|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Nov 15, 2015 23:51:39 GMT
Hey Erich von Manstein why don't you ask the Chinese forum whether they think Lannes or Suvorov is better? It's nice to get multiple opinions. Suvorov is balance, normally stronger than Lannes, but Lannes can do SL to keep making highest damage. And Lannes can also strike into enemies and surround them, which Suvorov cannot. But both of them have useless skills(Geography for Lannes, IT for Suvorov). And you can try Victoria, no useless skills. |
|
|
|
Post by saltin on Nov 16, 2015 6:24:55 GMT
I purchased both Lannes and Suvorov ( no need for 2 infantry generals,I just wanted both) and enjoy alternating between the two,although Suvorov is the one I pick more often than not.
Problem with Victoria is that by the time you are able to get her you really don't need her then and if you did you wouldn't get much mileage out of her since it would be the end game already. She is not a practical infantry option for most players imo even though she is the best infantry general.
|
|
|
|
Post by kanue on Nov 16, 2015 8:00:29 GMT
Problem with Victoria is that by the time you able to get her you really don't need her then and if you did you wouldn't get much mileage out of her since it would be the end game already. She is not a practical infantry option for most players imo even though she is the best infantry general. This is so true and it also pretty much the same for Lan. I used Sakuarko as my only cavalry general till the end of campaign. I used Lan for my revenge on campaign missions that I previously did poorly. |
|
|
|
Post by slendy on Nov 16, 2015 8:57:31 GMT
Waiting for Scharnhorst, just bought him. And when Berthier becomes an artillery general? Isn't he the best cavalry in Tier-2 zone? Washington should be a good one to stay in the city. And last question, any problem with my style? Just tell me. trust me mate gotlysin is the best t2 cav general |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Nov 16, 2015 9:32:28 GMT
Hey Erich von Manstein why don't you ask the Chinese forum whether they think Lannes or Suvorov is better? It's nice to get multiple opinions. Suvorov is balance, normally stronger than Lannes, but Lannes can do SL to keep making highest damage. And Lannes can also strike into enemies and surround them, which Suvorov cannot. But both of them have useless skills(Geography for Lannes, IT for Suvorov). And you can try Victoria, no useless skills. Hmmm.. And again I see no logic. I can only see the preferences to this or that general in such an opinion. When You are speaking about Bertier - there is no problem to invest 3600 medals to train him. But comparing Lannes and Suvorov You are not anticipating the possibility to train Suvorov's movement. Personally I did it - my Suvorov has 5 stars in movement and there is no any problem with surrounding the enemy. "Useless" Infantry tactics... I think kanue explained that such an opinion is a little bit superficial. You may not need higher max damage, but You will always need higher min damage. It is very important skill. I can't even imagine how could anybody call it useless. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Nov 16, 2015 10:58:59 GMT
Hmmm.. And again I see no logic. I can only see the preferences to this or that general in such an opinion. When You are speaking about Bertier - there is no problem to invest 3600 medals to train him. But comparing Lannes and Suvorov You are not anticipating the possibility to train Suvorov's movement. Personally I did it - my Suvorov has 5 stars in movement and there is no any problem with surrounding the enemy. "Useless" Infantry tactics... I think kanue explained that such an opinion is a little bit superficial. You may not need higher max damage, but You will always need higher min damage. It is very important skill. I can't even imagine how could anybody call it useless. Well, compare to Lannes, Suvorov's disadvantage is that he does not have Leadership, so his morale will drop. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich von Manstein on Nov 16, 2015 10:59:19 GMT
Waiting for Scharnhorst, just bought him. And when Berthier becomes an artillery general? Isn't he the best cavalry in Tier-2 zone? Washington should be a good one to stay in the city. And last question, any problem with my style? Just tell me. trust me mate gotlysin is the best t2 cav general If you are not regrouping yes, but if you do, Berthier. |
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Nov 16, 2015 12:57:56 GMT
Hmmm.. And again I see no logic. I can only see the preferences to this or that general in such an opinion. When You are speaking about Bertier - there is no problem to invest 3600 medals to train him. But comparing Lannes and Suvorov You are not anticipating the possibility to train Suvorov's movement. Personally I did it - my Suvorov has 5 stars in movement and there is no any problem with surrounding the enemy. "Useless" Infantry tactics... I think kanue explained that such an opinion is a little bit superficial. You may not need higher max damage, but You will always need higher min damage. It is very important skill. I can't even imagine how could anybody call it useless. Well, compare to Lannes, Suvorov's disadvantage is that he does not have Leadership, so his morale will drop. As kanue said, AI is not smart enough to flank enemy units. Besides, only cavalry and ships need Leadership, you aren't going to drop your infantry behind enemy Lines. In my opinion, Infantry and Artillery weaken enemy positions after which cavalry destroys the unit and moves behind enemy Lines to attack important units from behind. It's called "Deep Battle" , a Soviet militairy tactic |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Nov 16, 2015 13:53:44 GMT
I only use infantry to guard cities because they are expendable or to guard my artillery gods. Suvorov is working great for that. I'm actually starting to just send him in the action and watch the AI kill themselves when they attack him  |
|
|
|
Post by saltin on Nov 16, 2015 15:05:37 GMT
We don't agree on the worth of the generals because we don't agree on the value on the skills.
We don't agree on the value of the skills because some of the skills are not understood in great details.For example take the series of skill that add either minimum damage of 1 or add max damage of 1,in theory these look pretty good,but what exactly is the effect of that on overall damage? No clue..we haven't tested.
What about + damage items? if these items are worth the same value as skills I could put two +6 guns and have 12 times the add from a single damage skill? Does it even compare? If it does then getting the damage from items would be better than getting it from these skills,in that way save the skills for more practical abilities like speed march and leadership.
|
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Nov 16, 2015 19:21:38 GMT
Cheap trainers have been added to the analysis. Of course I can say "you should upgrade this and that general because then he becomes a beast", but if you don't know cheap trainers, it's pretty useless to buy them
|
|
|
|
Post by Suvorov on Nov 16, 2015 19:23:32 GMT
I just remembered that I should've given each general their own post. I would have become Darth Vader in no time  |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Nov 17, 2015 9:33:29 GMT
I just remembered that I should've given each general their own post. I would have become Darth Vader in no time anyways your next rank IS the darth so be happy  |
|
|
|
Post by lasalle on Nov 18, 2015 3:50:04 GMT
I say Lasalle is better than Murat. also Napoleon and Survorov are best at artillery and infantry while Nelson is best at navy
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Nov 18, 2015 9:37:50 GMT
I say Lasalle is better than Murat. also Napoleon and Survorov are best at artillery and infantry while Nelson is best at navy wow, now we have two lassalle's on this forum |
|
