Your Favorite Nation to use in MP

[♔DeusVult!♔]

Like the title says, what is your favorite nation to play as in MP? Right now I am loving Prussia. You have no idea how excited I was when I was able to create a full 20 stack army without using throwaway units, lol. I prefer discipline/morale and accuracy over melee stats, and so far the prussians have provided the best combination of quality and affordability, imo. Here is my current setup:

General Staff
4 Fusiliers
6 Musketeers
1 8th Regiment
2 Currasiers
1 Lancer
2 Hussars
1 Brandenburg Uhlan
1 7in Howitzer
1 6lb Horse Artillery

So who do ya'll prefer to use, and why. Also, what is your preferred style? As in, is your workhorse unit(s) the line infantry, skirmishers, arty, or Cav?

I would have made this a poll, but I didn't see the option anywhere...

[Spor]

I can't say I'm a fan of large funds at all - it's laggy and each individual unit is less important...

Anyway, you're set-up is pretty good but very balanced. An unbalanced army will defeat it, like an army with 5 Rifles or 8 Siphai Cavalry (for example)... or even one with 4 Howitzers (which would make mince meat of flanking cavalry). Despite this, you should win the majority of your battles with that set-up.

[TheAussieDigger]

I can't say I'm a fan of large funds at all - it's laggy and each individual unit is less important...

Anyway, you're set-up is pretty good but very balanced. An unbalanced army will defeat it, like an army with 5 Rifles or 8 Siphai Cavalry (for example)... or even one with 4 Howitzers (which would make mince meat of flanking cavalry). Despite this, you should win the majority of your battles with that set-up.

the optimum setup is a balanced army

if ure very very good with a balanced army. ull hardly ever lose
an unbalanced army is a way of someone not so good being able to compete with the geniuses but still losing
then unfortunately people of a lesser quality with an unbalanced army will beat someone of the same quality with a balanced army

and medium funds are gay
cant recover from mistales
battles arent as epic
less variety in unit selection
and one of ur pros: each unit has a larger bearing on the battle

[Spor]

Wrong

Firstly about Large Funds:

• Being able to recover from mistakes is a flaw. It supports the amateur.
• Battles that lag are never epic. What's more, the idea that 'more men equals better' seems immature if you ask me.
• I like to see most of my army on the screen as opposed to panning through stupidly long infantry ranks.
• There's not less variety at all, that's nonsense. There's less units, not less variety. You can pick whatever you want...
• In Medium Funds each unit is more significant, not in Large Funds. Use logic and it'll make sense.

Now... balanced armies are not for the "very very good" at all. Why you'd think that is beyond me, but I defy you to use that set-up against a cavalry-heavy Ottoman or French army under an experienced player, or even a British army with 4 or 5 Riflemen.

I'd in fact argue the opposite way (now that I have to) - using unbalanced armies takes a good understanding of the game and skill. If I used a balanced army against someone new to the game who used lots of cavalry and light infantry (unbalanced), for example, I'd destroy them... You've got to know how to use them very well or you'll get slaughtered. That opponent would probably send their cavalry in charging at my skirmishers or artillery, which I would subsequently pick off easily with Howitzer shells and a few volleys/square formation... They'd proabably also leave their light infantry open to my cavalry attacks. This is why unbalanced armies aren't for beginners.

However; if they used a balanced army it would be harder for me to defeat them with a balanced army of my own... if I had lots of cavalry, for example, I'd use it appropriately - I'd run in my skirmishers and charge the cavalry round the sides. I'd take out their cavalry with units to spare, which would then either hit the general or wait behind their lines waiting for the line infantry engagement. Once all infantry is locked up in combat, that spare cavalry would either charge into their backs and sides or fire from behind. If the skirmishers haven't reduced their numbers enough to prevent square formation that's not a problem as it makes it easier for my own infantry to defeat theirs... the cavalry will just have to bide it's time.

That's just an example. I assure you, taking balanced armies will give you wins, but not stars. Mix it up according to your opponent, the map or even the number of players involved. There's a number of optimum set-ups for all situations. It's not one size fits all.

[TheAussieDigger]

Wrong

Firstly about Large Funds:

• Being able to recover from mistakes is a flaw. It supports the amateur.
• Battles that lag are never epic. What's more, the idea that 'more men equals better' seems immature if you ask me.
• I like to see most of my army on the screen as opposed to panning through stupidly long infantry ranks.
• There's not less variety at all, that's nonsense. There's less units, not less variety. You can pick whatever you want...
• In Medium Funds each unit is more significant, not in Large Funds. Use logic and it'll make sense.

Now... balanced armies are not for the "very very good" at all. Why you'd think that is beyond me, but I defy you to use that set-up against a cavalry-heavy Ottoman or French army under an experienced player, or even a British army with 4 or 5 Riflemen.

