|
|
Guderian
Oct 10, 2015 23:29:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 10, 2015 23:29:46 GMT
I mean front line generals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Oct 10, 2015 23:43:36 GMT
I mean front line generals. Vatutin: "Come on! I am fine!" |
|
|
|
Post by saltin on Oct 11, 2015 0:02:44 GMT
Several posters noticed pretty much right away that 1960 means generals getting nuked,I think there is a post made a while ago that also mention the high health correlation with higher chance of nukes but no formal testing that verify this was done.If you got the numbers to show this that would make for an interesting read.
I believe one can reduce the chance of nukes by lowering the visibility (away from nuke frontlines,capitals ect..)and lowering health of generals long enough to take over the enemy capacity to produce nukes,but the risk cannot be eliminated entirely, this also depends a lot of what country is played.
Having said that the OP is most likely not ready or even has not unlocked 1960 scenario yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 11, 2015 0:03:52 GMT
I mean front line generals. Vatutin: "Come on! I am fine!" Ha that's more like what I say to my generals. Guderian just push through the pain! You are perfectly fine! Guderian: I have 15 hp... dead |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Oct 11, 2015 0:28:33 GMT
Vatutin: "Come on! I am fine!" Ha that's more like what I say to my generals. Guderian just push through the pain! You are perfectly fine! Guderian: I have 15 hp... dead For me: I: Guderian! Go! Go! Go! Guderian: No, the rocket launchers hurt. I: Nuke or that?  Guderian: (puke)Alright I am going. ...several turns passed... Messe: Atomic bomb?! Nooooooooooooo!  Guderian: Yeah!!! I'm still alive!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Freeloader on Oct 11, 2015 1:35:38 GMT
dang you went hard on the saving for guderian. I got 4 other generals before I started to save and I'm only at 3000
|
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Oct 11, 2015 5:38:05 GMT
Several posters noticed pretty much right away that 1960 means generals getting nuked,I think there is a post made a while ago that also mention the high health correlation with higher chance of nukes but no formal testing that verify this was done.If you got the numbers to show this that would make for an interesting read. I believe one can reduce the chance of nukes by lowering the visibility (away from nuke frontlines,capitals ect..)and lowering health of generals long enough to take over the enemy capacity to produce nukes,but the risk cannot be eliminated entirely, this also depends a lot of what country is played. Having said that the OP is most likely not ready or even has not unlocked 1960 scenario yet. The correlation between health and chance to get nuked is interesting. If that is the case then, is it better to have a general stay in a city (with wall), get nuked once, and then move to the battlefield? Like making a vaccine. |
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Oct 11, 2015 5:41:04 GMT
And regarding an air general, he is definitely very useful in campaigns and conquest 39 and 43 but not very useful in 50 and 60 because most cities have good air defense and we will be using nukes anyway.
|
|
|
|
Guderian
Oct 11, 2015 6:33:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by Jean Lannes on Oct 11, 2015 6:33:17 GMT
I think a good air general is perfect for 1943. there are many upgraded cities and nuke spam is almost impossible because the USA are the only ones having them. For 1939 there just aren't as many lvl 2 airports.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 11, 2015 13:16:42 GMT
I have seen them nuke one of my generals while he had a sliver of health left. It was a very sad day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Oct 11, 2015 13:17:25 GMT
I think maybe it works to lose a little bit health first, it seems like the nuke ignores you when you drop to certain health(my Chinese forum says it is 300).
|
|
|
|
Guderian
Oct 11, 2015 14:49:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by thenoob on Oct 11, 2015 14:49:15 GMT
So in the later conquest maps all your generals get nuked and so if I get goring he'll get nuked to death in a city so maybe Guvrov may last longer in a say 1950 or 1960 conquest
|
|
|
|
Guderian
Oct 11, 2015 14:55:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 11, 2015 14:55:35 GMT
All generals are in danger of getting nuked in the later eras. Cities are just more likely. I would reccomend Göring because if you only have Guderian then 1950 and 1960 will probably be too difficult to win Guvourov or not. Everything thing that we tell you doesn't even matter really. It's what you want to get.
|
|
|
|
Post by lassalle on Oct 11, 2015 15:31:43 GMT
Everything thing that we tell you doesn't even matter really. It's what you want to get. On the contrary everything that we tell him does really matter,since he can only know what he wants after he gets all of his availabe options,the options that he doesnt know about yet, the options that we inform him about. We inform then he decides based on what was said, that's the way it works. Anyways, artillery generals all the way,it works in every era of every conquest,even tank generals aren't always as usefull because super tanks are harder to get in 1939,and not as good in 1975. Then there is campaigns and artillery general > air general since there is no money to airstrike. |
|
|
|
Guderian
Oct 11, 2015 15:35:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 11, 2015 15:35:11 GMT
It's just a back and forth between air and artillery so it does come down to whatever he wants
|
|
