|
|
Post by Marshal Ney on Jun 14, 2017 14:23:04 GMT
These are just my opinions, I'd like if you express your ideas. I rated all generals' skills into classes depending on their utility.
USELESS SKILLS: Trence/Fence/Disguise/Transport/Infantry Tactics/Mobility/Ballistics/War Expert/War Master/Nobleman/Banner/Sailor/Logistics
MEDIOCRE SKILLS: Fireproof/Steersman/Economic Expert/Economic Master/Architecture
GOOD SKILLS: Formation/Surprise/Explosive/Bugle/Strike/Accurate/Spy/Engineering/Navigation/Mass Fire/Siege Master
THE BEST SKILLS: Leadership/Geography/Assault Art/Defense Art
Some necessary consideration:
_ "Trainer skills" are obviously good for your first generals in tier 1 (like Kutaisov or Dumouriez) and good for temporary generals in tier 2 (like Sulkowski or Scharnhorst) but terrible for tier 3 generals (if you buy them, they must be your final generals)
_ Business Trainers are needed, Fort Trainers are avoidable
_ Twins Desaix and Sakurako have 3 good skills but they aren't very good because 1 skill for each unit (infantry, cavalry, artillery) isn't enough
_ Geography is useless for infantry (except in desert) and leadership is inadvisable for artillery.
|
|
|
|
Post by Torvesta on Jun 14, 2017 17:16:44 GMT
I know geography is good but it's not one of the best skills. You are going to end up buying warhorse for your generals that don't have geography so geography is a waste of a skill. It might mean that you can move 1 more hex but if you are already moving 5 hexes for cav and 4 for art, moving 1 more hex won't make a big difference.
Also, i don't think leadership is useful for infantry or artillery. It't most useful for cav and maybe navy. So i wouldn't say leadership and geography are the best skills. I prefer accurate and strike/surprise over them.
Best is assault art and defense art if you s/l
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshal Ney on Jun 14, 2017 17:43:30 GMT
I know geography is good but it's not one of the best skills. You are going to end up buying warhorse for your generals that don't have geography so geography is a waste of a skill. It might mean that you can move 1 more hex but if you are already moving 5 hexes for cav and 4 for art, moving 1 more hex won't make a big difference. Also, i don't think leadership is useful for infantry or artillery. It't most useful for cav and maybe navy. So i wouldn't say leadership and geography are the best skills. I prefer accurate and strike/surprise over them. Best is assault art and defense art if you s/l Ok, I agreed with Geography isn't the best, and I just said that Leadership is is avoidable for artillery, but for infantry is good because it can be encircled by enemies or attacked by cavalry. |
|
|
|
Post by Torvesta on Jun 14, 2017 20:39:23 GMT
you won't get incircled by enemy if you are infantry though. It's usually cav that goes in to the enemy and get flanked. That's why lan is so good. Enemy prioritises artillery over infantry and cav so doubt enemy would be hitting you much. It's only good for infantry if you are defending a city in campaign, other than that it's pretty useless for infant. I think mass fire is better than leadership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Banastre Tarleton on Jun 14, 2017 20:40:27 GMT
These are just my opinions, I'd like if you express your ideas. I rated all generals' skills into classes depending on their utility.
USELESS SKILLS: Trence/Fence/Disguise/Transport/Infantry Tactics/Mobility/Ballistics/War Expert/War Master/Nobleman/Banner/Sailor/Logistics
MEDIOCRE SKILLS: Fireproof/Steersman/Economic Expert/Economic Master/Architecture
GOOD SKILLS: Formation/Surprise/Explosive/Bugle/Strike/Accurate/Spy/Engineering/Navigation/Mass Fire/Siege Master
THE BEST SKILLS: Leadership/Geography/Assault Art/Defense Art
I’d consider mass fire to be one of the best skills, certainly better than leadership or assault art. When you think about it, assault art is really a marketing job as it’s just an attack on the upper end of the general’s range with a flashy icon. A Bennigsen “assault art” attack is a day at the office for Golitsyn.
Agree with Torvesta that the combo of strike/surprise is the best in the game for inflicting damage and it’s what separates elite cavalry generals from the good.
Some necessary consideration:
_ "Trainer skills" are obviously good for your first generals in tier 1 (like Kutaisov or Dumouriez) and good for temporary generals in tier 2 (like Sulkowski or Scharnhorst) but terrible for tier 3 generals (if you buy them, they must be your final generals)
This is an artificial constraint that is created by people’s unwillingness to spend .99 cents.
