|
Post by stanton1771 on Oct 23, 2017 0:17:44 GMT
I need help deciding what countries to do conquest in 1939 and 1943. I only have Messe,Tito, and Crerar as my generals and can never seem to be able to win a conquest. I would appreciate any help given.
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 23, 2017 0:29:35 GMT
I need help deciding what countries to do conquest in 1939 and 1943. I only have Messe,Tito, and Crerar as my generals and can never seem to be able to win a conquest. I would appreciate any help given. I’ve always felt the Soviets were the easiest in both those years. In WC4, it seems a bit tougher to defend on two fronts early on. Still, I think it is ultimately tougher as a smaller nation because your allies quickly get overwhelmed if you don’t push hard. So i still go with the Soviets.
|
|
|
Post by TurkichBall on Oct 23, 2017 11:12:59 GMT
soonerjbd , Its is good choice but italy better .I can complate 120 turn (no commander) and you can win easy than commanders
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Oct 23, 2017 11:16:49 GMT
I need help deciding what countries to do conquest in 1939 and 1943. I only have Messe,Tito, and Crerar as my generals and can never seem to be able to win a conquest. I would appreciate any help given. Finland 1939 is a good 1 star to start with even with no generals. You need to paratrooper snipe the cities Germany attacks and mainly push eastward into Russia. Spam subs to control UK’s navy and land troops when you can spare to take the British isles. By then it’s just sweeping up the rest of the allies. Main difficulty is sniping and holding the initial Eastern European and Russian cities from counter attack. Italy in 1939 is also an easy country that can be done with no generals. Focus on cleaning up Africa and snipe any French cities with paratroopers. Push eastward from Africa into the middle east and split forces up through turkey into Stalingrad to flank the Russians. Once they fall it’s easy clean up for the rest of the map.
|
|
|
Post by Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb on Oct 23, 2017 14:24:03 GMT
Japan is pretty easy too
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 23, 2017 14:38:04 GMT
The thing I dislike about Axis nations is the trip across the ocean to North America, along with Australia and Hawaii. Feels like it takes forever.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 16:08:43 GMT
The thing I dislike about Axis nations is the trip across the ocean to North America, along with Australia and Hawaii. Feels like it takes forever. +1000
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 23, 2017 17:26:05 GMT
soonerjbd , Its is good choice but italy better .I can complate 120 turn (no commander) and you can win easy than commanders I did a no generals conquest with Italy in 48 turns, but my tech is maxed out.
|
|
|
Post by TurkichBall on Oct 23, 2017 17:51:04 GMT
Good But Im newbie for WC4 xp
|
|
|
Post by deadman on Oct 23, 2017 18:19:25 GMT
For 1939 I say bulgeria or spain. For 1943 I would say egypt, japan or brazil (eat up south america then take west africa from the germans).
|
|
|
Post by sacredelbrus on Oct 24, 2017 1:45:14 GMT
Conquest in this game is ridiculous. I try to be aggressive, doesn't work. I bide my time, doesn't work which usually ends up in my allies being totally overrun and leaving me fending off hordes of enemies. I used ROC, took out Japan with no real problems, had over a $1000 of income at my disposal. But by that point all my allies in Europe and Africa were defeated and the enemies swarmed me. I eventually got to Moscow but couldn't move further. I decided to rack up technology etc to use missiles and paratroop into Stalingrad and Kiev to relieve the forces further west and at Moscow but it was no use. America wasn't really doing anything so I felt I had no backup. Ridiculous difficulty. I also feel my generals aren't as beefy as they were in WC3.
