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

The one skill I'd like to see removed for WH·3.

Eth3ryasEth3ryas Registered Users Posts: 645
Is nice they thought about nerfing doomstacking a bit, but what about lighting strike. People abuse that way more than doomstacking. I personally never use it because it removes the strategy from battles if you can just easily pick your battles with lighting strike.
I would very much like to see it removed from the game.
«13

Comments

  • NeoYasNeoYas Registered Users Posts: 885
    edited May 23
    I don't use it either I prefer strategy or to face them all once I have a powerful army (not doom stack), so I don't mind if they remove it.


  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    Or just have it delay reinforcements.
    Or make it once per turn.
    Or give your own troops a large fatigue penalty if you use it several times in one turn.
    O yeah, and don't have it available if you are attacking only one army because that still gives the enemy a ld-debuff.

  • aMint1aMint1 Registered Users Posts: 963
    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.
  • manpersalmanpersal Registered Users Posts: 2,107
    I never evet pick it, but this is something that part of the community seems too attached to. A good start would be to make it a lot more cosly, for example putting it at the end of the blue skill line.
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 6,943
    Eth3ryas said:

    Is nice they thought about nerfing doomstacking a bit, but what about lighting strike. People abuse that way more than doomstacking. I personally never use it because it removes the strategy from battles if you can just easily pick your battles with lighting strike.
    I would very much like to see it removed from the game.

    Lightning Strike is actually required for some factions in order to win without relying on complete luck. Its especially required for the Legendary Chaos Invasion.

    Its possible to remove it, but we'd need a rebalance of the campaign and of individual factions (like Skarsnik) to do so.

    It'd also make doomstacking essential.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.
  • BayesBayes Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,548
    There is a mod that delays reinforcments in general and also changes lightning strike to delay reinforcements further. That has been a huge improvement to my campaigns.

    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2322550212
  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860
    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.
  • Ares354Ares354 Registered Users Posts: 4,259
    Its should be 1 time use per turn, with 1 turn after cooldown.

    You get once chance to fight only one army.

    Doomstack should be as well capped. By hard cap both by player and AI.

    Dragon, Giants etc, all should be rare.
  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860
    edited May 23
    Ares354 said:

    Its should be 1 time use per turn, with 1 turn after cooldown.

    You get once chance to fight only one army.

    Doomstack should be as well capped. By hard cap both by player and AI.

    Dragon, Giants etc, all should be rare.

    Eh, it is not much of the nerf. You rarely abuse it for more than one battle anyway.

    While factionwide caps are okay to have, doomstacks must definitely be still allowed.

    Should Dragons be rare for Imrik, should Dragon Ogres be rare for Kholek, should Chosen be rare for Archaon.

    Why whole Ulthuan united can not wake 40 Dragons?

    I as player want to have freedom in how I want to allocate my troops, hard caps on units per army are beyond stupidity.
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 6,943
    Bereaver said:

    Ares354 said:

    Its should be 1 time use per turn, with 1 turn after cooldown.

    You get once chance to fight only one army.

    Doomstack should be as well capped. By hard cap both by player and AI.

    Dragon, Giants etc, all should be rare.

    Eh, it is not much of the nerf. You rarely abuse it for more than one battle anyway.

    While factionwide caps are okay to have, doomstacks must definitely be still allowed.

    Should Dragons be rare for Imrik, should Dragon Ogres be rare for Kholek, should Chosen be rare for Archaon.

    Why whole Ulthuan united can not wake 40 Dragons?

    I as player want to have freedom in how I want to allocate my troops, hard caps on units per army are beyond stupidity.
    How would you naturally stop a Doomstack in this situation without ambushing or lightning striking, unless doomstacking as well?
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.
  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860
    edited May 23
    Amonkhet said:

    Bereaver said:

    Ares354 said:

    Its should be 1 time use per turn, with 1 turn after cooldown.

    You get once chance to fight only one army.

    Doomstack should be as well capped. By hard cap both by player and AI.

    Dragon, Giants etc, all should be rare.

    Eh, it is not much of the nerf. You rarely abuse it for more than one battle anyway.

    While factionwide caps are okay to have, doomstacks must definitely be still allowed.

    Should Dragons be rare for Imrik, should Dragon Ogres be rare for Kholek, should Chosen be rare for Archaon.

    Why whole Ulthuan united can not wake 40 Dragons?

    I as player want to have freedom in how I want to allocate my troops, hard caps on units per army are beyond stupidity.
    How would you naturally stop a Doomstack in this situation without ambushing or lightning striking, unless doomstacking as well?
    I had several times when 20 Mammoth stacks attacked my cities.