I'd in fact argue the opposite way (now that I have to) - using unbalanced armies takes a good understanding of the game and skill. If I used a balanced army against someone new to the game who used lots of cavalry and light infantry (unbalanced), for example, I'd destroy them... You've got to know how to use them very well or you'll get slaughtered. That opponent would probably send their cavalry in charging at my skirmishers or artillery, which I would subsequently pick off easily with Howitzer shells and a few volleys/square formation... They'd proabably also leave their light infantry open to my cavalry attacks. This is why unbalanced armies aren't for beginners.

However; if they used a balanced army it would be harder for me to defeat them with a balanced army of my own... if I had lots of cavalry, for example, I'd use it appropriately - I'd run in my skirmishers and charge the cavalry round the sides. I'd take out their cavalry with units to spare, which would then either hit the general or wait behind their lines waiting for the line infantry engagement. Once all infantry is locked up in combat, that spare cavalry would either charge into their backs and sides or fire from behind. If the skirmishers haven't reduced their numbers enough to prevent square formation that's not a problem as it makes it easier for my own infantry to defeat theirs... the cavalry will just have to bide it's time.

That's just an example. I assure you, taking balanced armies will give you wins, but not stars. Mix it up according to your opponent, the map or even the number of players involved. There's a number of optimum set-ups for all situations. It's not one size fits all.

go have a few games against Synoptic and Blonkers

[Ritterlichvon86]

Large funds require more micro.

[Spor]

go have a few games against Synoptic and Blonkers

I'd love to.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

I can't say I'm a fan of large funds at all - it's laggy and each individual unit is less important...

Anyway, you're set-up is pretty good but very balanced. An unbalanced army will defeat it, like an army with 5 Rifles or 8 Siphai Cavalry (for example)... or even one with 4 Howitzers (which would make mince meat of flanking cavalry). Despite this, you should win the majority of your battles with that set-up.

While I see your point, I generally have no knowledge of my opponents and their play style, so I dislike unbalanced armies because it is easy imo to get caught with your pants down. I have also found that on the new maps, you almost have to split up your army, so I rarely see massed skirmishers (#1 most used unbalanced army, in my experience).

Lots of howitzers don't bother me at the moment, not even unicorns. That generally means that I outnumber the rest of his army, and as long as I don't stand around with my thumb up my butt, I can usually overwhelm his smaller numbers, then neutralize the howitzers. I actually took down one of these Unicorn lovers yesterday on Arcole. He pulled the plug right before the end, and my ally and I were cheated out of a win.

I avoid Grassy Flatlands like the plague. That map heavily favors skirmishers and 12lbers, and every battle becomes almost exactly the same.

I am also thinking about ditching my howitzer for something else. Come to think of it, my horse arty has been pretty useless, too. I like to take the initiative, and my howitzer is always too slow moving up into position. So slow, in fact, that I have usually won or turned the tide in whatever engagement I was planning on using it as support for. My horse artillery has also been nothing more than an arty magnet. I have yet to play a battle in which my horse arty has even fired a shot. Every time, without fail, the entire unit is wiped out by a laser guided cannonball the second I hit the unlimber button, lol. What do ya'll like to use as artillery? Are the larger foot arty pieces worth taking with a "roving" play style?

[daniu]

• Being able to recover from mistakes is a flaw. It supports the amateur.

There is so much wrong with that statement.
Apart from the fact that we're all amateurs here:
everybody makes mistakes, and I'd rather be able to recover from, say, losing two of my cavs in an initial failed flanking move than just play out what I know is really a lost cause.
Battles where I make a fulminant comeback are the most fun games, and it's just much harder on medium.

• I like to see most of my army on the screen as opposed to panning through stupidly long infantry ranks.

Well, then don't.

• There's not less variety at all, that's nonsense. There's less units, not less variety. You can pick whatever you want...

Yes, there is more variety in large funds.
The high-priced units are basically a no-go in medium setups because they're just as vulnerable and much more painful to lose.

[chemfy]

Ottomans, medium fund, spam elite cavalry and irregular melee infantry and swarm the enemy...

[Spor]

There is so much wrong with that statement.
Apart from the fact that we're all amateurs here:
everybody makes mistakes, and I'd rather be able to recover from, say, losing two of my cavs in an initial failed flanking move than just play out what I know is really a lost cause.
Battles where I make a fulminant comeback are the most fun games, and it's just much harder on medium.
Well, then don't.

Yes, there is more variety in large funds.
The high-priced units are basically a no-go in medium setups because they're just as vulnerable and much more painful to lose.

Wow, for so many posts how can you be so ignorant and beligerent? There is NOTHING wrong with that statement. I am not an amateur either - I've been playing this game for 4 months as I tested it for SEGA. I doubt I can say the same for you.

Something that supports amateurs is a flaw. There's no denying it, so don't be so damn naive.

"Then don't"? That's your argument? Have a nice big dose of STFU. What's more, there is NOT more variety, you can choose whatever the you want to under any funds. I can pick any high-priced unit I want. Heck I field Artillerie a Pied and Grenadiers a Cheval sometimes... are they cheap?