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 24, 2017 2:16:56 GMT
Conquest in this game is ridiculous. I try to be aggressive, doesn't work. I bide my time, doesn't work which usually ends up in my allies being totally overrun and leaving me fending off hordes of enemies. I used ROC, took out Japan with no real problems, had over a $1000 of income at my disposal. But by that point all my allies in Europe and Africa were defeated and the enemies swarmed me. I eventually got to Moscow but couldn't move further. I decided to rack up technology etc to use missiles and paratroop into Stalingrad and Kiev to relieve the forces further west and at Moscow but it was no use. America wasn't really doing anything so I felt I had no backup. Ridiculous difficulty. I also feel my generals aren't as beefy as they were in WC3. From what I can tell, general's add hp based on percentage now. So if you have Guderian at max rank (160%) and put him on a unit with 100 health, he only gives that unit 60 extra health. Way less beefy than WC3
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Oct 24, 2017 3:01:12 GMT
Conquest in this game is ridiculous. I try to be aggressive, doesn't work. I bide my time, doesn't work which usually ends up in my allies being totally overrun and leaving me fending off hordes of enemies. I used ROC, took out Japan with no real problems, had over a $1000 of income at my disposal. But by that point all my allies in Europe and Africa were defeated and the enemies swarmed me. I eventually got to Moscow but couldn't move further. I decided to rack up technology etc to use missiles and paratroop into Stalingrad and Kiev to relieve the forces further west and at Moscow but it was no use. America wasn't really doing anything so I felt I had no backup. Ridiculous difficulty. I also feel my generals aren't as beefy as they were in WC3. From what I can tell, general's add hp based on percentage now. So if you have Guderian at max rank (160%) and put him on a unit with 100 health, he only gives that unit 60 extra health. Way less beefy than WC3 I think it kinda depends on the unit type. Artillery and infantry generals are way less beefy due to their low HP but tank and naval generals I think don't suffer as much due to their high HP. When you get to late game and have tech upgrades that give units more HP and unlock promotions that increases the HP percentage boost given by generals beyond 160%, generals do get quite beefy and more so than in WC3.
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Oct 24, 2017 4:35:52 GMT
Conquest in this game is ridiculous. I try to be aggressive, doesn't work. I bide my time, doesn't work which usually ends up in my allies being totally overrun and leaving me fending off hordes of enemies. I used ROC, took out Japan with no real problems, had over a $1000 of income at my disposal. But by that point all my allies in Europe and Africa were defeated and the enemies swarmed me. I eventually got to Moscow but couldn't move further. I decided to rack up technology etc to use missiles and paratroop into Stalingrad and Kiev to relieve the forces further west and at Moscow but it was no use. America wasn't really doing anything so I felt I had no backup. Ridiculous difficulty. I also feel my generals aren't as beefy as they were in WC3. From what I can tell, general's add hp based on percentage now. So if you have Guderian at max rank (160%) and put him on a unit with 100 health, he only gives that unit 60 extra health. Way less beefy than WC3 But you also have to factor in the increased health of stacked units. You usually aren’t putting a general in a unit with 100 HP. A triple stacked tank has a ton of HP, so the percentage bonus is very big. Even at lower tech levels, a triple stacked tank has enough HP that the bonus from a general is higher than it was in WC3. The better your tech gets and the higher rank your general has, the more it becomes noticeable. With max tech, marshal rank and red promotion, a tank general can get 500 bonus HP and 1,000 overall HP. Naval generals can go over 1,600 HP in stacked cruisers, 800-plus from general bonus. That is quite a bit more than the 280 you got as a marshal in WC3. The percentage bonus is tough on artillery generals.
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Oct 24, 2017 20:46:29 GMT
From what I can tell, general's add hp based on percentage now. So if you have Guderian at max rank (160%) and put him on a unit with 100 health, he only gives that unit 60 extra health. Way less beefy than WC3 But you also have to factor in the increased health of stacked units. You usually aren’t putting a general in a unit with 100 HP. A triple stacked tank has a ton of HP, so the percentage bonus is very big. Even at lower tech levels, a triple stacked tank has enough HP that the bonus from a general is higher than it was in WC3. The better your tech gets and the higher rank your general has, the more it becomes noticeable. With max tech, marshal rank and red promotion, a tank general can get 500 bonus HP and 1,000 overall HP. Naval generals can go over 1,600 HP in stacked cruisers, 800-plus from general bonus. That is quite a bit more than the 280 you got as a marshal in WC3. The percentage bonus is tough on artillery generals. Well yes of course the higher the unit the bigger the health gain will be. I used 100 hp to make the math simple.
|
|