Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

What's wrong with lord sniping?

cool_ladcool_lad Senior MemberIndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
Yes, I'm serious; why should Lords be somehow immune to being killed once they get close enough to the enemy? How is this any different from targeting your opponent's general in other TW games?

Why should things that can be used for this purpose (such as the luminark), especially in a situation where single entity units are already extremely powerful, be discouraged?

The reason I'm asking is that I think that the calls for nerfing anything on the basis that is can be used for 'lord sniping' simply seek to skew the balance in favour of the melee and melee focused factions that heavily use such heroes/single entity units. This is especially problematic in a Total War as it somehow seeks to protect an important target from retaliation which isn't on their terms (as if they are somehow entitled to decide the battle only on their terms; in the melee).

Comments

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,880Registered Users
    Lord sniping is ok if it can be done over time or if there is some risk associated with trying to lord snipe but anything that can kill it in few hits while being relatiy safe is frowned upon mainly due to inability to react to it and no risk involved.

    Think how horrible arrow of kurnous lord snipe from 300m range was. Dragon breath sniping is only an issue in due combination with net, same with luminark.
  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users
    edited February 2018
    cool_lad said:

    Yes, I'm serious; why should Lords be somehow immune to being killed once they get close enough to the enemy? How is this any different from targeting your opponent's general in other TW games?

    Why should things that can be used for this purpose (such as the luminark), especially in a situation where single entity units are already extremely powerful, be discouraged?

    The reason I'm asking is that I think that the calls for nerfing anything on the basis that is can be used for 'lord sniping' simply seek to skew the balance in favour of the melee and melee focused factions that heavily use such heroes/single entity units. This is especially problematic in a Total War as it somehow seeks to protect an important target from retaliation which isn't on their terms (as if they are somehow entitled to decide the battle only on their terms; in the melee).

    The problem is how easy it is to do.

    Kroq Gar Hand of god. 227 gold item can do half hp to lords on mount. He had 2 charges and it cost 0 WOM. Liber that is basically OP spirit leech for 0 WOM.

    Spirit leech spam and bow ubshabti. Liber is even worse than spirit leech.

    Way watchers that delete your opponent's lord with or without net.

    Star dragon breathes before the nerfs.

    In previous TWs, it's alot more balanced because you can't just click one or two or OP spells and abilities and delete half the General's Hp.

    A general in previous titles also didn't have to worry about getting netted and sniped from almost arty ranged by bows.

    I don't mind general sniping if it's not crazily cheesy. You can dodge archer fire and run away from melee engagements. That actually makes the game interesting because the person can potentially out micro you.

    Insane ranged accuracy that does lots of single target damage undodgable spells and abilities that do direct damage to single targets is just silly.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    Lord sniping is ok if it can be done over time or if there is some risk associated with trying to lord snipe but anything that can kill it in few hits while being relatiy safe is frowned upon mainly due to inability to react to it and no risk involved.

    Think how horrible arrow of kurnous lord snipe from 300m range was. Dragon breath sniping is only an issue in due combination with net, same with luminark.

    How is this any worse than older total wars where all it took was a single volley or shell in FoTS to kill off the general?

    If you decide to march into the fields of fire of artillery with important units, especially specialist artillery or elite ranged units, then your lord/hero deserves to be wiped out.

    Why should the engagement be decided, or even largely decided in melee? That should be where the skill of the general comes into place; actually getting your melee units into a position where they can be useful and do damage,especially in case of powerful melee units.

    Spreading out ranged damage over time makes sense perhaps for mainline indirect fire ranged units (such as elven archers, crossbows, darkshards or even chameleon skinks) but its a severe nerf for units such as gunners or ambush units such as waywatchers, which generally rely on doing severe amounts of damage in short periods of time. Spreading out damage makes even less sense for artillery, which should ideally be capable of turning its fields of fire (especially within a range of 250-300) into killing zones that severely punish head on attack.

    I guess the problem comes from trying to reconcile two very different systems of warfare; pre and post gunpowder style of warfare (the latter saw a pretty radical change due to the emergence of guns and artillery as the main killers on the battlefield, which far outpaced melee in its killing potential), which were based on very different principles. As general rule of thumb though, full attack from artillery below a range of 300 should be lethal for directly advancing units, regardless of importance (accuracy having an inverse relationship with engagement range).
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,880Registered Users
    edited February 2018
    Read what i wrote again, theres nothing wrong with arty killing the lord but if it can 1 shot him while his imobalized its what people have a problem with.

