|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 14:40:59 GMT
Okay, help me choose pls Vatutin or Rokossovsky Yamashita or Mannerheim Pick Mannerheim, if you can afford him, he is better at dealing damage Yamashita can put out the exact same damage as Mannerheim if you give him Jungle Fighting, more once he gets below 50 percent health. And Yamashita has much better mobility. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Oct 6, 2017 14:51:46 GMT
Personally i wouldnt want to soend the money of a gold general on yamashita when i could buy manstein or rommel or pretty much any of the others, and you could always get bayonet charge for mannerheim too. You are paying ~1000 medals more for 3 movement stars and an extra perk slot.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 14:57:11 GMT
Unfortunately, air power (particularly carriers) is not as effective as it was in WC3 because of the massive HP ships get. You just won’t use an air general much, if ever. I have not run into this problem. Not in missions or conquest (especially after lowering costs with end game tech) do you use air attacks? It’s very situational. Air and missile strikes are great in late game conquests when you are trying to shave turns off your final victory time and have the resources to spare for them. But at that point you can spam them because you are getting so many resources, so any damage boosts from air generals are not worth saving the open slot that long. The resource costs are prohibitive in the easy and mid game when you need to be building units and upgrading tech. An occasional air strike to finish off a city so you can paradrop on it or clear a sub from a port you want is about all you need, and you won’t know where you’ll need them enough to get an air general in place reliably. The other problem is that air attacks just don’t hit that hard even with a great air general. The limiting factor on air general damage is the lack of damage boosting abilities to work in concert with Air Force Leader. Tank and artillery generals can stack abilities like armored assault, terrain bonuses and explosives. Then when Leader skill triggers, you get hits for 200, 300 or more. The only damage boosting ability for air generals is Carpet Bombing. So you don’t get the stacking effect. Hits from Air Force Leader only give modest boosts. Just nothing to write home about. I think they need to change up some air abilities. Going to make a specific post about this, in fact. |
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 15:10:40 GMT
Personally i wouldnt want to soend the money of a gold general on yamashita when i could buy manstein or rommel or pretty much any of the others, and you could always get bayonet charge for mannerheim too. You are paying ~1000 medals more for 3 movement stars and an extra perk slot. You only have one free ability slot for Mannerheim, and you really have to take Infantry Leader. The damage output from the leader skills is just too much to pass up. Yamashita can take Infantry Leader and another damage boosting ability with his two free slots. Or Guerilla to increase survivability, which is an issue for infantry units. He also gets additional damage from Ace Forces, especially as a game wears on. Promotions give additional attack rating, and a unit with four or more promotions is going to put out a significantly higher amount of damage. Also, do not discount the marching ability. Yamashita gets five stars to Mannerheim’s three. That additional movement can be huge for infantry because mobility is already their best feature. As I said, cost is certainly an issue, and there is nothing wrong with picking Mannerheim as your main infantry general. He is very capable. But if you are looking to max out for the best available generals, Yamashita is simply better. Way more expensive, but also better. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Oct 6, 2017 18:48:04 GMT
I see where you are coming from, but I guess my position is one of "good enough" not of the pinnacle of what could be. Also I respect Mannerheim a lot more than I do Yamashita (read: there is intrinsic value), because Mannerheim was actively involved with defense along the entire Finnish front, and spoke directly to his divisional staffs. For a field commander that is an insane level of attention to detail and energy to put into your work, especially for the length of time that Mannerheim was fighting. (And then there is also the cool war stories, like him smoking in front of Hitler)
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 6, 2017 20:16:04 GMT
I see where you are coming from, but I guess my position is one of "good enough" not of the pinnacle of what could be. Also I respect Mannerheim a lot more than I do Yamashita (read: there is intrinsic value), because Mannerheim was actively involved with defense along the entire Finnish front, and spoke directly to his divisional staffs. For a field commander that is an insane level of attention to detail and energy to put into your work, especially for the length of time that Mannerheim was fighting. (And then there is also the cool war stories, like him smoking in front of Hitler) I’m also a big Mannerheim fan, and I’m really glad he is more viable in this version of the game. It sort of annoys me that Finland is treated as a full-on Axis power even though it is fun to play as Finland. They fought the Soviets, but both the Winter War and Continuation War were defensive actions in response to Soviet aggression and were unrelated to the Axis powers’ greater war effort. They never made a formal military alliance with Germany (although they joined the Anti-Comintern Pact) and did not actively fight against any of the Western European nations. They were also a democracy, unlike other Axis nation’s. France and Britain actually wanted to send troops to help Finland in the Winter War but never got the chance. Britain did declare war on Finland after Operation Barbarossa, but only launched a couple of limited air strikes on Finnish shipping. Finland also got out on their own terms. The got support from Germany but carefully avoided tying themselves to the Nazis. |
|
|
|
Post by Saltin on Oct 8, 2017 4:50:28 GMT
OT:Just to be generic, I think some of these generals choices depend on play style and what skill you value more (that can be subjective) and whether you min-max or not. For example I like using at least 1 infantry general because I feel it makes a game much more realistic even though it might not necessarily be the optimum choice. OOT: I removed a couple of posts following soonerjbd post because they were out of topic. Contributors, please remember game boards must stay more or less on topic. It's ok to temporarily veer off topic as long as you also cover the main topic of the thread in your post. This is so members and guests looking for specific advice and help find the ressource they are looking for in an easy manner. For example Soonerjbd posted about his thoughts of general Mannerheim then added a comment about Finland so that post is fine. What's not ok are following posts by others discussing the Finland historical situation and completely ignoring the topic thread [Generals]. You are all encouraged to have more open discussions about the Finland historical case or any other topic of your choosing by starting a new discussion and opening a new thread in the appropriate board like in The Officers Lounge Board for example.
