|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jan 4, 2019 15:12:31 GMT
I agree with stoic. In the crimean war, infantry is meh. Plus it is in fact not allowed to be used in many missions. I would beat as far as you can without a navy in Ew6 then hire one and finish the rest. Three artillery generals is very useful. They are the only types of units that typically don’t take damage via retaliation. They are also more helpful than infantry in my opinion as the damage difference between the two is not as significant as you would think. 3 cav 3 art 2 inf is what I’d recommend. Thanks to both of you for the info! For The game in general, should I stick to the normal 3-2-2-1 or 3-3-2 setup? I'll change it up once I reach Crimea. You can only use 6 good generals to beat the campaign up to Italian Reunification. I didn’t use any navy generals for it personally. I used Karl, Massena, Blucher, Murat, Napoleon, Alexander, but you just as easily do it without iaps. I’d probably say to swap Blucher with Dabrowski and Napoleon with Mahmud II (or John). For conquest, you don’t really need that many generals for it either. I’d say to go for a 2-2-2 lineup first than for a 3-3-2 |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jan 4, 2019 15:42:33 GMT
You can only use 6 good generals to beat the campaign up to Italian Reunification. I didn’t use any navy generals for it personally. I used Karl, Massena, Blucher, Murat, Napoleon, Alexander, but you just as easily do it without iaps. I’d probably say to swap Blucher with Dabrowski and Napoleon with Mahmud II (or John). For conquest, you don’t really need that many generals for it either. I’d say to go for a 2-2-2 lineup first than for a 3-3-2 An excellent idea indeed. 6 generals are top priority. And only after reaching difficult missions in the Challenge mod it is reasonable to hire the rest... |
|
|
|
Post by Cyrus the Great on Jan 4, 2019 16:36:09 GMT
You can only use 6 good generals to beat the campaign up to Italian Reunification. I didn’t use any navy generals for it personally. I used Karl, Massena, Blucher, Murat, Napoleon, Alexander, but you just as easily do it without iaps. I’d probably say to swap Blucher with Dabrowski and Napoleon with Mahmud II (or John). For conquest, you don’t really need that many generals for it either. I’d say to go for a 2-2-2 lineup first than for a 3-3-2 Personally, I prefer Davout over Dabrowski. Ney is a good general early on but after a while replace him with Davout. I don't like Dabrowski since his highest title is Duke. I wish It was king. But if I wanna play with Winged Hussars I'll get Dabrowski. |
|
|
|
Post by silvercreek on Jan 10, 2019 7:23:07 GMT
How did this thread go from Alex to an Davout and Dumbroski Cavalry slant?
Focus on OT people!(:
Anyway,I give Alexander decent rate he is good midterm but others are better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jan 10, 2019 13:04:35 GMT
You can only use 6 good generals to beat the campaign up to Italian Reunification. I didn’t use any navy generals for it personally. I used Karl, Massena, Blucher, Murat, Napoleon, Alexander, but you just as easily do it without iaps. I’d probably say to swap Blucher with Dabrowski and Napoleon with Mahmud II (or John). For conquest, you don’t really need that many generals for it either. I’d say to go for a 2-2-2 lineup first than for a 3-3-2 Personally, I prefer Davout over Dabrowski. Ney is a good general early on but after a while replace him with Davout. I don't like Dabrowski since his highest title is Duke. I wish It was king. But if I wanna play with Winged Hussars I'll get Dabrowski. If you give Dabrowski prussian helmet his defense shouldn’t be too much of an issue. He is easy to use as well. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jan 10, 2019 13:57:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cyrus the Great on Jan 10, 2019 23:59:23 GMT
Problem with only there being duke for Dabrowski is he can't get all lvl 5 skills. He just misses the 3 grid aura. I would only get him as a second cavalry aura (and I don't have Blucher), as Murat is only a few hundred more medals and can provide much more. Alexander I'm definently getting, There has to be at least a second aura for Mahmud II. The desert fighting is quite situational but if you didn't do expedition to Egypt and you have Mahmud II then it's pretty good.