    Im not talking about cannons killing over time, im talking about taking 100% of hp of in few seconds. With no risk involved and no counter possible.
  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    Lord sniping is ok if it can be done over time or if there is some risk associated with trying to lord snipe but anything that can kill it in few hits while being relatiy safe is frowned upon mainly due to inability to react to it and no risk involved.

    Think how horrible arrow of kurnous lord snipe from 300m range was. Dragon breath sniping is only an issue in due combination with net, same with luminark.

    How is this any worse than older total wars where all it took was a single volley or shell in FoTS to kill off the general?

    If you decide to march into the fields of fire of artillery with important units, especially specialist artillery or elite ranged units, then your lord/hero deserves to be wiped out.

    Why should the engagement be decided, or even largely decided in melee? That should be where the skill of the general comes into place; actually getting your melee units into a position where they can be useful and do damage,especially in case of powerful melee units.

    Spreading out ranged damage over time makes sense perhaps for mainline indirect fire ranged units (such as elven archers, crossbows, darkshards or even chameleon skinks) but its a severe nerf for units such as gunners or ambush units such as waywatchers, which generally rely on doing severe amounts of damage in short periods of time. Spreading out damage makes even less sense for artillery, which should ideally be capable of turning its fields of fire (especially within a range of 250-300) into killing zones that severely punish head on attack.

    I guess the problem comes from trying to reconcile two very different systems of warfare; pre and post gunpowder style of warfare (the latter saw a pretty radical change due to the emergence of guns and artillery as the main killers on the battlefield, which far outpaced melee in its killing potential), which were based on very different principles. As general rule of thumb though, full attack from artillery below a range of 300 should be lethal for directly advancing units, regardless of importance (accuracy having an inverse relationship with engagement range).
    Enemy generals and heroes couldn't spam abilities that basically killed other generals from range or undodgable damage spells even in gun powder era.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    Read what i wrote again, theres nothing wrong with arty killing the lord but if it can 1 shot him while his imobalized its what people have a problem with.

    Im not talking about cannons killing over time, im talking about taking 100% of hp of in few seconds. With no risk involved and no counter possible.

    I read that; the question then is how long a time should the killing take?

    The answer IMO is actually very different depending on the unit; indirect fire mainline units such as crossbows should be able to spread their damage over time, however the same approach should not be applied to units like waywatchers, gunners or artillery, as this would be a heavy nerf to these units.

    In the case of such units, they really should be able to apply large amounts of damage with each volley, to the extent that charging them head on would be a suicidal prospect (as it was in reality; the area in front of gunners and cannons became a killing field for anything charging directly at them).
  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    Read what i wrote again, theres nothing wrong with arty killing the lord but if it can 1 shot him while his imobalized its what people have a problem with.

    Im not talking about cannons killing over time, im talking about taking 100% of hp of in few seconds. With no risk involved and no counter possible.

    I read that; the question then is how long a time should the killing take?

    The answer IMO is actually very different depending on the unit; indirect fire mainline units such as crossbows should be able to spread their damage over time, however the same approach should not be applied to units like waywatchers, gunners or artillery, as this would be a heavy nerf to these units.

    In the case of such units, they really should be able to apply large amounts of damage with each volley, to the extent that charging them head on would be a suicidal prospect (as it was in reality; the area in front of gunners and cannons became a killing field for anything charging directly at them).
    Notice no one says gunners are OP but WW are OP. Stalk, 190 range fire on the move and more importantly enough ammo to kill your lord then your infantry.

    Combined with net that reduces missile resist and you have a dead lord in seconds from a mile away. You can see gunners coming and they also don't fire in an arc.

    Silver bullets are really really good but that's just 1 unit you can bring 4+ way watchers.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    cool_lad said:

    Read what i wrote again, theres nothing wrong with arty killing the lord but if it can 1 shot him while his imobalized its what people have a problem with.

    Im not talking about cannons killing over time, im talking about taking 100% of hp of in few seconds. With no risk involved and no counter possible.

    I read that; the question then is how long a time should the killing take?

    The answer IMO is actually very different depending on the unit; indirect fire mainline units such as crossbows should be able to spread their damage over time, however the same approach should not be applied to units like waywatchers, gunners or artillery, as this would be a heavy nerf to these units.

    In the case of such units, they really should be able to apply large amounts of damage with each volley, to the extent that charging them head on would be a suicidal prospect (as it was in reality; the area in front of gunners and cannons became a killing field for anything charging directly at them).
    Notice no one says gunners are OP but WW are OP. Stalk, 190 range fire on the move and more importantly enough ammo to kill your lord then your infantry.