_ Business Trainers are needed, Fort Trainers are avoidable
I’ve played a *Auto Corrected*load of EW without ever buying a business trainer; also need is obviously dependent on the specific generals in your HQ . Sell-side transactions can be executed using a save point with Alexander I, in one of several scenarios, and you’d have to do the math to see if the number of items you’re planning to buy justifies the business training expenditure.
_ Twins Desaix and Sakurako have 3 good skills but they aren't very good because 1 skill for each unit (infantry, cavalry, artillery) isn't enough
True, but on the flip-side, I don’t believe anybody ever said either of them were elite generals. Depending on who you have in your HQ, there can be a place for Sakurako as your transitioning to elite generals.
And if Desaix isn't very good, then why do people make such a big deal out of his movement direction in HRE 1798? (that's a rhetorical question)
_ Geography is useless for infantry (except in desert) and leadership is inadvisable for artillery.
Not true, it depends on which general you’re talking about and what movement training you’ve purchased and infantry movement items you might have. I understand your point about artillery, but I suspect that many players are too timid with their artillery. As your elite artillery generals increase in rank and nobility the ability of enemy units to damage them is fairly minimal and their recovery is quick. Point being, I’d have no trepidation about putting a fully farmed Sophia/Isabella amidst a bunch of enemy units, even creating a morale down, and frankly leadership would come in handy for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Louis-Alexandre Berthier on Jul 11, 2017 19:24:54 GMT
These are just my opinions, I'd like if you express your ideas. I rated all generals' skills into classes depending on their utility. USELESS SKILLS: Trence/Fence/Disguise/Transport/Infantry Tactics/Mobility/Ballistics/War Expert/War Master/Nobleman/Banner/Sailor/Logistics MEDIOCRE SKILLS: Fireproof/Steersman/Economic Expert/Economic Master/Architecture GOOD SKILLS: Formation/Surprise/Explosive/Bugle/Strike/Accurate/Spy/Engineering/Navigation/Mass Fire/Siege Master THE BEST SKILLS: Leadership/Geography/Assault Art/Defense Art I’d consider mass fire to be one of the best skills, certainly better than leadership or assault art. When you think about it, assault art is really a marketing job as it’s just an attack on the upper end of the general’s range with a flashy icon. A Bennigsen “assault art” attack is a day at the office for Golitsyn.
Agree with Torvesta that the combo of strike/surprise is the best in the game for inflicting damage and it’s what separates elite cavalry generals from the good. Some necessary consideration: _ "Trainer skills" are obviously good for your first generals in tier 1 (like Kutaisov or Dumouriez) and good for temporary generals in tier 2 (like Sulkowski or Scharnhorst) but terrible for tier 3 generals (if you buy them, they must be your final generals)
This is an artificial constraint that is created by people’s unwillingness to spend .99 cents. _ Business Trainers are needed, Fort Trainers are avoidable I’ve played a *Auto Corrected*load of EW without ever buying a business trainer; also need is obviously dependent on the specific generals in your HQ . Sell-side transactions can be executed using a save point with Alexander I, in one of several scenarios, and you’d have to do the math to see if the number of items you’re planning to buy justifies the business training expenditure.
_ Twins Desaix and Sakurako have 3 good skills but they aren't very good because 1 skill for each unit (infantry, cavalry, artillery) isn't enough True, but on the flip-side, I don’t believe anybody ever said either of them were elite generals. Depending on who you have in your HQ, there can be a place for Sakurako as your transitioning to elite generals.
And if Desaix isn't very good, then why do people make such a big deal out of his movement direction in HRE 1798? (that's a rhetorical question)_ Geography is useless for infantry (except in desert) and leadership is inadvisable for artillery. Not true, it depends on which general you’re talking about and what movement training you’ve purchased and infantry movement items you might have. I understand your point about artillery, but I suspect that many players are too timid with their artillery. As your elite artillery generals increase in rank and nobility the ability of enemy units to damage them is fairly minimal and their recovery is quick. Point being, I’d have no trepidation about putting a fully farmed Sophia/Isabella amidst a bunch of enemy units, even creating a morale down, and frankly leadership would come in handy for them.
What are you talking about? Logistics heals 12% of your health after you kill an enemy! Oh wait... EW4 not 5. Anyways, steersman is good for navy. Economic Master can come in handy in campaigns, especially those near-impossible ones. And since you get Fatimah for free, you can use it for a while. The reason people care about Desaix in HRE is while rushing, for those elite princesses, Desaix can take more turns to take, which is annoying when those few turns can matter so much. I agree with you about leadership for artillery. |
|
