|
|
Post by TK421 on Apr 28, 2017 15:09:52 GMT
I mentioned how weird it is that Nelson and Blucher appear in gunpowder, starting at discovery, and it sparked a conversation down in the chat. That discussion should probably take place here, now. If you have any general issues with EW5 then feel free to voice that opinion here!
Just as an overview of my issue with Nelson and Blucher...
I was hyped for gunpowder, the grind was beyond real, and I upgraded. Yay! Blucher and Nelson...wait......they're only upgraded to discovery? So I have to spend more medals, after buying them, in order for them to be useful at all? Why couldn't Easytech just upgrade them and increase their price? Granted, I feel like they both would probably belong on rifleman and dragoons by default, but why weren't they available in discovery, then? Heck, Nelson appears in the campaign and conquest of that era, and Blucher appears in the conquest. I realize they're powerful and all, but come on. At this point, you've given me the options of Attila, Nobunaga, Caesar, Li Shimin, etc. etc. I don't see how this is a valid excuse.
It also annoys me how some campaign missions are way too hard for their era. Most people appear to recommend upgrading an era ahead of them, and this just erks me to no end. I'm on Nanyang Battle, and before upgrading (still in the process of doing this to me generals -_-), it was nearly impossible. I don't mind a challenge. I've beaten Dark Souls without armor or weapons. This, however, is just a little too much. A little, not a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thrawn on Apr 29, 2017 18:27:03 GMT
Literature grinding.
|
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Apr 29, 2017 18:41:06 GMT
In my opinion, it's not too bad. The main issue I see is Greece classical. No conquest can match it's literature pay-off and speed until gunpowder, because only Empire Persia really challenges it. Not to mention that discovery generals still wouldn't be able to match the speed on Greece. This is awful. Not to mention that campaign doesn't really give much literature, at least until late discovery+, which is kind of hard (overly so) without gunpowder generals. They most likely added in this grind to keep people interested, but they completely ruined it with this MASSIVE gap where only two countries can effectively reach these goals, outside of double, if not triple, the amount of play time otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Apr 29, 2017 20:08:01 GMT
To be honest I only played classical Greece once... I think discovery age India is a great country to play for literature.
It is no walkover for sure, and it is necessary to do it with your own hands for some distance... But in the end it is less time consuming, I think...
|
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Apr 29, 2017 21:46:45 GMT
To be honest I only played classical Greece once... I think discovery age India is a great country to play for literature. It is no walkover for sure, and it is necessary to do it with your own hands for some distance... But in the end it is less time consuming, I think... With what generals, though? Plus, I'm comparing the speed, as well. How long would you say you average on India discovery? Could you compare this to greece classical? We also have to take into account how much effort really wants to be put in. It's the same maps, over and over and over and over again. I'd rather auto-battle my way through most conquests for this reason, unless it's actually for fun, rather than grinding. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Apr 30, 2017 3:43:27 GMT
To be honest I only played classical Greece once... I think discovery age India is a great country to play for literature. It is no walkover for sure, and it is necessary to do it with your own hands for some distance... But in the end it is less time consuming, I think... With what generals, though? Plus, I'm comparing the speed, as well. How long would you say you average on India discovery? Could you compare this to greece classical? We also have to take into account how much effort really wants to be put in. It's the same maps, over and over and over and over again. I'd rather auto-battle my way through most conquests for this reason, unless it's actually for fun, rather than grinding. I think that India can win this competition from effort's point of view :-) 1. Quantity is a quality of its own: Greece has 20, India has 75. 2. It is almost 1 to 4 ratio. That means you will spend less time on it. Definitely one India conquest demands less efforts than 4 Greece conquests (even with autobattles). 3. You can use autobattles with India as well... All you need is to create a strategic favorable situation with your own hands. As a rule player can advance through ages easily enough. That means it is possible to hire better mercenaries and use them in autobattles. 4. India is a relatively easy conquest. 5. No need for overpowerful generals for India. Most of the time I used 4 generals in 3 teams: a) Caesar and art general b) Saladin c) Nobunaga Team "a" is for capitals and difficult targets. |
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Apr 30, 2017 14:10:27 GMT
With what generals, though? Plus, I'm comparing the speed, as well. How long would you say you average on India discovery? Could you compare this to greece classical? We also have to take into account how much effort really wants to be put in. It's the same maps, over and over and over and over again. I'd rather auto-battle my way through most conquests for this reason, unless it's actually for fun, rather than grinding. I think that India can win this competition from effort's point of view :-) 1. Quantity is a quality of its own: Greece has 20, India has 75. 2. It is almost 1 to 4 ratio. That means you will spend less time on it. Definitely one India conquest demands less efforts than 4 Greece conquests (even with autobattles). 3. You can use autobattles with India as well... All you need is to create a strategic favorable situation with your own hands. As a rule player can advance through ages easily enough. That means it is possible to hire better mercenaries and use them in autobattles. 4. India is a relatively easy conquest. 5. No need for overpowerful generals for India. Most of the time I used 4 generals in 3 teams: a) Caesar and art general b) Saladin c) Nobunaga Team "a" is for capitals and difficult targets. Eh. It might come from the whole campaign thing. It's kind of set this idea in my mind that you need to be an era ahead in order to be truly successful, and thus that's all I've really done. Also, another thing that erks me is Charlemagne. 2500 medals for this trash general? Wat? Atilla far outclasses him, yet he get him in era one (not to mention that he's actually cheaper, as well). Every other general in the third tier is at least decent, so what's the logic behind this? |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Apr 30, 2017 15:17:43 GMT
Yes, that is true... He is no better than blue cav generals... In fact, paradoxically, cavalry in total lacks depth: poor Commanders (Attila is the only exception), expensive, rare combinations of great skills, AI does not know how yo use it... No surprise that we do not know about any success with this kind of line-up...
