|
|
Post by andrei on Jun 24, 2019 18:03:25 GMT
I have 6 cav gens. Bringing them all to the field in conquest more or less reasonably fast is a challenge. For some conquest - sure. Not applicable for most of the countries though. And You normally are given good ranked infantry units. So having inf gens with commander from the very first turn? No any reason not to do so. True, but most of the countries that are best for speed runs have some cavalries lying around, and even for those who don't you can just build stables for high lvl cities. The cavalry team gave me the most consistent results. Cavalry just has the offense and mobility that makes them useful all through out. It depends tho, since 2 artillery gens, 1 infantry gen, 1 navy and 4 cavalry gen also is pretty consistent for me. I love infantry, but after completing the crimean war and focusing on conquests, i'd say cavalry reigns supreme. The turns used to build stables make up for the sheer offensive prowess and mobility of the lancer. You guys can do tests like mixing the number of gens and see which gen lineup has the most consistent speed run records from 1798 to 1815 using different countries.  I hope You don't think I never tested my lineup. Having 6 cav gens and not to try to use it.. That woukd be really strange  I faced problems I described earlier. For 1* and even some 2* countries You are going to waste many turns to place You cav on the field. 1st - Your cav production capacity isn't great. 2nd - You can't place them all together which decrease the value of commanders. By that time Your infantry commander gens will benefit much more having a possibility to act from one place and from the very beginning of the conquest. Cav is stronger, much stronger, true. But it is not easy to benefit with it every conquest and many countries. |
|
|
|
Post by cojoncio on Jun 25, 2019 2:21:52 GMT
Bla bla bla bla
As I said some posts ago, the best team is the one you feel comfortable playing with. Team lineup weights but what do you with what you have is what really matters. And I insist that aura generals are only worthy if you have someone around to beef up, otherwise a non-aura general as Davout, Lan, Sophia, or Garibaldi might outperform them.
To celebrate my cheap philosophy, I want to claim fastest 1789 1-star record with France, in 15 turns.
Strategy: Murat-Sophia-Sakurako and 2 free infantry generals went to UK. That little cutter in Burdeax along with the 2 line infantery went to Ireland.
Italy was mostly taken by allies, but I helped with the boats left-over after defeating Sardinia and a couple of rifleman
Karl-Massena-Free Massena-Free arty general went to Viena
Davout+Free Davout did all Austria and a portion of Prussia
Garibaldi holded the Eastermost France cities and then counterattacked to Prussia
Lan, as usual, the heaviest task. She helped a bit in Austria, a bit in Prussia, and then she went for that nasty Swedish city in Finland that you need to cross the baltic
Donations: apart from the 2 bribes to Russia, all other founds went to Denmark
Hot Naked Naughty Girls
Also I would like to claim the lowest score in any conquest muhahahahaha
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jun 25, 2019 2:55:05 GMT
Bla bla bla bla
As I said some posts ago, the best team is the one you feel comfortable playing with. Team lineup weights but what do you with what you have is what really matters. And I insist that aura generals are only worthy if you have someone around to beef up, otherwise a non-aura general as Davout, Lan, Sophia, or Garibaldi might outperform them.
To celebrate my cheap philosophy, I want to claim fastest 1789 1-star record with France, in 15 turns.
Strategy: Murat-Sophia-Sakurako and 2 free infantry generals went to UK. That little cutter in Burdeax along with the 2 line infantery went to Ireland.
Italy was mostly taken by allies, but I helped with the boats left-over after defeating Sardinia and a couple of rifleman
Karl-Massena-Free Massena-Free arty general went to Viena
Davout+Free Davout did all Austria and a portion of Prussia
Garibaldi holded the Eastermost France cities and then counterattacked to Prussia
Lan, as usual, the heaviest task. She helped a bit in Austria, a bit in Prussia, and then she went for that nasty Swedish city in Finland that you need to cross the baltic
Donations: apart from the 2 bribes to Russia This point of view has its strength as well as weakness. May I know how far are you in the Crimean war Challenge. I bet you haven't completed it yet even with 2 stars with such philosophy Am I wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Harry Lillis "Bing" Crosby Jr on Jun 25, 2019 3:37:00 GMT
cojoncio what is that naughty phrase below your post :0
|
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 25, 2019 3:48:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jun 25, 2019 4:31:35 GMT
I really don't believe that it is cojoncio's deep conviction. He simply is trying to justify his choice. The simple fact that he hired Scharnhorst first and then replaced him with Garibaldi is a good indication that he doesn't have any serious transfer policy , but is rather opportunistic. In the long run this strategy will show its deficiency. The more stubborn he will be on this subject - the better for his rivals |
|
|
|
Post by silvercreek on Jun 25, 2019 5:18:38 GMT
I really don't believe that it is cojoncio's deep conviction. He simply is trying to justify his choice. The simple fact that he hired Scharnhorst first and then replaced him with Garibaldi is a good indication that he doesn't have any serious transfer policy , but is rather opportunistic. In the long run this strategy will show its deficiency. The more stubborn he will be on this subject - the better for his rivals Well,so far cojoncio is doing very well,toppling records. I think he determined to make them all his😁 |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jun 25, 2019 8:26:52 GMT
