|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 12, 2020 3:42:33 GMT
Additionally, I can choose to substantiate the point about ace forces being more useful on cruisers, since it boosts through percentage, and cruisers have more health than submarines, so they can benefit more. Like I said, it is pretty much a free space. You can add any skill you like there, it won't help that much either (I'm planning to add a new skill when I'm already super rich). But about the ace forces, here is my theory. We rarely get any submarines from the start of a mission/conquest. Submarines can only attack once/turn whilst cruisers get many hits (not only from the seas but also from the ground), therefore they gain rank promotions much faster than submarines. From beginning you usually get a high-ranked cruisers so there is no need for ace forces. And what are its uses on cruisers? Cruisers are basically sea panzers in naval battles and coastal-fort destroyers. You usually make 3 stacked submarine in port and assign a general on it. Therefore ace forces is useful under the circumstances, plus they only attack once/turn (which make them slow to get rank promotions). When you make submarines in the first place, what are your expectations? You want it to destroy large battleships and carriers fast right? That's it! With ace forces your submarine will level up quick and ready to destroy enemy cruisers and carriers in a blink an eye (don't forget submarine attacks are twice as hard when attacking cruisers and carriers). You may already know but each rank promotion gives you +20 hp, +2 def, +4 atk. So 5 ranking submarines get a damage boost of 20 (twice to large ships-> 20×2=40). 40 damage plus? That's huge.. But Navy is the most flexible things to me. As long as it works, as long as you can transport ground units effectively, destroy coastal-forts, and destroy enemy reinforcements in the sea, it is okay. Cruiser and submarine generals are flexible to me, they are not much different either as they come from the same branch (Navy). If you want to custom your navy generals, go ahead, I am just sharing my understanding about naval battles. oops yes not percentage but flat rate. Wolfpack probably matters more in subs, but it goes down to individual style and doctrine as well. I prefer task forces that accompany my generals in their objectives, thus I would find a wolfpack submarine more useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 12, 2020 4:11:38 GMT
Like I said, it is pretty much a free space. You can add any skill you like there, it won't help that much either (I'm planning to add a new skill when I'm already super rich). But about the ace forces, here is my theory. We rarely get any submarines from the start of a mission/conquest. Submarines can only attack once/turn whilst cruisers get many hits (not only from the seas but also from the ground), therefore they gain rank promotions much faster than submarines. From beginning you usually get a high-ranked cruisers so there is no need for ace forces. And what are its uses on cruisers? Cruisers are basically sea panzers in naval battles and coastal-fort destroyers. You usually make 3 stacked submarine in port and assign a general on it. Therefore ace forces is useful under the circumstances, plus they only attack once/turn (which make them slow to get rank promotions). When you make submarines in the first place, what are your expectations? You want it to destroy large battleships and carriers fast right? That's it! With ace forces your submarine will level up quick and ready to destroy enemy cruisers and carriers in a blink an eye (don't forget submarine attacks are twice as hard when attacking cruisers and carriers). You may already know but each rank promotion gives you +20 hp, +2 def, +4 atk. So 5 ranking submarines get a damage boost of 20 (twice to large ships-> 20×2=40). 40 damage plus? That's huge.. But Navy is the most flexible things to me. As long as it works, as long as you can transport ground units effectively, destroy coastal-forts, and destroy enemy reinforcements in the sea, it is okay. Cruiser and submarine generals are flexible to me, they are not much different either as they come from the same branch (Navy). If you want to custom your navy generals, go ahead, I am just sharing my understanding about naval battles. oops yes not percentage but flat rate. Wolfpack probably matters more in subs, but it goes down to individual style and doctrine as well. I prefer task forces that accompany my generals in their objectives, thus I would find a wolfpack submarine more useful. Btw, you can give wolfpack to Nimitz too (if you can afford to), in the end there will be no much differences between cruiser and submarine generals |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 12, 2020 6:11:13 GMT