|
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Apr 30, 2017 16:38:17 GMT
Yes, that is true... He is no better than blue cav generals... In fact, paradoxically, cavalry in total lacks depth: poor Commanders (Attila is the only exception), expensive, rare combinations of great skills, AI does not know how yo use it... No surprise that we do not know about any success with this kind of line-up... Yeah. The AI really falters with cavalry, above all else. Also, these issues urk me more than slightly. Like, why doesn't the AI actually utilized their mobility ability? Ever? In a game where the AI controls so many battles, how can Eacytech allow one fourth of the units to not preform properly? I hope someone creates a mod or something for this :/ Just buffing cavalry. |
|
|
|
Post by Singlemalt on Apr 30, 2017 17:46:36 GMT
Tbh not that many issues besides the cartoons and the peter pan generals..
Those who whine about literature forgot themedal grinding in wc3.
Sincerely
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Apr 30, 2017 18:15:05 GMT
Good point!
And tones of AI' paratroopers in WC3 conquests... They were not challenging, but annoying...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Apr 30, 2017 21:31:29 GMT
Tbh not that many issues besides the cartoons and the peter pan generals.. Those who whine about literature forgot themedal grinding in wc3. Sincerely Except WC3 was way better in conquest, and you could at least choose which country you'd want to grind as rather than being forced to a select few. I felt I couldn't enjoy conquest at all in EW5 because there was only 2 or 3 of them that gave me a large amount of literature, and having to play those same conquests over and over and over and over was incredibly boring. |
|
|
|
Post by Singlemalt on May 1, 2017 4:03:30 GMT
Tbh not that many issues besides the cartoons and the peter pan generals.. Those who whine about literature forgot themedal grinding in wc3. Sincerely Except WC3 was way better in conquest, and you could at least choose which country you'd want to grind as rather than being forced to a select few. I felt I couldn't enjoy conquest at all in EW5 because there was only 2 or 3 of them that gave me a large amount of literature, and having to play those same conquests over and over and over and over was incredibly boring. But you couldnt gain medals by doing conquest over and over with wc3.. you had to leave the game open en waiit for you wounders. In ew5 you have different strategies to gain medlas amd literature. I agree that conquest is not perfect and I hope next game will be better but the grinding in wc3 was really worse imo. |
|
|
|
Post by Thrawn on May 1, 2017 8:31:56 GMT
Tbh not that many issues besides the cartoons and the peter pan generals.. Those who whine about literature forgot themedal grinding in wc3. Sincerely I played WC3 for only an hour, then deleted it. That was many months ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on May 1, 2017 10:46:51 GMT
Except WC3 was way better in conquest, and you could at least choose which country you'd want to grind as rather than being forced to a select few. I felt I couldn't enjoy conquest at all in EW5 because there was only 2 or 3 of them that gave me a large amount of literature, and having to play those same conquests over and over and over and over was incredibly boring. But you couldnt gain medals by doing conquest over and over with wc3.. you had to leave the game open en waiit for you wounders. In ew5 you have different strategies to gain medlas amd literature. I agree that conquest is not perfect and I hope next game will be better but the grinding in wc3 was really worse imo. Everyone has their opinion, but I for sure would prefer WC3 grinding over EW5. Maybe it's just preference. |
|
