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.

2

Comments

  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 1,674
    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.
    I protest against stupid decisions asked by whiny players. ''MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!''. Yes, I think that others players using lightning strike is none of your business nor any other player's business. I said it before, if you don't like it, don't use it. If CA want to add an option for infinite money, infinite movement and infinite skillpoints for players that want it, I am fine with that as well, I just won't use it myself.

    If anything sounds to me like cheesers want to have this option removed because they tried to stack zerg a
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    edited May 23
    Bereaver said:

    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.
    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.
    50% hardcap so that you can only ever get a cointoss because then you can never actually lean on it all that heavily and have to take a gamble.

    The debuff is easily explained, you placed your troops in ambushing positions, but the enemy army detected you prematurely and attacks from an unexpected direction, so you have to hastily scramble your troops back to face the enemy unprepared.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on

  • KazragoreKazragore Registered Users Posts: 53
    I have two skill which i didn't like.

    1st "Lightning strike" which should imo delays reinforcments.

    2nd "Immortality" i did not like army of heroes whos cant die.

    We "kill" them in battle and it give nothing.

    Murder action have no sense in late campaign coz everyone back and back again till faction not be destroy.

    Only LL and LH like Ariel should be immortal.
  • BlacedBlaced Registered Users Posts: 1,222
    Kazragore said:

    I have two skill which i didn't like.

    1st "Lightning strike" which should imo delays reinforcments.

    2nd "Immortality" i did not like army of heroes whos cant die.

    We "kill" them in battle and it give nothing.

    Murder action have no sense in late campaign coz everyone back and back again till faction not be destroy.

    Only LL and LH like Ariel should be immortal.

    Yes, and I can't disband the heroes I get from confederation, annoy
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    Immortality should be replaced with the Resilience mechanic from 3K, so generic lords and heroes with it don't die when they get wounded first, but they incur a debuff that gives them a chance to die for good every time they're wounded afterwards and the debuff becomes worse every time they survive the check.

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

    Yes, and I can't disband the heroes I get from confederation, annoy

    You can, if you select a hero when he is on the campaign map, hover over its card, and you can click to disband him. He will not show up again unless you recruit him.

    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • DeadpoolSWDeadpoolSW Registered Users Posts: 2,669

    Immortality should be replaced with the Resilience mechanic from 3K, so generic lords and heroes with it don't die when they get wounded first, but they incur a debuff that gives them a chance to die for good every time they're wounded afterwards and the debuff becomes worse every time they survive the check.

    Apply it to LLs as well- I'm sick of Franz and Ungrim showing up every other turn to **** me off.
    Nagash will rule again!

    Justice for Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms, Araby, Albion, Amazons, Halflings, Nippon, Ind, Khuresh & the Hobgoblin Khanate!
  • BlacedBlaced Registered Users Posts: 1,222
    SusaVile said:

    Blaced said:

    Yes, and I can't disband the heroes I get from confederation, annoy

    You can, if you select a hero when he is on the campaign map, hover over its card, and you can click to disband him. He will not show up again unless you recruit him.

    You can't disband immortal hero :)
  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860
    Blaced said:

    SusaVile said:

    Blaced said:

    Yes, and I can't disband the heroes I get from confederation, annoy

    You can, if you select a hero when he is on the campaign map, hover over its card, and you can click to disband him. He will not show up again unless you recruit him.

    You can't disband immortal hero :)
    That one change is one that HAS to be included in Warhammer III. So irritating.
  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 663
    Blaced said:

    You can't disband immortal hero :)

    I am literally playing right now and just disbanded every single hero I have with immortality to double check it out. You can disband them for sure. Legendary and Immortal Lords you cannot disband, but you can replace them with another, which can then be disbanded.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • DeadpoolSWDeadpoolSW Registered Users Posts: 2,669
    SusaVile said:

    Blaced said:

    You can't disband immortal hero :)

    I am literally playing right now and just disbanded every single hero I have with immortality to double check it out. You can disband them for sure. Legendary and Immortal Lords you cannot disband, but you can replace them with another, which can then be disbanded.
    They will be back in however many turns it takes for them to stop being "wounded". You can't permanently disband them.
    Nagash will rule again!

    Justice for Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms, Araby, Albion, Amazons, Halflings, Nippon, Ind, Khuresh & the Hobgoblin Khanate!
  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 663

    They will be back in however many turns it takes for them to stop being "wounded". You can't permanently disband them.

    Oh ok, but then again, the annoying part is that you have to do it every so often, instead of just once and forget. It is not like you totally cannot do it no matter what.

    I assume you wish to disband those because of upkeep costs? I have yet to find myself with several over level 20 heroes that I wish I could have disbanded.

    Probably there is a mod to do that, even if it is just that one click respec mod for instance.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • Xenos7777Xenos7777 Registered Users Posts: 6,895

    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.

    Delaying reinforcements is the best idea.
  • PatriksevePatrikseve Member Registered Users Posts: 2,046
    Weather we love or dislike it its an option that you can avoid. However they could if they want to redesign it, like they have done with a few warhammer 1/2 spells for game 3. I hope they also have fixed the Ai like in Three Kingdoms so it doesnt fire all its artillery and arrows on single entities like heroes or LL draining all ammo. I dont use it so much either but its a very powerful tool if you play on the hardest difficulties.