    Combined with net that reduces missile resist and you have a dead lord in seconds from a mile away. You can see gunners coming and they also don't fire in an arc.

    Silver bullets are really really good but that's just 1 unit you can bring 4+ way watchers.
    The problem is that units such as Luminark have indeed been nerfed to the point of worthlessness to insulate single entity melee units from being engaged outside melee.

    As for waywatchers, they seem to represent a high risk, high reward unit; they'll die quickly if caught out in the open, but punish players who fail to scout ahead of their armies before the engagement. Again, the issue with waywatchers is the expectation that poor tactics and preparation should be forgiven (and not scouting ahead of the army is a cardinal sin in battle and should indeed be punished severely).
  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    cool_lad said:

    Read what i wrote again, theres nothing wrong with arty killing the lord but if it can 1 shot him while his imobalized its what people have a problem with.

    Im not talking about cannons killing over time, im talking about taking 100% of hp of in few seconds. With no risk involved and no counter possible.

    I read that; the question then is how long a time should the killing take?

    The answer IMO is actually very different depending on the unit; indirect fire mainline units such as crossbows should be able to spread their damage over time, however the same approach should not be applied to units like waywatchers, gunners or artillery, as this would be a heavy nerf to these units.

    In the case of such units, they really should be able to apply large amounts of damage with each volley, to the extent that charging them head on would be a suicidal prospect (as it was in reality; the area in front of gunners and cannons became a killing field for anything charging directly at them).
    Notice no one says gunners are OP but WW are OP. Stalk, 190 range fire on the move and more importantly enough ammo to kill your lord then your infantry.

    Combined with net that reduces missile resist and you have a dead lord in seconds from a mile away. You can see gunners coming and they also don't fire in an arc.

    Silver bullets are really really good but that's just 1 unit you can bring 4+ way watchers.
    The problem is that units such as Luminark have indeed been nerfed to the point of worthlessness to insulate single entity melee units from being engaged outside melee.

    As for waywatchers, they seem to represent a high risk, high reward unit; they'll die quickly if caught out in the open, but punish players who fail to scout ahead of their armies before the engagement. Again, the issue with waywatchers is the expectation that poor tactics and preparation should be forgiven (and not scouting ahead of the army is a cardinal sin in battle and should indeed be punished severely).
    There is no risk. Why do you think people bring 4 of them now. You can scout ahead. They will just delete your scouts.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,880Registered Users
    Its about limited or lack of counter play when its happening its that simple, luminark is not OP but luminark shooting a netted lord can be gane breaking, melee lord sniping has counter play in the form that you can protect him with your units.

    If you want a perfect example what i consider lord sniping its liber bubonics, heck ignore the lord cast it on a mage on foot its 1 use kill and there is nothing the opponent can do about it unless he has heal.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    edited February 2018

    Its about limited or lack of counter play when its happening its that simple, luminark is not OP but luminark shooting a netted lord can be gane breaking, melee lord sniping has counter play in the form that you can protect him with your units.

    If you want a perfect example what i consider lord sniping its liber bubonics, heck ignore the lord cast it on a mage on foot its 1 use kill and there is nothing the opponent can do about it unless he has heal.

    But can we agree that the solution at least isn't nerfing ranged units and artillery; spells and abilities can be limited for the purposes of multiplayer, but nerfing units has a number of knock on effects and buffs what seem to me to be already overbuffed rush factions.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    cool_lad said:

    cool_lad said:

    Read what i wrote again, theres nothing wrong with arty killing the lord but if it can 1 shot him while his imobalized its what people have a problem with.

    Im not talking about cannons killing over time, im talking about taking 100% of hp of in few seconds. With no risk involved and no counter possible.

    I read that; the question then is how long a time should the killing take?

    The answer IMO is actually very different depending on the unit; indirect fire mainline units such as crossbows should be able to spread their damage over time, however the same approach should not be applied to units like waywatchers, gunners or artillery, as this would be a heavy nerf to these units.

    In the case of such units, they really should be able to apply large amounts of damage with each volley, to the extent that charging them head on would be a suicidal prospect (as it was in reality; the area in front of gunners and cannons became a killing field for anything charging directly at them).
    Notice no one says gunners are OP but WW are OP. Stalk, 190 range fire on the move and more importantly enough ammo to kill your lord then your infantry.