    Easily solved by parking your own stack in Ambush stance near the city with garrison. You know, 20 single entity monsters are actually not that good in hands of AI.

    Without Ambush - why? It is turn 1 instument available to anyone but Warriors of Chaos.
  • manpersalmanpersal Registered Users Posts: 2,107
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.

  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860
    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
  • hendo1592hendo1592 Registered Users Posts: 2,475


    I’m not opposed to changing it up a bit to make it more challenging for players. Or even making it more interesting. I rarely use it; however, I don’t want it to go away or also be pointless to use.

    When lightning strike is discussed, I find it odd (or curious even) is that the topic is generally centered around other players abusing it. Even more bizarre is that it’s not premised as a head-to-head campaign issue and an experience of playing with someone else that was abusing lightning strike. The discussions appear to be simply over-concerned with how strangers play the game. If you think lightning strike is pointless, don’t use it... your “problem” is solved. Oh, hey- and you have an extra skill point to put elsewhere—your welcome.

    Suppose you’re trying to advocate for lightning strike to be more exciting and challenging for yourself, great! If it’s because you see the potential for strangers to abuse it... I don’t think your input will go far or get much traction.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.

  • manpersalmanpersal Registered Users Posts: 2,107

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    And Ambush stance forcing the AI to fight a regular battle if the ambush fails.
  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 1,674
    edited May 23
    You don't want lightning strike? Don't use it. No need to take my choice away because YOU are concerned about my gameplay. I don't need anyone minding my business.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 6,943
    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
    You'll quickly notice the difference playing Clan Moulder in ME on Legendary with Chaos Invasion set to max difficulty.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.
  • yukontherunyukontherun Registered Users Posts: 869
    edited May 23
    Amonkhet said:

    Eth3ryas said:

    Is nice they thought about nerfing doomstacking a bit, but what about lighting strike. People abuse that way more than doomstacking. I personally never use it because it removes the strategy from battles if you can just easily pick your battles with lighting strike.
    I would very much like to see it removed from the game.

    Lightning Strike is actually required for some factions in order to win without relying on complete luck. Its especially required for the Legendary Chaos Invasion.

    Its possible to remove it, but we'd need a rebalance of the campaign and of individual factions (like Skarsnik) to do so.

    It'd also make doomstacking essential.
    Not really, because the game is balanced around normal difficulty. If you can't deal with the legendary chaos invasion, either get good or lower the difficulty.

    I don't even mind it because the AI doesn't use it so neither do I have to, but it removes all difficulty from the game, so if you use it don't ask them to make the game harder, you're already playing on easy mode.
    Justice for the scalies!

    Basic fixes for blessed spawnings and geomantic web:
    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/293369/lizardmen-rework-suggestions/p1?new=1
  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860
    edited May 23
    Amonkhet said:

    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
    You'll quickly notice the difference playing Clan Moulder in ME on Legendary with Chaos Invasion set to max difficulty.
    I did win Ungrim Legendary campaing with Legendary Chaos invasion without using Lightning Strike recently.

    No way I am wasting skill points on Lightning Strike when Skaven get Attack Ambush (which is still inferior to Ambush Stance) for free lol.
  • Fingolfin_the-GoldenFingolfin_the-Golden Registered Users Posts: 1,415
    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    I thought you were a deep thinker and liked to strategically play? That’s what you said?
    Advocating again for a press to win button.
    Plan ahead mate!
    🧝‍♀️
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    edited May 23
    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
    Good, then let's nerf LS AND ambush stance both if you want that so badly.
    KronusX said:

    Eth3ryas said:

    Is nice they thought about nerfing doomstacking a bit, but what about lighting strike. People abuse that way more than doomstacking. I personally never use it because it removes the strategy from battles if you can just easily pick your battles with lighting strike.
    I would very much like to see it removed from the game.



    You don't want lightning strike? Don't use it. No need to take my choice away because YOU are concerned about my gameplay. I don't need anyone minding my business.
    OK, then let's give the player infinite money, infinite movement and infinite skillpoints. And a big fat red I WIN button while you are at it. Eh, don't like winning campaigns in one turn? dOnT uSe iT!

    Sorry, can't make that argument unless you protest against ALL player restrictions.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on

  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 663
    Eth3ryas said:

    Is nice they thought about nerfing doomstacking a bit, but what about lighting strike. People abuse that way more than doomstacking. I personally never use it because it removes the strategy from battles if you can just easily pick your battles with lighting strike.
    I would very much like to see it removed from the game.

