|
|
Post by panzerkampfwagen on Jul 19, 2018 18:04:15 GMT
I have Napoleon, Blucher, Murat, Kutuzov, Washington, and Bismark. (And the three free generals) is Wellesley worth buying?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jul 19, 2018 18:16:04 GMT
I have Napoleon, Blucher, Murat, Kutuzov, Washington, and Bismark. (And the three free generals) is Wellesley worth buying? Wellesley can be easily substituted with Karl or Massena. I would recommend you buy one of those two as your next general. |
|
|
|
Post by Kutuzov on Jul 19, 2018 18:45:10 GMT
I have Napoleon, Blucher, Murat, Kutuzov, Washington, and Bismark. (And the three free generals) is Wellesley worth buying? Yeah I have him too. He is the most useless general on the team. Lannes is much better than him as he has all of the perks that make wellesley good in addition to tunnel. Lannes is so much better too as he has plain fighting rather than mountain warfare which is much easier to use. Plus if you simply wanted to get a general to give the mountain warfare medal to, Garibaldi is also much better than Wellesley. Save your money, you won’t regret it. |
|
|
|
Post by Kutuzov on Jul 19, 2018 18:48:09 GMT
I have Napoleon, Blucher, Murat, Kutuzov, Washington, and Bismark. (And the three free generals) is Wellesley worth buying? Yeah I have him too. He is the most useless general on the team. Lannes is much better than him as he has all of the perks that make wellesley good in addition to tunnel. Lannes is so much better too as he has plain fighting rather than mountain warfare which is much easier to use. Plus if you simply wanted to get a general to give the mountain warfare medal to, Garibaldi is also much better than Wellesley. Save your money, you won’t regret it. Or you can even get Suvorov for the mountain fighting medal who has no bad skills and can be extremely versatile. Point is Wellesley is not recommended. |
|
|
|
Post by panzerkampfwagen on Jul 20, 2018 0:51:16 GMT
Yeah I have him too. He is the most useless general on the team. Lannes is much better than him as he has all of the perks that make wellesley good in addition to tunnel. Lannes is so much better too as he has plain fighting rather than mountain warfare which is much easier to use. Plus if you simply wanted to get a general to give the mountain warfare medal to, Garibaldi is also much better than Wellesley. Save your money, you won’t regret it. Or you can even get Suvorov for the mountain fighting medal who has no bad skills and can be extremely versatile. Point is Wellesley is not recommended. Thanks. Glad I asked before buying. |
|
|
|
Post by panzerkampfwagen on Jul 20, 2018 1:38:35 GMT
I have Napoleon, Blucher, Murat, Kutuzov, Washington, and Bismark. (And the three free generals) is Wellesley worth buying? Wellesley can be easily substituted with Karl or Massena. I would recommend you buy one of those two as your next general. Would you recommend Nelson? Since I don't have a Navy general other than Falsen, whom I found quite useless |
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Jul 20, 2018 2:41:01 GMT
Wellesley can be easily substituted with Karl or Massena. I would recommend you buy one of those two as your next general. Would you recommend Nelson? Since I don't have a Navy general other than Falsen, whom I found quite useless Not really. I havent encountered any problems in the naval missions so far (midway through the British campaign) and I doubt the future ones will be much harder. I agree that Falsen is useless though. |
|
|
|
Post by Kutuzov on Jul 20, 2018 3:15:13 GMT
Wellesley can be easily substituted with Karl or Massena. I would recommend you buy one of those two as your next general. Would you recommend Nelson? Since I don't have a Navy general other than Falsen, whom I found quite useless As someone who personally has Nelson, I would have to say yes. He is really really powerful as he has power attack in addition to a chance to attack twice, which is completely disastrous to the common troops going to take a little swim. However, make sure that your team is really strong before you purchase him. However, I would recommend having either him or Treville, who is capable of everything Nelson is except doesn’t have the damage reduction perk and can only reach prince. I would use Treville until you got a surplus of medals to the point where you can replace Treville with Nelson. |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Walpole on Jul 20, 2018 4:16:13 GMT
As someone who mains Wellesley because Karl dies easily for some reason this thread makes me sad
|
|
|
|
Post by Kutuzov on Jul 20, 2018 4:20:33 GMT
As someone who mains Wellesley because Karl dies easily for some reason this thread makes me sad [b I agree, but if you have healing items (7 total) that stops being an issue. I usually give the 30 hp to my cav gens, 20 hp to infantry (excluding Wellesley cuz he sux), and the other 3 10 hp items to my artillery generals and Wellesley or Nelson depending on the situation. I found that Lannes almost always outdoes wellesley in terms of output. But the 8 dollars for Wellesley plus 1000 medals was worth the purchase for me. |
|
|
|
Post by best75 on Jul 20, 2018 4:33:27 GMT