    Combined with net that reduces missile resist and you have a dead lord in seconds from a mile away. You can see gunners coming and they also don't fire in an arc.

    Silver bullets are really really good but that's just 1 unit you can bring 4+ way watchers.
    The problem is that units such as Luminark have indeed been nerfed to the point of worthlessness to insulate single entity melee units from being engaged outside melee.

    As for waywatchers, they seem to represent a high risk, high reward unit; they'll die quickly if caught out in the open, but punish players who fail to scout ahead of their armies before the engagement. Again, the issue with waywatchers is the expectation that poor tactics and preparation should be forgiven (and not scouting ahead of the army is a cardinal sin in battle and should indeed be punished severely).
    There is no risk. Why do you think people bring 4 of them now. You can scout ahead. They will just delete your scouts.
    Use your army as a whole; scouts aren't meant to engage the enemy alone except in rare cases. Once the position is detected, isolate and concentrate fore on the waywatchers as they'll be unsupported.

    If you fail to use combined arms and your army as a cohesive whole, you're committing another cardinal sin of warfare.
  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    Its about limited or lack of counter play when its happening its that simple, luminark is not OP but luminark shooting a netted lord can be gane breaking, melee lord sniping has counter play in the form that you can protect him with your units.

    If you want a perfect example what i consider lord sniping its liber bubonics, heck ignore the lord cast it on a mage on foot its 1 use kill and there is nothing the opponent can do about it unless he has heal.

    But can we agree that the solution at least isn't nerfing ranged units and artillery; spells and abilities can be limited for the purposes of multiplayer, but nerfing units has a number of knock on effects and buffs what seem to me to be already overbufged rush factions.
    Balance is a complicated thing. We complain about lots of things but overall we want as @Lotus_Moon said counterplay which makes the game interesting. Ranged units and arty are definitely needed right now because of how insanely powerful big fast armored monsters of the TWW2 factions are.

    Personally I always complain about direct damage spells more because they are just really boring to use and there is no counterplay unless you have a healer which lots of factions don't.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,880Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    Its about limited or lack of counter play when its happening its that simple, luminark is not OP but luminark shooting a netted lord can be gane breaking, melee lord sniping has counter play in the form that you can protect him with your units.

    If you want a perfect example what i consider lord sniping its liber bubonics, heck ignore the lord cast it on a mage on foot its 1 use kill and there is nothing the opponent can do about it unless he has heal.

    But can we agree that the solution at least isn't nerfing ranged units and artillery; spells and abilities can be limited for the purposes of multiplayer, but nerfing units has a number of knock on effects and buffs what seem to me to be already overbuffed rush factions.
    I think noone is saying to nerf the units etc only case by case bases where the most obvious cases should be adjusted. Star dragon breath plus net was very frustrating for people to play against and it got nit overnerfed as a feaction (im fine with its damage noe just should go down in cost by 100)
  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users

    cool_lad said:

    Its about limited or lack of counter play when its happening its that simple, luminark is not OP but luminark shooting a netted lord can be gane breaking, melee lord sniping has counter play in the form that you can protect him with your units.

    If you want a perfect example what i consider lord sniping its liber bubonics, heck ignore the lord cast it on a mage on foot its 1 use kill and there is nothing the opponent can do about it unless he has heal.

    But can we agree that the solution at least isn't nerfing ranged units and artillery; spells and abilities can be limited for the purposes of multiplayer, but nerfing units has a number of knock on effects and buffs what seem to me to be already overbuffed rush factions.
    I think noone is saying to nerf the units etc only case by case bases where the most obvious cases should be adjusted. Star dragon breath plus net was very frustrating for people to play against and it got nit overnerfed as a feaction (im fine with its damage noe just should go down in cost by 100)
    Just fix all the armored fast land monsters. Then the star dragon will do just fine and it also helps bret and other factions.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users
    Overall I think that artillery and gunners at least need to be made more powerful in places; frontal rushes should not be as effective as they are now (which is perhaps one of the major reasons for the weakness of Empire; as their main killing tools aren't as effective as they need to be and can be largely ignored by thoughtless rushes).

    As for spells and abilities; I think that the only way to balance them for both SP and MP would be MP specific rules and changes.

    @Lotus_Moon do you think it would be a good idea to have the player decide their faction and army before they enter into the matchmaking queue and/or make it so that faction choice is hidden during the army composition phase.