    If this community here is like my Facebook one, uff, you picked quite a theme.

    Most of the issues that people have with the removal or tweak of LIghtning strike have to do with "well, how else can we deal with the number of armies and the cheats the AI does" or they just go with the argument "well, you are not forced into using it, leave it there for us".

    I agree with you. In its current form, it is so massively overpowered ability that it causes entire strategies around it, and not taking it feels weird. From any game point of view, you should have equal or approximately equal choices, with different rewards. More difficult, more reward. The way lightning strike is implemented, it is a very high reward with little risk (what, spending like 5 skill points with most characters?). Other strategies without it exist, but you get very little from those extra 5 skill points, in essence. For me, it is the same as immortality for heroes and lords, it is quite powerful, but at least that one is on level 20, which gives it a bit more risk


    I disagree with the whole "you cannot deal with the AI on legendary without doomstacks or lightning strike" You can, I have, and many other people can. It is harder, may take planning, but like someone pointed out, ambush stance is very powerful for it, and that has inherent risks.

    I also disagree with the notion that you need to use doomstacks to win. I have used even goblin-based armies with spiders to face chaos and other factions, and they do just fine. Of course, you can use black orcs and trolls and arachnarok spiders and they are more effective, but a few armies of goblins cost way less, so it is a balance that I try to achieve in order to get an extra army or so.

    This said, what I dislike with the argument of pro-lightning strike is this: if it is so fundamental, why not put it from the start and give it a different gameplay mechanic? Removing it seems strange, as I totally understand the idea behind a lightning strike, but it is poorly implemented. We used to have night battles in the other tw games, and it follows the same idea, but even then I disliked it for the same reason, seemed lazy. Or, give it tweaks like others suggest, maybe once per army per 5 turns? (In all seriousness, I use lightning strike as well, and in my last campaign even fighting chaos on my own I have maybe used it 2 to 3 times. There are ways around it, and it feels more like a walking stick at this point than anything)

    Now, there are specific notions and issues with the game that lightning strike is honestly concealing, and I would prefer we actually discuss those since I believe this is WHY people really want lightning strike. So please, discuss:

    1 - poor 40x40 battle UI implementation. Come on, I know we can micro like hell, but in all honesty, the UI is quite embarrassingly bad for commanding 40 unit cards. 20 is a good number, and even then it is quite difficult. Even with control groups, there is for sure a better way to provide optimal control and still allow for the strategic control and micro we enjoy doing. Do you guys keep looking at the unit cards to see what is happening on the battlefield... how often have you looked at those to actually act upon any of the countless warnings (engaged in melee, under ranged fire, etc) it gives you?
    2 - the overall amount of stacks the enemy can get, which creates the issue of even with 40x40 battles, there are a LOT of battles to do. Especially vs Chaos, or an Order or Green tide, they are so many. It can become repetitive easily, and lightning strike helps with it.
    3 - Siege battles with 40x40 armies are ridiculously blobby and so tight it is almost claustrophobic. Hope this gets tweaked because they become very unenthusiastic easily. Like, seriously, how many times do you really say "I hope he attacks my garrison with my army there, with those 2 armies".
    4 - more than 1 army reinforcing. In my opinion, the fact that you limit to 40 is fine, that is already too much. But allowing more units to come forward feels a bit ridiculous at this point and once more, the UI problem manifests itself.
    5 - as others have pointed out, there is a matter of balance, so the AI getting some buffs to their stats, helps that you can deal with fewer numbers and fight them bit by bit.
    6 - supply lines - I would love to see this being considerably changed as right now it makes no sense to have an army with just a few units given how it increases the cost for every other unit in your army.

    Lightning strike kinda solves all of this, right? You get to fight on a more even 20x20, and slowly proceed. You have a more comfortable environment to control those units, magic feels important, micro as well, etc. If all these matters above get changed and tweaked, for sure players will often avoid lightning strike altogether because it would be more fun, that is my thought process here.

    Certainly, I do not mind lightning strike, but I believe it is one of those mechanics that could use tweaking, as right now, it has absolutely no strategy whatsoever. It is quite simply: "get that skill point, and done". This is for all intents and purposes, lazy gameplay writing, and I would prefer something that would make you think "should I or not" instead of "of course".
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860
    edited May 23

    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
    Good, then let's nerf LS AND ambush stance both if you want that so badly.
    KronusX said:

    Eth3ryas said:

    Is nice they thought about nerfing doomstacking a bit, but what about lighting strike. People abuse that way more than doomstacking. I personally never use it because it removes the strategy from battles if you can just easily pick your battles with lighting strike.
    I would very much like to see it removed from the game.

