|
|
Post by andrei on Mar 28, 2017 12:00:33 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 effective than Khan and Bismarck (if you used 2 art generals in 6 slots)… By the very end of the game I also used Li Hongzhang. But if choosing again between Atilla-Blucher against Khan-Barbarossa.. I'ld still choose Khan-Barbarossa. Why? My team is archer focused. I need to cover and protect archers. Atilla is more or less the same as Khan - a bit weaker. Barbarossa is better for me, because of Leadership (2nd best skill in the game) and Samurai. He can debuff everybody around for quite a long time before he is dead and his attack power is constant. Theoretically CavCom in addition looks cool, but I don't think there is enough place for maneuver for ArchCom and CavCom at the same time. Khan and Barbarossa could be easier placed on the map to utilise all their advantages in comparison to pair Atilla-Blucher. |
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Mar 28, 2017 12:06:27 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... I just want Edward because he's on landships at 6. It's more so for appearences, than anything else. Lol. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 28, 2017 12:09:45 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 effective than Khan and Bismarck (if you used 2 art generals in 6 slots)… By the very end of the game I also used Li Hongzhang. But if choosing again between Atilla-Blucher against Khan-Barbarossa.. I'ld still choose Khan-Barbarossa. Why? My team is archer focused. I need to cover and protect archers. Atilla is more or less the same as Khan - a bit weaker. Barbarossa is better for me, because of Leadership (2nd best skill in the game) and Samurai. He can debuff everybody around for quite a long time before he is dead and his attack power is constant. But Blucher has Plunder and Rumor (I presume your first best skill) and good attacking chances with Attila’s Leadership. And how on earth Attila with Commander skill and Blucher’s Armor Master could be worse than Khan? By the way chances for survival double for the whole team with Blucher, not only for Attila. ps But I think that in 6 slots you did not use Li (and, as I remember, you only took him for the last mission) |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Mar 28, 2017 12:12:36 GMT
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... I just want Edward because he's on landships at 6. It's more so for appearences, than anything else. Lol. I would do the same but on historical grounds  Hundred Years' War is a very exiting period... |
|