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 8, 2017 6:13:33 GMT
saltin You are dead on about the subjectivity of picking generals. It’s easy to get caught up in numbers and damage output, but you play a game to have fun. I keep Patton on my roster even though he isn’t statistically as good as some other choices because I like him. It’s always nice when your subjective tastes and preferences are also “optimal.” But I sometimes choose a general just because I think it will be fun to use them in a particular scenario. Commandos make using infantry generals a lot more interesting. I think they are a great addition.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Oct 8, 2017 9:04:45 GMT
Kuznetsov maxes out at four star naval skill. Halsey and Mountbatten max out at five stars. Nagumo gets six star naval skill and can add Rumor to give him all three of the essential naval abilities. Six extra damage might not sound like that much, but when you add other skills to it like Fleet Leader and Sailor, it can add up. Plus, ships have high defense and a ton of hit points. Naval battles tend to take a while, so that additional damage can really add up over the course of a long scenario or conquest. Nagumo is priced about the same as Halsey and cheaper than Mountbatten. He provides good end game value. Halsey is 300 lower... Plus he has 5* air which is good anyway. Mountbatten has no weak skill and he comes with higher rank. For Kuznetsov, he is not that good. He is just the same as I’ve said, enough. I’m not sure if that’s just me, but I always don’t count Shelter as a skill, especially now when nuke damage is hugely nerfed. Shelter also provides defense from rocket artillery in WC4, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Oct 8, 2017 16:49:41 GMT
saltin You are dead on about the subjectivity of picking generals. It’s easy to get caught up in numbers and damage output, but you play a game to have fun. I keep Patton on my roster even though he isn’t statistically as good as some other choices because I like him. It’s always nice when your subjective tastes and preferences are also “optimal.” But I sometimes choose a general just because I think it will be fun to use them in a particular scenario. Commandos make using infantry generals a lot more interesting. I think they are a great addition. My tank generals will be Patton, Rommel, and Manstein |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Oct 10, 2017 4:13:56 GMT
How many generals with "Explosives" is it necessary to have in the team? Does this skill have any effect on millitary fortifications such as coastal artillery, for example?
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 10, 2017 14:46:26 GMT
How many generals with "Explosives" is it necessary to have in the team? Does this skill have any effect on millitary fortifications such as coastal artillery, for example? I have been operating under the assumption that Explosives does boost damage against fort units in addition to city fortifications and units defending a city. With that in mind, I use it on Konev and Guderian. I don’t choose it over Armored Assault, Blitzkrieg or Panzer Leader, so tank commanders that have limited open ability slots should get those first. They work regardless of terrain or unit location. I’d also rather have Artillery Leader and Accuracy for Artillery commanders. It might also be a sensible choice for naval generals, although Rumor and Sailor should be priority along with Fleet Leader. |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Oct 11, 2017 14:50:45 GMT
To be honest, in this version I dont think you need it at all, it will always be better to give a general plain fighting, a unit specific skill (leader, threshold damage boost, prevent a counterattack, etc.), or even rumor or crossfire. All of these will help you in overall output more than explosive in situations where it triggers. That said, as a skill already on a general it is nice to have, it helps crack cities and can be useful, i think it is too situational for my extra slots though This was to stoic's question btw |
|
|
|
Post by Józef Poniatowski on Oct 11, 2017 14:53:43 GMT
It may be worth looking into if a unit in a city triggers crossfire, if it does more damage to itself and the city doing that than explosive by itself would. My knowledge of the output formula leads me to believe yes, if it triggers, so then it becomes a question of how often would it trigger and if the AI will actually attack your unit in the first place, as it seems rarer in this version that the AI will spawn units to defend cities, especially if the city is at high HP
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 11, 2017 15:33:35 GMT
To be honest, in this version I dont think you need it at all, it will always be better to give a general plain fighting, a unit specific skill (leader, threshold damage boost, prevent a counterattack, etc.), or even rumor or crossfire. All of these will help you in overall output more than explosive in situations where it triggers. That said, as a skill already on a general it is nice to have, it helps crack cities and can be useful, i think it is too situational for my extra slots though This was to stoic's question btw I disagree. The terrain abilities give a flat bonus of 25 damage at max level. Explosives gives a 40 percent bonus against stronghold units. The more damage you do, the bigger the bonus. Tech upgrades and other damage boosting abilities increase the bonus. If you are in a stacked heavy tank or super tank, your base attack with a six-star tank general and max tank tech is over 100. That means you are getting, at minimum, 40 damage from Explosives. That goes even higher with other abilities. Then when Panzer Leader triggers, you are getting additional multiplied damage. It can really add up. I don’t think you need Explosives on every tank general, but it is really helpful on a city cracker. I use it on Guderian and Konev. I also give them Plain Fighting, but you can’t use more than one terrain bonus at a time, so Explosives makes a lot of sense for their last skill. It is way more useful than Rumor or Crossfire on a tank general. You aren’t going to see any of the benefits from Rumor when you are one-shotting everything, and you don’t take hits that much with your top tank generals. The enemy usually picks on the weakest units first unless you have a tank general defending a city. Point being, you are attacking cities with your tank general a lot more often than you are defending them. |
|
