|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 14, 2018 16:28:40 GMT
Lol. I gave You screenshot of stats not in forest. You still mention forests. Are You reading? Karl is stronger even not in forests. In forests he is simply out of range. Are they the same rank? You can see it on the screenshot. They are both max title. And rank is the same as the unit HP is the same and they both have M General star. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 14, 2018 16:31:27 GMT
You can see it on the screenshot. They are both max title. And rank is the same as the unit HP is the same and they both have M General star. Hmm. I’ll keep that in mind. Both are great generals. |
|
|
|
Post by stoic on Aug 14, 2018 18:32:11 GMT
Well, I don't think that Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus has any "personal" motifs to say that Massena is better than Karl if he is not  . So we have to find some explanation even if we speak about "feelings" and not serious tests. My idea is that flat damage (Assault) is that what gives Massena edge on every terrain than woods. I think that that Assault might be better than any statistical advantages for one simple reason - this kind of damage won't be absorbed by any defense, terrain or military installations. Moreover it doesn't depend on unit's type. It gives + 20 damage everywhere in any situation. Taking into account that we use grenadiers in campaigns or conquests most of the time (and Massena has another flat damage bonus - Tunnel) there could be an impression that his damage is always higher than that dealt by Karl. However in forests and on elite infantry or on machine guns Karl's advantages can be more visible than in the previous situation. So it is actually our task to make the best out of our generals. If we can't put Karl into the forest it is our problem not his  . |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 14, 2018 18:49:25 GMT
Well, I don't think that Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus has any "personal" motifs to say that Massena is better than Karl if he is not . So we have to find some explanation even if we speak about "feelings" and not serious tests. My idea is that flat damage (Assault) is that what gives Massena edge on every terrain than woods. I think that that Assault might be better than any statistical advantages for one simple reason - this kind of damage won't be absorbed by any defense, terrain or military installations. Moreover it doesn't depend on unit's type. It gives + 20 damage everywhere in any situation. Taking into account that we use grenadiers in campaigns or conquests most of the time (and Massena has another flat damage bonus - Tunnel) there could be an impression that his damage is always higher than that dealt by Karl. However in forests and on elite infantry or on machine guns Karl's advantages can be more visible than in the previous situation. So it is actually our task to make the best out of our generals. If we can't put Karl into the forest it is our problem not his . True. So maybe putting Karl on Elite Infantry and putting Masséna and Barclay on grenadier makes sense, as Karl doesn’t have tunnel, and will always be in search of a forest or jungle somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 14, 2018 18:51:19 GMT
This is exactly what I am trying to say in several discussions about Massena-Karl comparison.
Obviously that without taking into account situational skills like Tunnel, Intercept and even Jungle fighting Karl is simply stronger as his stats are better.
And here we are coming to the play style and other skills and how good You are at using Your gens. If aren't skilled enough to benefit from terrain skills of Your gens Massena will be better of course as his skills are easier to benefit from.
But if You are skilled enough to benefit from terrain Karl is much stronger as terrain is just much more powerful at max tech and strong enough units.
|
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Aug 14, 2018 19:40:10 GMT
This is exactly what I am trying to say in several discussions about Massena-Karl comparison. Obviously that without taking into account situational skills like Tunnel, Intercept and even Jungle fighting Karl is simply stronger as his stats are better. And here we are coming to the play style and other skills and how good You are at using Your gens. If aren't skilled enough to benefit from terrain skills of Your gens Massena will be better of course as his skills are easier to benefit from. But if You are skilled enough to benefit from terrain Karl is much stronger as terrain is just much more powerful at max tech and strong enough units. I think my bias came from using Karl to grind netherlands 1798. Masséna is much better at that. But on jungle tiles, Karl is a weapon of mass destruction, as jungle fighting then is better than assualt. That makes sense. For new players though, I suggest getting Masséna first as he is easier to use once starting out. I think we can agree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Erich on Aug 15, 2018 3:40:15 GMT