Wellesley can be easily substituted with Karl or Massena. I would recommend you buy one of those two as your next general. Would you recommend Nelson? Since I don't have a Navy general other than Falsen, whom I found quite useless A navy general isn't necessarily to complete the game. I completed all the campaigns with 3 stars and I didn't buy a navy general. I really recommend you focus on land generals as they are more important for beating the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich on Jul 20, 2018 15:44:45 GMT
I'm fed up with Falsen, sometimes in missions you have a red point near the water or it's a port that need to clear and that time I wish to have Nelson or Hood or Treville or Jervis... ahhh... I'm gettin mad with that f..kin Falsen
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jul 20, 2018 16:19:31 GMT
I'm fed up with Falsen, sometimes in missions you have a red point near the water or it's a port that need to clear and that time I wish to have Nelson or Hood or Treville or Jervis... ahhh... I'm gettin mad with that f..kin Falsen Btw, in 1812 conquests Falsen is very powerful. Just upgrade all of his skills, promote him to the Marshal rank and give him an Ambulance... That was a joke  . Seriously, we can't gain something without to loose something. We can only use 6 generals in campaigns. That means you are tempted now to hire a general who is useless 90% of the time. And there is always a possibility to replace him in naval missions. |
|
|
|
Post by Kutuzov on Jul 20, 2018 17:29:44 GMT
I'm fed up with Falsen, sometimes in missions you have a red point near the water or it's a port that need to clear and that time I wish to have Nelson or Hood or Treville or Jervis... ahhh... I'm gettin mad with that f..kin Falsen Btw, in 1812 conquests Falsen is very powerful. Just upgrade all of his skills, promote him to the Marshal rank and give him an Ambulance... That was a joke . Seriously, we can't gain something without to loose something. We can only use 6 generals in campaigns. That means you are tempted now to hire a general who is useless 90% of the time. And there is always a possibility to replace him in naval missions. I found Nelson to be extremely useful in conquests even without a healing item as 8 generals are allowed to be used. For example if I am playing as the Russians, I might send him to help the Sweds beat the Danes. And he has limited uses in campaigns sometimes. But I see what you are saying, he is someone you can beat the game without. Still he isn’t the worst purchase ever, as there are often ships in campaign missions you can use, and he can help out provided that your 6 general slots aren’t taken up by better generals. Plus he wrecks land units once they get in the water due to his double attack skill. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jul 20, 2018 20:29:55 GMT
Btw, in 1812 conquests Falsen is very powerful. Just upgrade all of his skills, promote him to the Marshal rank and give him an Ambulance... That was a joke . Seriously, we can't gain something without to loose something. We can only use 6 generals in campaigns. That means you are tempted now to hire a general who is useless 90% of the time. And there is always a possibility to replace him in naval missions. I found Nelson to be extremely useful in conquests even without a healing item as 8 generals are allowed to be used. For example if I am playing as the Russians, I might send him to help the Sweds beat the Danes. And he has limited uses in campaigns sometimes. But I see what you are saying, he is someone you can beat the game without. Still he isn’t the worst purchase ever, as there are often ships in campaign missions you can use, and he can help out provided that your 6 general slots aren’t taken up by better generals. Plus he wrecks land units once they get in the water due to his double attack skill. Well, perhaps I have to clarify my point. I agree that Nelson or some other Admirals can be useful. But: 1. They are quite expensive. And though it is possible to farm medals as often as you like it, it is better to upgrade your land generals (or to save for another one) than to invest your medals into the Navy. 2. In all campaigns there are only several missions when you fight in the see. Moreover even in those missions Admirals are not indispensable and can be replaced by land generals. But I can hardly imagine that Admirals can replace land generals when we are fighting on land. 3. The same we can say about challenges. I simply can't remember a mission there when an Admiral could be more useful than a good land general. There is an irony that in some missions when we might need them, we are not allowed to use them if we want to receive 3 stars. 4. They may make our life easier in conquests, no doubt about that. But conquests are not the most difficult part of the game, and again it is more than possible to complete them without any admiral. Good Navy generals like Nelson are useful, but nothing is good or bad but by comparison. And good Admirals loose competition to good generals in EW6, imo... |
|
. Seriously, we can't gain something without to loose something. We can only use 6 generals in campaigns. That means you are tempted now to hire a general who is useless 90% of the time. And there is always a possibility to replace him in naval missions. 
