Well, if it doesn't make any sense then why would you assume it?

Generals will have armies, but they will be strong in their own right. I very much doubt that assassins will be able to just waltz in and destroy a general with ease then wipe out his army in a similar manner.

It's still unclear what generals can do and what they can't .

I reckon the generals will have auras, buffs, party based skills, while the assassins will rely on nukes etc.

Until the PaX, we are a bit blind.

wat

You know, the General player could always just run away if the Assassin gets close. Then he won't die and his army will stay buffed   . And even if they do fight directly, the Assassin will be weakened and maybe overwhelmed by the remaining units belonging to the General.

And also i think the developers are trying to sort of blur the lines between assassin and general, or at least i think i heard that.

I'd imagine Assassins are simply more about timing and use of their skills, while Generals will probably have an advantage of being able to body-block Assassins that try to kill them(except maybe The Rook could walk over them and stomp on them. It would be ridiculous to see minotaurs blocking The Rook).

So as a General you might be microing your units to keep the Asssassin away while dealing damage with ranged attacks and your units. As an Assassin you'd be timing when you use your skills to spike off that last bit of health, or get in a good combination of skills while having enough mana to chain them, hiding behind objects on a map to jump a General, so on.

They'll be different ways to play.. And if you play a General like an assassin then probably(hopefully) you'll lose against someone playing either one correctly.

You think the Generals army is just going to stand around while the Assassin destroys the General?
In a one on one fight the Assassin should beat the General but if the General is so far away from his Army that his Army can't protect him, doesn't he deserve to lose?

Exactly diffrent generals will play differently, a general with flying units capable of fast movement compared to a general like queen of thorns with slow moving trees and an immobile casting platform. The first (as there is some sort of angel general I'm guessing from the trailer)would be fast crippling attacks, changing attack paths evrey few minutes, slowly pushing the enemy back, and pushing them where they least expect it, queen of thorns would be about holding a point against an onslaught and pushing it back or at the very least halting it for a time. (slow tough trees, immobile while casting, aoe push back is my reasoning for this)

So now onto the debate of assassin vs general, looking at the two generals before, if an assassin tried to push through queen of thorns, it would probably end badly, but if he attacked her out in the open, or she attacked him, he would probably be more likely to win (if the player is smart and the other is not the situation doesn't (well... shouldn't) matter) and on the general with the fast attacking angels, he would probably hit and run the enemy, once they go after him he leaves, only to come back a couple seconds of later, wear him down, and then kill him. (for example, this general is fictitious) Where as if the assassin just just the angel he would be more likely to win.

(situation * hero match up) + skill = game (i.e. a good situation for one hero is bad for another, and either way they need skill)

This thread is full of baseless speculation.

I do not approve.

Yeah I switched the words around. I meant "I wouldn't nessisarily say in a 1vs1 fight the Assassin should beat an General."

I was too busy facepalming so I couldn't see what I wrote with my other hand.

Exactly.

Someone that knows how to think.

I think everything will vary, I think the main variables affecting the way a certain demigod plays will break down like this:

Generals- Size of army, strength of auras, reliance on units.

Assassin- Survivability, single damage potential, Aoe dmg potential, DoT potential(ties into the other two, kind of).

Not saying that those should be the only ways demigods will vary, but I think those'll be the mos readily visible ways in which they'll vary.

If in 1vs1 all Assassins have an advantage over Generals then people who like the RTS play style will complain.

Theres a lot of people who are really only interested in either playing Assassins, or playing Generals. some people want control armys, not an individual.
It's not exactly fair to them that because of that there is no General someone can use that excels at killing other Demigods.

How good someone is at 1vs1 demigod vs. demigod fights should depend on the Demigod itself, not whether it's Assassin or not.


Earlier on the devs had it where Assassins where more for killing other Demigods, and Generals where more for flood control, killing the other creeps.
But they have said they're working on blurring the lines between them.. I'd imagine they realized something similar..
Theres no reason why a General can't be deadly himself, or have special deadly troops.
Theres no reason why an Assassin can't have poor single target damage but good at killing masses of troops.
Theres no reason why a General can't have skills more like it seems most assassins have(actual spells) rather than having having AoE buffs, and be like a slightly weaker assassin that also has troops..

Could maybe 2/3rds of Assassins be better at killing other Demigods than 'flood control'? COuld maybe only 1/3rd of Generals be better at killing Assassins than they are at army on army fights? Well sure. But i'd be very disappointed if the word "Assassin" and "General" meant more than that.. I'd be pretty disappointed if one of the Generals wasn't the top 3 best Demigods for killing other Demigods.

But maybe I'm alone there.