Take your head out your ing arse.

[Keiichi]

Now... balanced armies are not for the "very very good" at all. I defy you to use that set-up against a cavalry-heavy Ottoman or French army under an experienced player, or even a British army with 4 or 5 Riflemen.

Hmm, if you're speaking to DeusVult's Prussian army, then I think his set up would do just fine against all your listed examples. He has 6 cavalry units of his own with artillery support, which would be quite capable of defending against any reasonable amount of cavalry, and 4 Prussian fusiliers could stand toe-to-toe against 5 riflemen quite handily (in addition to the fact that the British player would be spending almost a third of his funds on those 5 rifles, with British units already being fairly pricey that's quite an investment).

To the large vs. medium fund debate; I like both (gasp! ). With medium funds it's easier to maintain control over all your units at once, and it encourages more movement and maneuver as a result. I like large funds because with more money I can bring in a greater variety of units, making things more interesting. Both are fun and I don't think it's something that warrants any name calling over .

In regards to the original topic, if I had to pick a favorite, I think I would go with France because I love their uniforms (seriously, they look fantastic ). From a gameplay standpoint, I also love France's low-cost skirmishers, quality selection of elite infantry, superb (but expensive) cavalry, and excellent artillery. My second favorite would be Prussia, because while their uniforms may not look as fabulous as the French's, I really like how the uniform is consistent across the army. For example, the lancer has a uniform that is very similar to a fusilier's which is very similar to a musketeer's. It's like a more modern army with everyone being given standard issue dress, rather than every unit type being it's own fashionable super star.

In gameplay terms, Prussia has very competent units (their fusiliers are superb) and while their cavalry is a bit weak in terms of stats, it is much cheaper than most and that savings translates into more guard units, which are my favorite units for pressing the attack. I'm a very aggressive player and I love guards, and I bring the most guards (and fewest militia) when I'm Prussia.

"Then don't"? That's your argument? Have a nice big dose of STFU. What's more, there is NOT more variety, you can choose whatever the you want to under any funds. I can pick any high-priceed unit I want. Heck I field Artillerie a Pied and Grenadiers a Cheval sometimes... are they cheap?

Whoa, calm down there. daniu linked you to a way to remove the camera limits in his "Then don't" statement, which would allow you to zoom out the camera and be able to view your whole army at once. And his point about unit variety is that in medium funds, an elite unit will be taking up a large portion of your funds than in a large funds game, making their loss especially painful. If you don't agree that's fine, but there's better ways to express your disagreement.

[Spor]

Ignorant amateurs...

[Desufer]

Caution: there is a pompous jerk in this thread(Besides me).

[Spectre11B]

Now... balanced armies are not for the "very very good" at all. Why you'd think that is beyond me, but I defy you to use that set-up against a cavalry-heavy Ottoman or French army under an experienced player, or even a British army with 4 or 5 Riflemen.

For the most part. the game is rock paper scissors. If you play against me, I will pick apart the area where you are the weakest. It doesn't take much to counter a lopsided army, and force the enemy to defend with what's left. I do agree with you that unbalanced armies can be extremely dangerous against the opponent, if you can overwhelm them in the beginning. If they're calm and they know what they're doing, the game can really turn against you.


On a different note, my favorite nation so far has been Spain. Their Cazadores are tough, and their line isn't that bad either. They've held up pretty well against the Major nations.

[♔DeusVult!♔]

For the most part. the game is rock paper scissors. If you play against me, I will pick apart the area where you are the weakest. It doesn't take much to counter a lopsided army, and force the enemy to defend with what's left. I do agree with you that unbalanced armies can be extremely dangerous against the opponent, if you can overwhelm them in the beginning. If they're calm and they know what they're doing, the game can really turn against you.


On a different note, my favorite nation so far has been Spain. Their Cazadores are tough, and their line isn't that bad either. They've held up pretty well against the Major nations.

How do you find the lack of Artillery? Hindering, or do you barely notice? Spain is one of my favorite factions just due to their history, so I am glad to hear you say that their line is decent and holds it's own. I see their infantry is really cheap, so I think that could lead to some interesting builds, maybe with extra guard units, better general (I have yet to use a historical general so far), etc.

[HellFell]

my favourite is Russia because one has to think differently while playing with them.

[blonkers1234]

On a different note, my favorite nation so far has been Spain. Their Cazadores are tough, and their line isn't that bad either. They've held up pretty well against the Major nations.

God I love spanish line, by far some of the best units in the game with their price-effectivness ratio although no horse art is a big downside for me.

[TheAussieDigger]

logic suggests there is more variety in large funds

if u go along the roster selectig 1 of each unit therell be a lot more units in game in large funds than medium funds

[TheAussieDigger]

my favourite is Russia because one has to think differently while playing with them.

i wouldnt call spamming 6 unicorns thinking too differently