oops yes not percentage but flat rate. Wolfpack probably matters more in subs, but it goes down to individual style and doctrine as well. I prefer task forces that accompany my generals in their objectives, thus I would find a wolfpack submarine more useful. Btw, you can give wolfpack to Nimitz too (if you can afford to), in the end there will be no much differences between cruiser and submarine generals Nah, it would have been a waste of skill slots. No matter what Nimitz needs rumor and explosives if I want to make full use of Donitz as a sub gen(his wolpack cant be replaced unlike ew6:1914) |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 12, 2020 6:31:14 GMT
Btw, you can give wolfpack to Nimitz too (if you can afford to), in the end there will be no much differences between cruiser and submarine generals Nah, it would have been a waste of skill slots. No matter what Nimitz needs rumor and explosives if I want to make full use of Donitz as a sub gen(his wolpack cant be replaced unlike ew6:1914) If you don't give wolfpack on Nimitz, I think he would be inferior to Mountbatten. The reason to buy Nimitz is because he has 1 empty slot so you can add wolfpack and he can compete with Doenitz. But after all navies aren't that important and you can live without them in most circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 12, 2020 6:40:41 GMT
Nah, it would have been a waste of skill slots. No matter what Nimitz needs rumor and explosives if I want to make full use of Donitz as a sub gen(his wolpack cant be replaced unlike ew6:1914) If you don't give wolfpack on Nimitz, I think he would be inferior to Mountbatten. The reason to buy Nimitz is because he has 1 empty slot so you can add wolfpack and he can compete with Doenitz. But after all navies aren't that important and you can live without them in most circumstances. Mountbatten? He couldnt hold a candle to Nimitz hahaha. Naval generals must have rumor, without a doubt. If you give Mountbatten rumor, and he obviously will be a cruiser gen, where are the explosives? Are you really going to solely use cruisers for blasting carriers/destroyers? Nimitz on the other hand, rules the seas with explosives and rumor, hands down. I cannot guarantee he is the best, but certainly he outclasses Mountbatten on many levels, price wise as well. Your last point is true, you just need one solid naval gen for invasions, and the other guy can be as fancy or exotic as you want. I would prefer the optimum set of generals tho |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 12, 2020 6:58:46 GMT
If you don't give wolfpack on Nimitz, I think he would be inferior to Mountbatten. The reason to buy Nimitz is because he has 1 empty slot so you can add wolfpack and he can compete with Doenitz. But after all navies aren't that important and you can live without them in most circumstances. Mountbatten? He couldnt hold a candle to Nimitz hahaha. Naval generals must have rumor, without a doubt. If you give Mountbatten rumor, and he obviously will be a cruiser gen, where are the explosives? Are you really going to solely use cruisers for blasting carriers/destroyers? Nimitz on the other hand, rules the seas with explosives and rumor, hands down. I cannot guarantee he is the best, but certainly he outclasses Mountbatten on many levels, price wise as well. Your last point is true, you just need one solid naval gen for invasions, and the other guy can be as fancy or exotic as you want. I would prefer the optimum set of generals tho To me personally, I don't use cruisers specifically for fort-cracking purposes but more to the role of destorying naval threats and wiping out MASSIVE navy spams on sea (especially in 1950 pacific) while escorting my ground troops safely. So explosives on cruisers are not my first option as cruisers already deal huge damages to forts (especially if you have several cruisers). I bet one cruiser is better to assist Nimitz to do fort-cracking than giving explosives to Nimitz. While I want to make my cruiser general feel like 10 cruisers to the enemy (tough and hits hard when attacked). |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 12, 2020 8:04:16 GMT
Mountbatten? He couldnt hold a candle to Nimitz hahaha. Naval generals must have rumor, without a doubt. If you give Mountbatten rumor, and he obviously will be a cruiser gen, where are the explosives? Are you really going to solely use cruisers for blasting carriers/destroyers? Nimitz on the other hand, rules the seas with explosives and rumor, hands down. I cannot guarantee he is the best, but certainly he outclasses Mountbatten on many levels, price wise as well. Your last point is true, you just need one solid naval gen for invasions, and the other guy can be as fancy or exotic as you want. I would prefer the optimum set of generals tho To me personally, I don't use cruisers specifically for fort-cracking purposes but more to the role of destorying naval threats and wiping out MASSIVE navy spams on sea (especially in 1950 pacific) while escorting my ground troops safely. So explosives on cruisers are not my first option as cruisers already deal huge damages to