    You don't want lightning strike? Don't use it. No need to take my choice away because YOU are concerned about my gameplay. I don't need anyone minding my business.
    OK, then let's give the player infinite money, infinite movement and infinite skillpoints. And a big fat red I WIN button while you are at it. Eh, don't like winning campaigns in one turn? dOnT uSe iT!

    Sorry, can't make that argument unless you protest against ALL player restrictions.
    Actually, I agree with nerfing Ambush stance!

    For the first change, I would love to have spotting distance be tied to Ambush stance success chance. For the second one - basic Ambush chance should be much lower, meaning that you have to specialize you general to be good ambusher. Right now it is laughably easy, you need 0 points to abuse hell out of Ambush.

    In Total War Three Kingdoms it is even worse - enemy armies can never spot you at all, all chinese armies are ninjas lol.

    I feel that CA does not understand what Ambush does to campaign balance, because people talk about it much less than about Lightning Strike or Skaven Ambush attack stance.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Registered Users Posts: 6,943
    edited May 23
    Bereaver said:

    Amonkhet said:

    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
    You'll quickly notice the difference playing Clan Moulder in ME on Legendary with Chaos Invasion set to max difficulty.
    I did win Ungrim Legendary campaing with Legendary Chaos invasion without using Lightning Strike recently.

    No way I am wasting skill points on Lightning Strike when Skaven get Attack Ambush (which is still inferior to Ambush Stance) for free lol.
    I said Moulder for a specific reason; in that the Chaos invasion will beeline for your capital, and have 5-6 stacks sitting outside it. The only way, logically to defeat that is with Lightning Strike.
    Albion would make the perfect Total War Warhammer 3 pre-order; with Hengus the Druid and Bran MacKerog as Legendary Lords.
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    edited May 23
    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
    Good, then let's nerf LS AND ambush stance both if you want that so badly.
    KronusX said:

    Eth3ryas said:

    Is nice they thought about nerfing doomstacking a bit, but what about lighting strike. People abuse that way more than doomstacking. I personally never use it because it removes the strategy from battles if you can just easily pick your battles with lighting strike.
    I would very much like to see it removed from the game.

    You don't want lightning strike? Don't use it. No need to take my choice away because YOU are concerned about my gameplay. I don't need anyone minding my business.
    OK, then let's give the player infinite money, infinite movement and infinite skillpoints. And a big fat red I WIN button while you are at it. Eh, don't like winning campaigns in one turn? dOnT uSe iT!

    Sorry, can't make that argument unless you protest against ALL player restrictions.
    Actually, I agree with nerfing Ambush stance!

    For the first change, I would love to have spotting distance be tied to Ambush stance success chance. For the second one - basic Ambush chance should be much lower, meaning that you have to specialize you general to be good ambusher. Right now it is laughably easy, you need 0 points to abuse hell out of Ambush.

    In Total War Three Kingdoms it is even worse - enemy armies can never spot you at all, all chinese armies are ninjas lol.

    I feel that CA does not understand what Ambush does to campaign balance, because people talk about it much less than about Lightning Strike or Skaven Ambush attack stance.
    I'd just hard cap ambush success chance at 50% max no matter how much you spec for it and give your troops a debuff should it fail since when it fails it's you who's been caught with the pants down.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on

  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860
    edited May 23
    Amonkhet said:

    Bereaver said:

    Amonkhet said:

    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
    You'll quickly notice the difference playing Clan Moulder in ME on Legendary with Chaos Invasion set to max difficulty.
    I did win Ungrim Legendary campaing with Legendary Chaos invasion without using Lightning Strike recently.

    No way I am wasting skill points on Lightning Strike when Skaven get Attack Ambush (which is still inferior to Ambush Stance) for free lol.
    I said Moulder for a specific reason; in that the Chaos invasion will beeline for your capital, and have 5-6 stacks sitting outside it. The only way, logically to defeat that is with Lightning Strike.
    Nah, with Moulder you 4v1 it a couple of times during one turn. I mean, I did it with Helman Ghorst 19 Black Coaches stack, it can not be harder with Throt.

    Edit: also, I just won Legendary Throt campaign at 110 turn, so did not met Archaon, but first wave was killed by 1 Plague Gray seer + 15 Rat Ogres + 3 Wolf Rats, and another stack was Warlord +15 Mutant Rat Ogres + 3 Wolf Rats.

    I like Wolf Rats!