EDIT: ok second aura for cavalry is definently great. I probably might get Dabrowski mid-late game. For 3rd cavalry I'll probably get Davout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Jan 11, 2019 1:46:14 GMT
Problem with only there being duke for Dabrowski is he can't get all lvl 5 skills. He just misses the 3 grid aura. I would only get him as a second cavalry aura (and I don't have Blucher), as Murat is only a few hundred more medals and can provide much more. Alexander I'm definently getting, There has to be at least a second aura for Mahmud II. The desert fighting is quite situational but if you didn't do expedition to Egypt and you have Mahmud II then it's pretty good. EDIT: ok second aura for cavalry is definently great. I probably might get Dabrowski mid-late game. For 3rd cavalry I'll probably get Davout. Sounds like a good plan. GL. Dabrowski with lvl 5 aura with medal is adequate as cavarly is not really the kind of unit you are going to spam. For that reason, most of your cavarly generals will stick together so 2 ranged aura is acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 8, 2019 12:30:37 GMT
Gone If you need another cheap but end game type general who is good, Alexander I is also quite great. Many of us like stoic and myself used him to beat really far into the game. He actually has great skills, but is slightly hindered by his poor artillery ability.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gone on Aug 8, 2019 19:33:32 GMT
Gone If you need another cheap but end game type general who is good, Alexander I is also quite great. Many of us like stoic and myself used him to beat really far into the game. He actually has great skills, but is slightly hindered by his poor artillery ability. So he’s like Arnold? Poor ability but awesome skills? And good HP? |
|
|
|
Post by silvercreek on Aug 12, 2019 1:45:45 GMT
Gone If you need another cheap but end game type general who is good, Alexander I is also quite great. Many of us like stoic and myself used him to beat really far into the game. He actually has great skills, but is slightly hindered by his poor artillery ability. So he’s like Arnold? Poor ability but awesome skills? And good HP? Not at all. We talking about two totally different generals,one artillery the other infranty. I think you are confusing yourself, as I don't think Arnold is even represented in ew6,,ew4 yes. Alexander has aura and good skills and would be a better than Mahmud imo, (or get them both) and consider John at a discount also,if you aren't going to buy Napoleon. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 12, 2019 3:06:47 GMT
So he’s like Arnold? Poor ability but awesome skills? And good HP? Not at all. We talking about two totally different generals,one artillery the other infranty. I think you are confusing yourself, as I don't think Arnold is even represented in ew6,,ew4 yes. Alexander has aura and good skills and would be a better than Mahmud imo, (or get them both) and consider John at a discount also,if you aren't going to buy Napoleon. He means Arnold as in Henry Arnold during ww2 in wc4 : ) Not the Benedict Arnold from ew4. But both are quite good. Alexander is not better than Mahmud imo as his general ability is weakened. Mahmud II has the crit skill on alexander, but loses mountain to desert fighting. Mahmud offers tactical advantages to Alexander as mf will not be active the majority of the time. I agree, its up to debate though. The difference is very small. Probably the ideal build early on would be Murat (Plain Fighting), Dabrowski (Cav Commander) Karl (20% Crit Medal), Massena (Infantry Master) John (Jungle Fighting Medal), Mahmud II (10% crit medal or Artillery Expert), and or Alexander (Mountain Fighting Medal or Artillery Expert Medal) {pick 2 of the 3} The price difference between mahmud and alexander is pretty negligible so its really up to what you want. You would not be wrong to get both or both and john. |
|
|
|
Post by silvercreek on Aug 12, 2019 19:14:56 GMT
  In comparison they are simular, both can reach emperor,have good skills, except Mahmud has very good AA to start with,but with upgrade Alex could catch up and perhaps exceed that ability,this will of course cost medals,look Alex is 1/3 cheaper than Mahmud this is an important factor. Alex has mountain fighting,Mahmud desert, there many mountains tiles than desert. Alex also has better BA than Mahmud,so, I call it draw,you won't go wrong with either one. One has to decide which one to go with,then add John at discount as you really need only 2 artillery generals. Also,one should remember artillery is used mainly for reducing fortifications and coastal defence not attacking land units. I did this comparison,more for me to learn, as I have neither one 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 12, 2019 20:51:41 GMT
In comparison they are simular, both can reach emperor,have good skills, except Mahmud has very good AA to start with,but with upgrade Alex could catch up and perhaps exceed that ability,this will of course cost medals,look Alex is 1/3 cheaper than Mahmud this is an important factor. Alex has mountain fighting,Mahmud desert, there many mountains tiles than desert. Alex also has better BA than Mahmud,so, I call it draw,you won't go wrong with either one. One has to decide which one to go with,then add John at discount as you really need only 2 artillery generals. Also,one should remember artillery is used mainly for reducing fortifications and coastal defence not attacking land units. I did this comparison,more for me to learn, as I have neither one 😁 Fair fair points fair points. The price difference may seem like a big deal but really its 370 medals, less than 8 times farming the netherlands. The real cost is in upgrading their skills. They are both rocket artilery generals as they lack skills such as “counterattack” or “storm fortifications” to be used on siege artillery (although you certainly can and are encouraged to). In my opinion, the extra 5% damage mahmud deals on artillery coupled with the additional 10% chance to do critical hits (one of my favorite skills) is enough to make mahmud a viable alternative. But alexander would arguably go better with john as if you can find jungle-mountain tiles, you can find a mountain tile. |
|
|
|
Post by silvercreek on Aug 12, 2019 21:24:16 GMT
Friedrich “Fried Rice” PaulusSo in summary, we agree on most points,both are good non IAP's. Mahmud is better right out of the start,but his terrain skill is useless in Europe, and Alex needs time to improve his AA. John is superb as a second art gen. I would suggest buying Napoleon(if you are serious about completing the game)as he trumps them all,but not necessary. One great aspect of this game is you don't have to buy any IAP's😀.
|
|