Well, I don't think that Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus has any "personal" motifs to say that Massena is better than Karl if he is not . So we have to find some explanation even if we speak about "feelings" and not serious tests. My idea is that flat damage (Assault) is that what gives Massena edge on every terrain than woods. I think that that Assault might be better than any statistical advantages for one simple reason - this kind of damage won't be absorbed by any defense, terrain or military installations. Moreover it doesn't depend on unit's type. It gives + 20 damage everywhere in any situation. Taking into account that we use grenadiers in campaigns or conquests most of the time (and Massena has another flat damage bonus - Tunnel) there could be an impression that his damage is always higher than that dealt by Karl. However in forests and on elite infantry or on machine guns Karl's advantages can be more visible than in the previous situation. So it is actually our task to make the best out of our generals. If we can't put Karl into the forest it is our problem not his . Actually the 20 damage done by Assault skill is affected by enemies Defence according to my tests. This 20 damage is not shown in the unit info, so it's Karl: 145 and Massena: 141 +20 (another +20 attacking cities) |
|
|
|
Post by Charlemagne on Aug 15, 2018 4:04:51 GMT
Actually, assault is about equal with jungle fighting. But jungle fighting is probably better.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 15, 2018 4:12:44 GMT
Well, I don't think that Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus has any "personal" motifs to say that Massena is better than Karl if he is not . So we have to find some explanation even if we speak about "feelings" and not serious tests. My idea is that flat damage (Assault) is that what gives Massena edge on every terrain than woods. I think that that Assault might be better than any statistical advantages for one simple reason - this kind of damage won't be absorbed by any defense, terrain or military installations. Moreover it doesn't depend on unit's type. It gives + 20 damage everywhere in any situation. Taking into account that we use grenadiers in campaigns or conquests most of the time (and Massena has another flat damage bonus - Tunnel) there could be an impression that his damage is always higher than that dealt by Karl. However in forests and on elite infantry or on machine guns Karl's advantages can be more visible than in the previous situation. So it is actually our task to make the best out of our generals. If we can't put Karl into the forest it is our problem not his . Actually the 20 damage done by Assault skill is affected by enemies Defence according to my tests. This 20 damage is not shown in the unit info, so it's Karl: 145 and Massena: 141 +20 (another +20 attacking cities) LOL. Why do You guys say: +Tunnel and nobody says +Intercept Who do You use to fight against Russian cavalry gens and Prussian god of war Blucher? Tunnel is of course good bonus but if You use grenadiers You are not dependent on such skills. It is important for speedrun records but are there many players aiming on it? |
|
|
|
Post by Charlemagne on Aug 15, 2018 4:27:44 GMT
Intercept is a good skill. Tunnel is better
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 15, 2018 4:35:52 GMT
Intercept is a good skill. Tunnel is better Really? What is the level of Your tunnel skill now? |
|
|
|
Post by Robert Walpole on Aug 15, 2018 4:50:16 GMT
Intercept is a good skill. Tunnel is better since when did tunnel overpowered intercept? |
|
|
|
Post by Charlemagne on Aug 15, 2018 5:02:16 GMT
Intercept is a good skill. Tunnel is better
since when did tunnel overpowered intercept?
Intercept is a worse version of assault. It's still good though. Tunnel is kinda important cuz capturing cities is more important than killing cavalry.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrei on Aug 15, 2018 5:12:12 GMT
Intercept is a good skill. Tunnel is better since when did tunnel overpowered intercept? Intercept is a worse version of assault. It's still good though. Tunnel is kinda important cuz capturing cities is more important than killing cavalry. I assume You never used general with upgraded tunnel, am I right? Because Your explanation looks like tunnel always provides You with much faster city capturing, which is not true. It can provide faster capture mostly against empty cities. So so benefit actually. As I said earlier - important for speed run. Against cities with enemy unit inside its value decreased a lot. |
|
|
|
Post by banjo on Aug 15, 2018 5:35:56 GMT
I find my Karl usually survives longer at a higher hp level in longer conquests. Maybe because of the evasion skill and me actively looking for forrest tiles to park him in. Massena’s output is more consistent with assault and plains fighting but I find I need to rest him more often.
|
|
. So we have to find some explanation even if we speak about "feelings" and not serious tests. My idea is that flat damage (Assault) is that what gives Massena edge on every terrain than woods. I think that that Assault might be better than any statistical advantages for one simple reason - this kind of damage won't be absorbed by any defense, terrain or military installations. Moreover it doesn't depend on unit's type. It gives + 20 damage everywhere in any situation. Taking into account that we use grenadiers in campaigns or conquests most of the time (and Massena has another flat damage bonus - Tunnel) there could be an impression that his damage is always higher than that dealt by Karl. However in forests and on elite infantry or on machine guns Karl's advantages can be more visible than in the previous situation. So it is actually our task to make the best out of our generals. If we can't put Karl into the forest it is our problem not his 
.