    Also, can we agree that with the net abilities being readjusted and made more expensive, the Luminark needs some pretty severe buffs (the Empire does need that unit to deal with heroes (which the Empire, for all its touted versatility, struggles to counter) and single entity monsters.
  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    Overall I think that artillery and gunners at least need to be made more powerful in places; frontal rushes should not be as effective as they are now (which is perhaps one of the major reasons for the weakness of Empire; as their main killing tools aren't as effective as they need to be and can be largely ignored by thoughtless rushes).

    As for spells and abilities; I think that the only way to balance them for both SP and MP would be MP specific rules and changes.

    @Lotus_Moon do you think it would be a good idea to have the player decide their faction and army before they enter into the matchmaking queue and/or make it so that faction choice is hidden during the army composition phase.

    Also, can we agree that with the net abilities being readjusted and made more expensive, the Luminark needs some pretty severe buffs (the Empire does need that unit to deal with heroes (which the Empire, for all its touted versatility, struggles to counter) and single entity monsters.

    Arty and Ranged are there to support the front line. Not be so good that you don't need one.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,880Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    Overall I think that artillery and gunners at least need to be made more powerful in places; frontal rushes should not be as effective as they are now (which is perhaps one of the major reasons for the weakness of Empire; as their main killing tools aren't as effective as they need to be and can be largely ignored by thoughtless rushes).

    As for spells and abilities; I think that the only way to balance them for both SP and MP would be MP specific rules and changes.

    @Lotus_Moon do you think it would be a good idea to have the player decide their faction and army before they enter into the matchmaking queue and/or make it so that faction choice is hidden during the army composition phase.

    Also, can we agree that with the net abilities being readjusted and made more expensive, the Luminark needs some pretty severe buffs (the Empire does need that unit to deal with heroes (which the Empire, for all its touted versatility, struggles to counter) and single entity monsters.

    Faction yes army no, you should be able to adjust your roster according to the faction you play against and the map you're playing on, also to your opponent if you know their tendencies. Some units are simply more viable vs certain factions, also there are so many horrible maps that dodging should still be allowed.

    Luminark can use buffs but not severe ones, it should be noted that even minor buffs on paper can turn a unit from UP to OP so yes buff the luminark but be aware of what it can do on the extreme on of things, have you trued 2 plus lore if light caster vs vc? They cannot use their lord at all vs empire or if they try he gets insta killed when he comes in range of being netted.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    cool_lad said:

    Overall I think that artillery and gunners at least need to be made more powerful in places; frontal rushes should not be as effective as they are now (which is perhaps one of the major reasons for the weakness of Empire; as their main killing tools aren't as effective as they need to be and can be largely ignored by thoughtless rushes).

    As for spells and abilities; I think that the only way to balance them for both SP and MP would be MP specific rules and changes.

    @Lotus_Moon do you think it would be a good idea to have the player decide their faction and army before they enter into the matchmaking queue and/or make it so that faction choice is hidden during the army composition phase.

    Also, can we agree that with the net abilities being readjusted and made more expensive, the Luminark needs some pretty severe buffs (the Empire does need that unit to deal with heroes (which the Empire, for all its touted versatility, struggles to counter) and single entity monsters.

    Arty and Ranged are there to support the front line. Not be so good that you don't need one.
    That really isn't true for gunpowder units; one may very well say that the frontline is simply there to support the gunners and artillery, who are the main killers for the army. The frontline (such as it is) ceased to be the main killer in battles once guns and cannons were introduced; ultimately leading to a realigning of warfare around the artillery and gunners (which IRL led to pike and shot tactics replacing heavily armoured frontlines.

    Attacking a prepared artillery position, especially when it's backed by gunners, should be a terrible idea. The tactics to be used by factions with gunpowder (such as the Empire) shouldn't be the same as the ones used with bows (such as elves).
  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users
    cool_lad said:

    cool_lad said:

    Overall I think that artillery and gunners at least need to be made more powerful in places; frontal rushes should not be as effective as they are now (which is perhaps one of the major reasons for the weakness of Empire; as their main killing tools aren't as effective as they need to be and can be largely ignored by thoughtless rushes).

    As for spells and abilities; I think that the only way to balance them for both SP and MP would be MP specific rules and changes.

    @Lotus_Moon do you think it would be a good idea to have the player decide their faction and army before they enter into the matchmaking queue and/or make it so that faction choice is hidden during the army composition phase.

    Also, can we agree that with the net abilities being readjusted and made more expensive, the Luminark needs some pretty severe buffs (the Empire does need that unit to deal with heroes (which the Empire, for all its touted versatility, struggles to counter) and single entity monsters.

