li). Very flexible lines... |
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Mar 28, 2017 2:16:53 GMT
Yes. I went out of my way to make this flexible. I'm still using Asoka, but left him behind slightly. I Intend to replace him with Edward sooner or later, leaving that bit in slight purgatory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 28, 2017 2:29:11 GMT
First you need to decide the style, because Nelson and Attila conflict, so do Saladin and Blucher. Archer, Cavalry or Infantry? I do not understand why Nelson and Attila conflict. They are perfect choices for balanced line-up, wehere the first line is a cavalry line (could well be Attila-Asoka-Blucher) with support of a strong archer's line (Nobunaga-Nelson-Li). Very flexible lines... In his lineup I thought he will only use one commander for each kind of unit, if he is doing that Nelson and Attila will have less less total output (4.5cav+4.5arch<3cav+6.75arch). If it is like the one you're talking about it would make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 28, 2017 2:29:17 GMT
Yes. I went out of my way to make this flexible. I'm still using Asoka, but left him behind slightly. I Intend to replace him with Edward sooner or later, leaving that bit in slight purgatory. Asoka and Black prince are on equal terms more or less (Edward has Leadership but Asoka has Inspiration) But they both could have problems in defense. Personally I would choose Edward... |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 28, 2017 2:30:22 GMT
Yes. I went out of my way to make this flexible. I'm still using Asoka, but left him behind slightly. I Intend to replace him with Edward sooner or later, leaving that bit in slight purgatory. Use Asoka. Edward is a little too fragile to utilize his Leadership. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 28, 2017 2:34:30 GMT
I do not understand why Nelson and Attila conflict. They are perfect choices for balanced line-up, wehere the first line is a cavalry line (could well be Attila-Asoka-Blucher) with support of a strong archer's line (Nobunaga-Nelson-Li). Very flexible lines... In his lineup I thought he will only use one commander for each kind of unit, if he is doing that Nelson and Attila will have less less total output (4.5cav+4.5arch<3cav+6.75arch). If it is like the one you're talking about it would make sense. It's all about gains and losses... 3 lines could be even more flexible, but I think one "Commander" in line would be insufficient... At least in one line should be 2 of them: Attila-Blucher Barbarossa-Alex Nobunaga-Nelson-Li Artillery general |
|
|
|
Post by Imperial RomeBall on Mar 28, 2017 2:40:26 GMT
Yes. I went out of my way to make this flexible. I'm still using Asoka, but left him behind slightly. I Intend to replace him with Edward sooner or later, leaving that bit in slight purgatory. Hmm? Your final line-up up there does not have Edward. Are you spending 700 medals+upgrades just to not use him later? Leadership, Cavalry commander, good skills. Fort, fairly situational. Stats at base level? 298 less HP than Suleiman (gold) 101 less attack, 52 less defense, in fact he has lower stats in everything but attack than Purple Charlemagne, and Charlemagne is only Medieval! Dunno about picking him. I bet he beats Charlemagne through skills and cost lol, but thats it. Anyway, my planned final line up is 2 Infantry (gold/purple) 1 Artillery (gold) 1 Cavalry (purple) 2 archers (purple/purple) Hah, that actually sounds pretty bad when spelled out. Note I have 2 fort crackers, counting Alexander. Thats only 6 generals, but if I need more I can throw in Bismarck. Perhaps Edward would be cheap 8th general...nah. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 28, 2017 2:43:26 GMT
In his lineup I thought he will only use one commander for each kind of unit, if he is doing that Nelson and Attila will have less less total output (4.5cav+4.5arch<3cav+6.75arch). If it is like the one you're talking about it would make sense. It's all about gains and losses... 3 lines could be even more flexible, but I think one "Commander" in line would be insufficient... It's the matter to increase the output of the whole team better or just make part of it crazy. That's why in ArchCom there are like 5+ archers. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 28, 2017 3:01:22 GMT
It's all about gains and losses... 3 lines could be even more flexible, but I think one "Commander" in line would be insufficient... It's the matter to increase the output of the whole team better or just make part of it crazy. That's why in ArchCom there are like 5+ archers. As I said it is all about gains and losses. 5 archers could be weak in defense (especially at the beginning) and such strategy could be not very effective in certain curcumstances (fresh example "Rise of Germany" - your forces are split in two parts, and it is possible to combine them only at the very end). |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Mar 28, 2017 3:33:43 GMT
It's the matter to increase the output of the whole team better or just make part of it crazy. That's why in ArchCom there are like 5+ archers. As I said it is all about gains and losses. 5 archers could be weak in defense (especially at the beginning) and such strategy could be not very effective in certain curcumstances (fresh example "Rise of Germany" - your forces are split in two parts, and it is possible to combine them only at the very end). That's the point! No lineup is perfect, ArchCom can focus on 1 single target and wipe it off so fast, but it is fragile. While CavCom is the map mop but they melt in 1 turn if you push too thoughtless. Balanced lineup fits the most situations but the team total output is harmed. That's the dazzling part of EW5! No absolute invincible lineup, no must-gets for everyone, and you have to figure out which one satisfies your tactic the most! |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Mar 28, 2017 10:36:42 GMT
First you need to decide the style, because Nelson and Attila conflict, so do Saladin and Blucher. Archer, Cavalry or Infantry? I do not understand why Nelson and Attila conflict. They are perfect choices for balanced line-up, wehere the first line is a cavalry line (could well be Attila-Asoka-Blucher) with support of a strong archer's line (Nobunaga-Nelson-Li). Very flexible lines... Only theoretically imo. With such lineup You are OK in the missions where 8 units are necessary. But most missions require less. 6 in average and most of the time You need at least 1 artillery. Such lineup could become not very convenient to choose among. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 28, 2017 11:38:45 GMT
I do not understand why Nelson and Attila conflict. They are perfect choices for balanced line-up, wehere the first line is a cavalry line (could well be Attila-Asoka-Blucher) with support of a strong archer's line (Nobunaga-Nelson-Li). Very flexible lines... Only theoretically imo. With such lineup You are OK in the missions where 8 units are necessary. But most missions require less. 6 in average and most of the time You need at least 1 artillery. Such lineup could become not very convenient to choose among. I would say 7 in avarage, but yes 6 are common. In those cases indeed it is necessary to replace one Commander. Asoka is an obvious candidate for replacement. So for example Attila-Blucher Nobunaga-Nelson-Li art general still impressive imo |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 28, 2017 11:50:13 GMT
Let’s compare it to your team. I presume it was something like that in most cases:
Khan
Barbarossa
Washington-Nelson-Nobunaga
Napoleon
Of course Li is not Washington, but he is Commander with Leadership and with bonus against cavalry.
But a combination Attila-Blucher is imo definitely more effective than Khan and Barbarossa (or Alex), even more effective than Khan and Bismarck (if you used 2 art generals in 6 slots)…
|
|