  • DeadpoolSWDeadpoolSW Registered Users Posts: 2,669
    SusaVile said:

    They will be back in however many turns it takes for them to stop being "wounded". You can't permanently disband them.

    Oh ok, but then again, the annoying part is that you have to do it every so often, instead of just once and forget. It is not like you totally cannot do it no matter what.

    I assume you wish to disband those because of upkeep costs? I have yet to find myself with several over level 20 heroes that I wish I could have disbanded.

    Probably there is a mod to do that, even if it is just that one click respec mod for instance.
    For me it's that I've inherited a bunch of badly specced heroes from confederation, who I don't want to find a use for or constantly disband. (Though I shouldn't really complain, I use a respec mod, so I just uninvest the immortality skill and disband them).
    Nagash will rule again!

    Justice for Chaos Dwarfs, Ogre Kingdoms, Araby, Albion, Amazons, Halflings, Nippon, Ind, Khuresh & the Hobgoblin Khanate!
  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 663
    edited May 23
    KronusX said:


    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.

    Because the game is balanced and modified by CA according to every single mechanic and detail it has. There are decision made by them that take the use of lightning strike into account, and other issues get out of their scope of attention, and out of our scope as well, because of the mere existence of lightning strike in the manner that it is implemented.

    Plus, just because you use one mechanic in the game, it does not mean others cannot have the opinion that it is a poorly implemented mechanic.

    For example, some people may like that horde factions cannot settle, while others will tell you that thr AI going around your razed settlements to colonize them again and again is an annoying "whack-a-mole" mechanic that should be tweaked.

    How is this horde mechanic, or siege mechanics, among other examples, fine to be discussed, but when it comes to discussing lightning strike is taboo?

    Let me try it then:

    Don't like siege battles? Don't play them.
    Don't like horde mechanics? Don't play those factions.
    Don't like chaos invasion? Set it to off.
    Don't like the AI? Play multiplayer.
    Don't like being able to settle every settlement? play warhammer 1.

    (Remember how warhammer 1 made it so only some settlements could be captured? Why did they change it? Maybe because people provided feedback on what seemed like a good idea, but bad mechanic?)

    Lightning strike is a mechanic just like another, and OP has every right to offer his opinion regardless of the impact it may have on your own gameplay should it be modified or removed.

    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • avvveavvve Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 279
    Yep remove it or nerf the hell out of it, like other fokes here suggest, delay reinforcement or give it a failure chance. I'd like to see how Legendtotalwar takes it.
  • uriakuriak Registered Users Posts: 4,440
    I don't judge whether the skill is good or bad for the game, but imho legendary shouldn't be an argument. It's ever present in discussion but is used by a sliver of players. I for instance pretty dislike the battle penalties after hard (for a unit should have the power it's supposed to have) and won't bother with it. The game is not balanced around it.

    What would be interesting is how they see the way their game is supposed to be well played. If their intend was to make players cheese less they would remove some absurd stacking eco or battle buffs and would tone done the AI spawn accordingly.
  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 1,674
    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.
    I protest against stupid decisions asked by whiny players. ''MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!''. Yes, I think that others players using lightning strike is none of your business nor any other player's business. I said it before, if you don't like it, don't use it. If CA want to add an option for infinite money, infinite movement and infinite skillpoints for players that want it, I am fine with that as well, I just won't use it myself.

    If anything sounds to me like cheesers want to have this option removed because they tried to stack zerg an enemy stack that used this skill to bypass their cheesy tactics.
  • Nigrinus1981Nigrinus1981 Member Registered Users Posts: 144
    edited May 23
    Thing is he didn’t express his opinion. OP demanded a mechanic he didn’t like and also does not use to be discarded for all other players he doesn’t even know.!!!!
    There is a difference.
    SusaVile said:

    <

    Because the game is balanced and modified by CA according to every single mechanic and detail it has. There are decision made by them that take the use of lightning strike into account, and other issues get out of their scope of attention, and out of our scope as well, because of the mere existence of lightning strike in the manner that it is implemented.

    Plus, just because you use one mechanic in the game, it does not mean others cannot have the opinion that it is a poorly implemented mechanic.

    For example, some people may like that horde factions cannot settle, while others will tell you that thr AI going around your razed settlements to colonize them again and again is an annoying "whack-a-mole" mechanic that should be tweaked.

    How is this horde mechanic, or siege mechanics, among other examples, fine to be discussed, but when it comes to discussing lightning strike is taboo?

    Let me try it then:

    Don't like siege battles? Don't play them.
    Don't like horde mechanics? Don't play those factions.
    Don't like chaos invasion? Set it to off.
    Don't like the AI? Play multiplayer.
    Don't like being able to settle every settlement? play warhammer 1.

    (Remember how warhammer 1 made it so only some settlements could be captured? Why did they change it? Maybe because people provided feedback on what seemed like a good idea, but bad mechanic?)