forts (especially if you have several cruisers). I bet one cruiser is better to assist Nimitz to do fort-cracking than giving explosives to Nimitz. While I want to make my cruiser general feel like 10 cruisers to the enemy (tough and hits hard when attacked). haha, conversely I use submarine fleets for that. Cheaper to maintain and grow in size. I value Nimitz's explosives as resources dont come in handy in the early stages of some conquests. This boils down to the fundamental use of generals, speeding up the game and making it easier in the absence of better units and sufficient resources. With Nimitz I can easily steal major cities should the need and circumstance arise, and benefits early from the income boost. |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 12, 2020 8:28:02 GMT
To me personally, I don't use cruisers specifically for fort-cracking purposes but more to the role of destorying naval threats and wiping out MASSIVE navy spams on sea (especially in 1950 pacific) while escorting my ground troops safely. So explosives on cruisers are not my first option as cruisers already deal huge damages to forts (especially if you have several cruisers). I bet one cruiser is better to assist Nimitz to do fort-cracking than giving explosives to Nimitz. While I want to make my cruiser general feel like 10 cruisers to the enemy (tough and hits hard when attacked). haha, conversely I use submarine fleets for that. Cheaper to maintain and grow in size. I value Nimitz's explosives as resources dont come in handy in the early stages of some conquests. This boils down to the fundamental use of generals, speeding up the game and making it easier in the absence of better units and sufficient resources. With Nimitz I can easily steal major cities should the need and circumstance arise, and benefits early from the income boost. Well, that's great! But I don't want to limit my cruiser for fort-cracking only. I might use Yamamoto for that specific purpose. After all Yamamoto has much more potentials than you probably know. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 12, 2020 8:58:49 GMT
haha, conversely I use submarine fleets for that. Cheaper to maintain and grow in size. I value Nimitz's explosives as resources dont come in handy in the early stages of some conquests. This boils down to the fundamental use of generals, speeding up the game and making it easier in the absence of better units and sufficient resources. With Nimitz I can easily steal major cities should the need and circumstance arise, and benefits early from the income boost. Well, that's great! But I don't want to limit my cruiser for fort-cracking only. I might use Yamamoto for that specific purpose. After all Yamamoto has much more potentials than you probably know. he's even more expensive than usual comparative cases haha, one Guderian price wise is already enough of a toll |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 12, 2020 9:12:41 GMT
Well, that's great! But I don't want to limit my cruiser for fort-cracking only. I might use Yamamoto for that specific purpose. After all Yamamoto has much more potentials than you probably know. he's even more expensive than usual comparative cases haha, one Guderian price wise is already enough of a toll But he is not only navy or air force. I will review him later. |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 12, 2020 9:31:24 GMT
he's even more expensive than usual comparative cases haha, one Guderian price wise is already enough of a toll But he is not only navy or air force. I will review him later. true, some players use him for land artillery support. I feel thats pretty much a waste tho haha |
|
|
|
Post by Sun Li-jen of the Glorious RoC on Apr 12, 2020 9:32:54 GMT
But he is not only navy or air force. I will review him later. true, some players use him for land artillery support. I feel thats pretty much a waste tho haha Not only that either |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 12, 2020 9:34:42 GMT
true, some players use him for land artillery support. I feel thats pretty much a waste tho haha Not only that either really? Thats strange, wonder what else you can use him for without making it seemed forced and more arbitrary than beneficial |
|
|
|
Post by jibon on Apr 12, 2020 10:10:45 GMT
Both of you have different strategy and battle style. So, I consider to create another poll: How to destroy forts? a. Air Bombing from Yamamoto on Carrier b. Direct attack from Nimitz on Cruiser c. Nope, let the forts still there. Our goals is to capture the cities.  |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Apr 12, 2020 10:26:35 GMT
Both of you have different strategy and battle style. So, I consider to create another poll: How to destroy forts? a. Air Bombing from Yamamoto on Carrier b. Direct attack from Nimitz on Cruiser c. Nope, let the forts still there. Our goals is to capture the cities. C. If I have no units near them why should I worry about forts? LOL |
|