I really don't believe that it is cojoncio's deep conviction. He simply is trying to justify his choice. The simple fact that he hired Scharnhorst first and then replaced him with Garibaldi is a good indication that he doesn't have any serious transfer policy , but is rather opportunistic. In the long run this strategy will show its deficiency. The more stubborn he will be on this subject - the better for his rivals Well,so far cojoncio is doing very well,toppling records. I think he determined to make them all his😁 The key word here is "so far". I started my "balanced team" project only a couple weeks ago. My current Infantry team was just created for fun, I never intended to throw it into a serious competition. Yet, even with this team I think I can challenge some of new records. The perfect timing is very important. Right now cojoncio is well motivated and excited about breaking records. But believe me, this feeling is fading away sooner or later . Besides, his team is fully upgraded now, I suppose. So plateau is behind the corner. And because there is little competition now, you never know how good your records really are. And last but not least, you begin to understand how pointless this competition is, and that you can spend your time in a more productive way . That is the perfect moment to strike |
|
|
|
Post by dsongop on Jun 25, 2019 11:01:45 GMT
I used to think that at least 4 cavalry generals are necessary for effective speedruns, in fact I currently use Blucher, Murat, Davout, Lan, Ney, and Dabrowski. Guess stoic proved me wrong on that one. However, I still strongly agree that generals and units with high mobility are key. I also find it hard to understand why one would use multiple artillery generals in a speedrun. In cojoncio's examples, he uses Sophia and Scharnhorst, and neither of them are as strong as Napoleon or even John I'd argue. Anyways, I always believed that my France 1798 record was an improvable record (I think 14 rounds might even be possible with luck on the side), and I'm glad cojoncio finally beat it. Now I wonder how long my Polish record will hold, because it sure seems like cojoncio would be grinding for that one. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jun 25, 2019 11:18:24 GMT
I used to think that at least 4 cavalry generals are necessary for effective speedruns, in fact I currently use Blucher, Murat, Davout, Lan, Ney, and Dabrowski. Guess stoic proved me wrong on that one. However, I still strongly agree that generals and units with high mobility are key. I also find it hard to understand why one would use multiple artillery generals in a speedrun. In cojoncio's examples, he uses Sophia and Scharnhorst, and neither of them are as strong as Napoleon or even John I'd argue. Anyways, I always believed that my France 1798 record was an improvable record (I think 14 rounds might even be possible with luck on the side), and I'm glad cojoncio finally beat it. Now I wonder how long my Polish record will hold, because it sure seems like cojoncio would be grinding for that one. Polish record is pretty difficult to beat, imo. Let's see. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jun 25, 2019 11:34:23 GMT
It will be beaten tomorrow I assume
The key-point: not to use aura-gens
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Jun 25, 2019 11:52:05 GMT
I used to think that at least 4 cavalry generals are necessary for effective speedruns I would agree with this point. I was trying 4 cav gens with UK1812 (hope to find time to beat this record on day! ) and it was the best set for 3* country. However I am sure 4 or 4+ cav gens are not good for conquests like Saxony or Egypt/Morocco when newly hired cav gen will have to chase the frontline all the time. Warsaw 1806 is awesome with 4 cav gens. I made it with 27 turns result but tapped the screen without the screenshot and wasn't screening progress so didn't claim. Will probably repeat it one day as well. So yes, 1 arty, 2 infantry, 1 navy (or 3 infantry, no navy) + 4 cav gens is very very promissing setup imo for 2* and 3* countries. |
|
|
|
Post by Seger on Jun 25, 2019 12:26:00 GMT
why 6 cav is not the best: an example rifle men are quite similar to lancer now you may think no lancer are much faster! wrong! rifle men have march because of which they do not suffer from terrain, this makes them comparable fast if you are not running across the plains of russia. the biggest difference is that rifle men have more hp and damage and they unfortunately do less damage on cities and has more defense. with murat vs karl cav is better, but when we think of davout vs katl, karl would easily beat davout, especially if he could strengthen the infantry around him. my conclusion is therefore 3 or 4 cav but certainly not 6
|
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Jun 25, 2019 12:34:00 GMT
It will be beaten tomorrow I assume The key-point: not to use aura-gens In fact, speaking seriously, I think there is one way, using dsongop' method. Playing as Netherlands it is relatively simple to bribe Russia 3 times. That gives us 20-21 turns to defeat England and Co. I used to invade Britain via Scotland with two generals. I don't think this will work here. We probably need a direct assault on London. Do you remember how many turns are necessary to capture it? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 12:39:08 GMT
It will be beaten tomorrow I assume The key-point: not to use aura-gens In fact, speaking seriously, I think there is one way, using dsongop ' method. Playing as Netherlands it is relatively simple to bribe Russia 3 times. That gives us 20-21 turns to defeat England and Co. I used to invade Britain via Scotland with two generals. I don't think this will work here. We probably need a direct assault on London. Do you remember how many turns are necessary to capture it? What i dislike about netherlands is that it takes a lot of tries before you can get the results. The original record by you took you more than 50 tries. Which i applaud, but damn. |
|