    Lightning strike is a mechanic just like another, and OP has every right to offer his opinion regardless of the impact it may have on your own gameplay should it be modified or removed.

  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 663

    Thing is he didn’t express his opinion. OP demanded a mechanic he didn’t like and also does not use to be discarded for all other players he doesn’t even know.!!!!
    There is a difference.

    I will give you that, there are better ways to express that opinion, sure. However, you can understand that whenever a given mechanic is abused by a vast majority of players, the overall game balance and quality diminishes for the others as well.

    Like I have said previously, the lightning strike mechanic as it stands diverts the attention from other issues that the game has that should perhaps be considered. For me, it is like the bread and circus: we are given that mechanic to overlook other obvious flaws and misconsiderations.

    Imagine how the game would be without the mechanic in itself, and how it would then be balanced. I believe that adjustments to it would only benefit the overall quality for all players.

    (It also sounds like something easy to be granted via a mod if ppl want it, or we can always request it back should it become worse)
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • Pontifex711Pontifex711 Registered Users Posts: 86
    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...
  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 32,686
    edited May 23

    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...

    Yeah, imagine having to actually fight a large and spectacular battle instead of skipping it with some lame cheese ability.

    If you don't want to fight large battles, why bother with TW? Play a PDX game instead.

  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 663

    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...

    It is possible. I do it, and honestly, it is not that big of a deal, which is what even baffles me the most about the whole argument.

    Now, I have presented my arguments, and you have presented yours. I believe it is best we leave it as such, everyone can make their own conclusions;) No point in difficulting the mods' job (we all love you guys).

    Please do have fun, enjoy the game, and let's have an even better Warhammer 3 ;)
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
  • manpersalmanpersal Registered Users Posts: 2,107

    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...

    I can imagine it








    I saved all those screens after an exchange with another user who insisted that swordmasters needed a buff. Guess who.
  • manpersalmanpersal Registered Users Posts: 2,107

    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...

    Yeah, imagine having to actually fight a large and spectacular battle instead of skipping it with some lame cheese ability.

    If you don't want to fight large battles, why bother with TW? Play a PDX game instead.
    I refer to my screens, sieges may be better but I really love these battles.
  • KronusXKronusX Registered Users Posts: 1,674
    manpersal said:

    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...

    I can imagine it








    I saved all those screens after an exchange with another user who insisted that swordmasters needed a buff. Guess who.
    A doomstack with the OP sisters of Avelorn and one of the strongest factions in the game. Gee, so you bypassed the supposed ''lightning strike'' cheese with another cheesy composition.
  • BereaverBereaver Registered Users Posts: 860

    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...

    Yeah, imagine having to actually fight a large and spectacular battle instead of skipping it with some lame cheese ability.

    If you don't want to fight large battles, why bother with TW? Play a PDX game instead.
    Truth to be told, large battles are terrible. For a start, controlling 40 units is a UI nightmare, so large armies are no-go by default.

    After that, reinforcement mechanic is terrible. You get units coming 1 by 1 (incredibly easy to abuse), terrible order of units coming ( cavalry, monsters and artillery coming in the end), incredibly easy to abuse by camping near entrance point.

    Yeah, having mechanics to limit battles to 20v20 units is great, 4v4 battles are trash.
  • manpersalmanpersal Registered Users Posts: 2,107
    edited May 23
    KronusX said:

    manpersal said:

    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...

    I can imagine it








    I saved all those screens after an exchange with another user who insisted that swordmasters needed a buff. Guess who.
    A doomstack with the OP sisters of Avelorn and one of the strongest factions in the game. Gee, so you bypassed the supposed ''lightning strike'' cheese with another cheesy composition.
    There aren't more than 6 units of them in any of the armies and in several of the battles I didn't even use half of them. The key are the swordmasters, which again are never more than 6 and sometimes only 2. You tell me that you fight chaos with T1 armies?

    With races with worst infantry I'd stop Chaos in a river crossing and just nuke them with magic and artillery, even easier. You don't need lighting strike.

    I don't care what happens with lighting striken is the fallacy that you can't win at the highest difficulty what I find annoying.
    Post edited by manpersal on
  • SusaVileSusaVile Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 663
    KronusX said:

    manpersal said:

    Y'all are boring. If you don't like lightning strike, don't use it. But it is essential when the AI cheats and launches multiple armies at once. Imagine fighting Chaos one city/army vs four of theirs and no lightning strike...

    I can imagine it








    I saved all those screens after an exchange with another user who insisted that swordmasters needed a buff. Guess who.
    A doomstack with the OP sisters of Avelorn and one of the strongest factions in the game. Gee, so you bypassed the supposed ''lightning strike'' cheese with another cheesy composition.
    You should really check Legendoftotalwar to understand what a doomstack is. Less than 6 units of any type, and you call that a doomstack??? The person had a great balanced out composition without exploiting any specific type of unit.

    And I agree with him, it is not just the lightning strike issue, is the ridiculous assumption that you CANNOT win the game without it that I have no idea where it comes from.
    Always learning, be polite, unless he's the enemy:P
    Cheers
    SusaVile
    Total war youtuber
Sign In or Register to comment.