    Arty and Ranged are there to support the front line. Not be so good that you don't need one.
    That really isn't true for gunpowder units; one may very well say that the frontline is simply there to support the gunners and artillery, who are the main killers for the army. The frontline (such as it is) ceased to be the main killer in battles once guns and cannons were introduced; ultimately leading to a realigning of warfare around the artillery and gunners (which IRL led to pike and shot tactics replacing heavily armoured frontlines.

    Attacking a prepared artillery position, especially when it's backed by gunners, should be a terrible idea. The tactics to be used by factions with gunpowder (such as the Empire) shouldn't be the same as the ones used with bows (such as elves).
    Why not be a Dawi player and fully commit to these kind of playstyle? Empire has cav for a reason.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,272Registered Users

    cool_lad said:

    cool_lad said:

    Overall I think that artillery and gunners at least need to be made more powerful in places; frontal rushes should not be as effective as they are now (which is perhaps one of the major reasons for the weakness of Empire; as their main killing tools aren't as effective as they need to be and can be largely ignored by thoughtless rushes).

    As for spells and abilities; I think that the only way to balance them for both SP and MP would be MP specific rules and changes.

    @Lotus_Moon do you think it would be a good idea to have the player decide their faction and army before they enter into the matchmaking queue and/or make it so that faction choice is hidden during the army composition phase.

    Also, can we agree that with the net abilities being readjusted and made more expensive, the Luminark needs some pretty severe buffs (the Empire does need that unit to deal with heroes (which the Empire, for all its touted versatility, struggles to counter) and single entity monsters.

    Arty and Ranged are there to support the front line. Not be so good that you don't need one.
    That really isn't true for gunpowder units; one may very well say that the frontline is simply there to support the gunners and artillery, who are the main killers for the army. The frontline (such as it is) ceased to be the main killer in battles once guns and cannons were introduced; ultimately leading to a realigning of warfare around the artillery and gunners (which IRL led to pike and shot tactics replacing heavily armoured frontlines.

    Attacking a prepared artillery position, especially when it's backed by gunners, should be a terrible idea. The tactics to be used by factions with gunpowder (such as the Empire) shouldn't be the same as the ones used with bows (such as elves).
    Why not be a Dawi player and fully commit to these kind of playstyle? Empire has cav for a reason.
    I believe the word for the Empire was versatility; it should be open to the Empire player to fully commit to tericoes, go with a more traditional army, or anything in between for that matter.

    Pike and shot warfare also had a major role for cavalry. The point being that frontal charges (being a pretty lazy excuse for tactics) across the field of fire of artillery should be heavily punished and certainly not a good idea.

    Empire and Dwarven gun lines shouldn't be forced to engage on the same terms as high elven frontlines, wood elf ambushes or Chaos melee assaults. Each faction should have their own way of fighting and be capable of engaging on their own terms; this would create far more counterplay than a dogmatic approach to the roles of the various branches of the army, as each player manoeuvres to create an advantageous situation for their army.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 4,171Registered Users

    Lord sniping is ok if it can be done over time or if there is some risk associated with trying to lord snipe but anything that can kill it in few hits while being relatiy safe is frowned upon mainly due to inability to react to it and no risk involved.

    Think how horrible arrow of kurnous lord snipe from 300m range was. Dragon breath sniping is only an issue in due combination with net, same with luminark.

    Well said. There is nothing wrong with killing the lord but if this can be done let's say 300m away and in 3 seconds then it's clearly a flaw.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users
    Certain Lords are too resilient against stupidity, Krog'gar for example. Meanwhile, a 800 gold skink chief on terradon can kill Gelt without much fuss whilst the lizardmen player that lost 95% of his army still comes ahead because krog'gar terrorizes 7 units of spears and free company militia.

    I mean, what is a dino in the face of 400 spears and 260 guns right.



  • kenjigreatkenjigreat Posts: 491Registered Users

    Certain Lords are too resilient against stupidity, Krog'gar for example. Meanwhile, a 800 gold skink chief on terradon can kill Gelt without much fuss whilst the lizardmen player that lost 95% of his army still comes ahead because krog'gar terrorizes 7 units of spears and free company militia.

    I mean, what is a dino in the face of 400 spears and 260 guns right.



    Kroq's only fear is Warplightning cannons and Bow Ubshabti or being netted and shot by Waywatchers.
Sign In or Register to comment.