|
|
Post by Gone on Feb 16, 2020 15:23:29 GMT
 Buffed Lannes from More Units Mod. Better than even Karl and Bismarck. Hello ! Could you provide a link for this mod ? Thanks ! I can provide you with the video. Be aware though that Wealth of Nations, which is supposed to help you farm coins,is glitched and doesn't work. Mod hasn't been updated. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeanne d'Arc on Mar 11, 2020 22:49:24 GMT
If you play without Karl, this guy is essential. Him and Massena *could* get you through the game. Barclay is optional at that point, but a good general to have nevertheless.
|
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Mar 11, 2020 23:15:57 GMT
If you play without Karl, this guy is essential. Him and Massena *could* get you through the game. Barclay is optional at that point, but a good general to have nevertheless. Infantry generals are almost optional because infantry sucks. The only reasons I can think of to use infantry generals ever is speedrunning Britain 1812/1815 and Warsaw 1798, and to three star Battle of Balaclava, and I’m honestly unsure whether or not they work for the last one as you get a 16 turn limit on that mission and infantry kills stuff waaaaay too slowly on that mission. |
|
|
|
Post by Svetozar Boroević von Bojna on Mar 14, 2020 2:58:09 GMT
If you play without Karl, this guy is essential. Him and Massena *could* get you through the game. Barclay is optional at that point, but a good general to have nevertheless. Infantry generals are almost optional because infantry sucks. The only reasons I can think of to use infantry generals ever is speedrunning Britain 1812/1815 and Warsaw 1798, and to three star Battle of Balaclava, and I’m honestly unsure whether or not they work for the last one as you get a 16 turn limit on that mission and infantry kills stuff waaaaay too slowly on that mission. Grenadiers are a very useful and powerful infantry unit though. Infantry is actually quite strong in this game and can tank a lot of hits imo. |
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Mar 14, 2020 7:08:11 GMT
Infantry generals are almost optional because infantry sucks. The only reasons I can think of to use infantry generals ever is speedrunning Britain 1812/1815 and Warsaw 1798, and to three star Battle of Balaclava, and I’m honestly unsure whether or not they work for the last one as you get a 16 turn limit on that mission and infantry kills stuff waaaaay too slowly on that mission. Grenadiers are a very useful and powerful infantry unit though. Infantry is actually quite strong in this game and can tank a lot of hits imo. Lancers are just better. Cheaper, faster, stronger, tougher and actually almost as good at sieging and definetly better at sieging when they’re loaded with generals, and they have just about the same availability. Infantry being better in this game only really means that they’re more viable, but they’re still not good and outclassed by cavalry at everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeanne d'Arc on Mar 14, 2020 15:11:44 GMT
Two opinions
1. Massena is better than Karl
2. Lannes is just a bit better than Barclay
|
|
|
|
Post by SolidLight on Mar 14, 2020 15:48:28 GMT
Two opinions 1. Massena is better than Karl 2. Lannes is just a bit better than Barclay Bismarck is better than Massena. Fite me. |
|
|
|
Post by Friedrich “Fried Rice” Paulus on Mar 14, 2020 18:57:09 GMT
Two opinions 1. Massena is better than Karl 2. Lannes is just a bit better than Barclay I agree, but having 3 auras is overpowered as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeanne d'Arc on Mar 14, 2020 19:58:49 GMT
I like having just Massena and Lannes travel together. Just makes micromanaging infantry generals a lot easier.
|
|
rokee
First Lieutenant
Likes playing strategy games.Still sucks at them.
Posts: 44
|
Post by rokee on Jun 28, 2020 3:32:56 GMT
Lannes is Bismarck without Alert and Ambush for Intercept.Lower price but lower stats and combat ability and a bit higher infantry ability.Ultimately a cheap alternative to Bismarck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Vader on Jun 28, 2020 3:37:19 GMT
Lannes is Bismarck without Alert and Ambush for Intercept.Lower price but lower stats and combat ability and a bit higher infantry ability.Ultimately a cheap alternative to Bismarck. I wouldn't call him a better then the iron chancellor. More as a close to equal soldier that can rival other infantry. |
|
rokee
First Lieutenant
Likes playing strategy games.Still sucks at them.
Posts: 44
|
Post by rokee on Jun 28, 2020 3:38:39 GMT
Oops.I was just saying if you can’t afford Bismarck or Washington.You should go for him.
|
|
rokee
First Lieutenant
Likes playing strategy games.Still sucks at them.
Posts: 44
|
Post by rokee on Jun 28, 2020 3:39:11 GMT
Bismarck is still better than Lannes.He is just expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Vader on Jun 28, 2020 3:53:25 GMT
Bismarck is still better than Lannes.He is just expensive. Agreed, Bismark is very expressive but out of cost comes experience. It's interesting however that the most Targeted Generals for me are Lan, Isabella and Louise. Also Lannes is quite strong, and what makes him cheap is the reason he is ranked second to me. |
|
rokee
First Lieutenant
Likes playing strategy games.Still sucks at them.
Posts: 44
|
Post by rokee on Jul 17, 2020 3:58:53 GMT
Can you beat Lannes IV with the free gens?It is currently too hard for me even with Russian tech.
|
|