  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860

    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    Bereaver said:

    manpersal said:

    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambushes can backfire too, which make them much weaker than lighting strike.
    It can never fail if you use it from distance from enemy stack. You can fail to initiate ambush battle, but you will get normal one instead.

    aMint1 said:

    Removing lightning strike makes doomstacking even more important. If you can't pick and choose your battles and the enemy is throwing multiple armies at you, you need a ridiculously OP or cheesey stack to deal with it.

    Lightning strike is obviously really, really strong -not sure if the game improves without it though.

    Right now, it makes doomstacks STRONGER because you only need one and can AR-abuse an entire batch of AI stacks in one turn.

    Removing it or nerfing it is absolutely in order.
    Bereaver said:

    Truth is that Ambush stance is much more powerful than Lightning Strike:
    1. It makes your armies invisible so enemy sends its armies into stupid position for you to delete them.
    2. You can 4v1 with Ambush Stance.
    3. You can bait enemy armies with single Lord and 3 armies nearby in Ambush Stance.
    4. You do not need to have any investment in Ambush stance skills at all, because Ambush chance and enemy spottinng distance are entirely unrelated, Ambush chance skills only increase % of Ambush battle instead of normal one.

    Ambush stance is far more effective instrument than Lightning Strike for these reasons. I see no point in removing Lightning Strike when Ambush stance is so powerful.

    Ambush stance is passive and has several failure states, you can also only ever ambush one stack with it. LS can never fail and you can eliminate several stacks in one turn with it.

    So no, ambush stance is in no way stronger than LS.
    Lightning Strike makes you move TOWARDS enemy. I've lost countless armies with overconfidence because of this skill. Yes, you autoresolve 2-4 armies 1 by 1 with this, leaving you with no movement points and weaker army because you autoresolved it instead of playing it manually with less casualites (at least that's unpatient me, because when I see 90-10 autoresolve bar, I hit it 100%, but it still inflics casualties). Then during enemy turn enemy comes out of fog of war and stomps you 4v1.

    Ambush stance makes enemy move to you and that is better by default.

    I play Legendary difficulty exclusively, mind you, so AI has much more stacks at its disposal.
    So your argument is that you might be able to effortlessly beat up to four AI stacks with it, but might get overwhelmed by a fifth on legendary because you didn't scout ahead or didn't pay attention?

    That has to be one of the most laughable defenses of LS ever.
    Yeap, because nowdays I do not bother with Lightning Strike at all. I just wait till I 4v1 one stack with Ambush and finish the strugglers. No place in game where this tactic does not work, you can do it with Empire with 100+ settlements, you can do it with Chaos Legendary Invasion.

    For me Lightning Strike is a noobtrap. Ambush costs 0 skill points.
    Good, then let's nerf LS AND ambush stance both if you want that so badly.
    KronusX said:

    Eth3ryas said:

    Is nice they thought about nerfing doomstacking a bit, but what about lighting strike. People abuse that way more than doomstacking. I personally never use it because it removes the strategy from battles if you can just easily pick your battles with lighting strike.
    I would very much like to see it removed from the game.

    Why don't you play the way you like to play and let others play the way the like. Atrocious how some people think only because they dislike something they are entitled to tell others how they have to play their own game.
    GTFO!
    This, I like the strangers to stay the f out of my game with their **** decisions. You don't want lightning strike? Don't use it. No need to take my choice away because YOU are concerned about my gameplay. I don't need anyone minding my business.
    OK, then let's give the player infinite money, infinite movement and infinite skillpoints. And a big fat red I WIN button while you are at it. Eh, don't like winning campaigns in one turn? dOnT uSe iT!

    Sorry, can't make that argument unless you protest against ALL player restrictions.
    Actually, I agree with nerfing Ambush stance!

    For the first change, I would love to have spotting distance be tied to Ambush stance success chance. For the second one - basic Ambush chance should be much lower, meaning that you have to specialize you general to be good ambusher. Right now it is laughably easy, you need 0 points to abuse hell out of Ambush.

    In Total War Three Kingdoms it is even worse - enemy armies can never spot you at all, all chinese armies are ninjas lol.

    I feel that CA does not understand what Ambush does to campaign balance, because people talk about it much less than about Lightning Strike or Skaven Ambush attack stance.
    I'd just hard cap ambush success chance at 50% max no matter how much you spec for it and give your troops a debuff should it fail since when it fails it's you who's been caught with the pants down.
    Hard capping is weird, because you know, you can have different levels of preparaion, and I doubt that army ambushing in the deep jungles of Lustria is a clear 50/50% coin toss.
    Also, why debuff? You're not caught with your pants down, your preparation for battle was just spotted, you were still prepared for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.