Is the Dwarvish Thunderer overpowered?
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Is the Dwarvish Thunderer overpowered?
Whatever your opinion on the idea, please disconnect yourself from it while you examine these facts:
Side by side stats (Dwarvish Thunderer / Elvish Archer):
Race: Dwarf / Elf
Alignment: neutral / neutral
Cost: 17 / 18
HP: 47 / 29
XP: 40 / 44
Moves: 4 / 6
melee: 6-2 blade / 5-2 blade
ranged: 18-1 pierce / 5-4 pierce
Move Type: dwarvishfoot / woodland
Resistancies:
blade: 30 / 0
cold: 20 / 0
fire: 10 / 0
holy: 20 / 20
impact: 20 / 0
pierce: 20 / 0
Is this balanced?
I argue that it is not. The thunderer is cheaper, more healthy, faster leveling, hits harder in melee, and has greater resistancies in all areas other than holy. The Archer is faster and can potentially do 2 more damage in ranged if all 4 of his hits land true in the same round.
The last point deserves some attention. Although the archer does have a higher expected value for ranged damage / turn, this expected value means little when the unit is dead. The archers lack of resistancies and low hp, in addition to the need to deliver 4 blows to deliver maximum damage, makes the archer a far weaker unit in my eyes than the thunderer.
The point that I have bolded twice can be perceived as either a strength or a weakness. First, it can be considered a strength as Elves can be Dextrous, granting +1dmg to all ranged attacks; for the Archer it would be an additional 4 potential dmg per turn. As a weakness however, it creates a lower probability of landing maximum damage: even against an opponent with a mere 20% defence, the archer has a mere 40.96% chance of delivering all 4 blows to his target - compared to an 80% chance for the Thunderer to land his single blow, delivering maximum damage.
I will make a chart later as to %s and potential damage, but for now I argue that the high damage potential in one strike is more of an asset than the greater expected value over many strikes. Not only does it allow for a higher % for maximum damage as stated, which is crucial when trying to swing a fight in your favor in my opinion, but it allows for a much higher % of 1 hit kills, preventing the unit from taking any damage.
This last part in bold is also strengthened by the Thunderers good resistancies and higher hp, as already stated.
Thunderers also have high defensive % holds in both mountains (70%) and hills (60%), although the Archer does have higher defensive %s overall. The fact remains that a Dwarf in the mountains is just as hard to hit as an Elf in the forest.
And, although Thunderers have less movement than Archers, this is tempered by the fact that Thunderers are not slowed down in either cave, sand, hill, or mountain, where the Archer is slowed to 3, 2, 2, and 3 respectively.
To sum of the points of my argument:
1) Thunderers, though slower, have a better movement type than archers.
2) Thunderers have high defensive % strongholds just as Archers do.
3) Thunderers, though they deal less expected damage than Archers, deal it more effectively.
4) Thunderers have more hp and higher resistancies than archers.
5) Thunderers are cheaper than archers and level faster.
Those are the main concerns of mine. Please discuss and leave feedback. It is also my opinion that the Dwarves are slightly overpowered as a faction, but that is an argument for another time and another thread.
Side by side stats (Dwarvish Thunderer / Elvish Archer):
Race: Dwarf / Elf
Alignment: neutral / neutral
Cost: 17 / 18
HP: 47 / 29
XP: 40 / 44
Moves: 4 / 6
melee: 6-2 blade / 5-2 blade
ranged: 18-1 pierce / 5-4 pierce
Move Type: dwarvishfoot / woodland
Resistancies:
blade: 30 / 0
cold: 20 / 0
fire: 10 / 0
holy: 20 / 20
impact: 20 / 0
pierce: 20 / 0
Is this balanced?
I argue that it is not. The thunderer is cheaper, more healthy, faster leveling, hits harder in melee, and has greater resistancies in all areas other than holy. The Archer is faster and can potentially do 2 more damage in ranged if all 4 of his hits land true in the same round.
The last point deserves some attention. Although the archer does have a higher expected value for ranged damage / turn, this expected value means little when the unit is dead. The archers lack of resistancies and low hp, in addition to the need to deliver 4 blows to deliver maximum damage, makes the archer a far weaker unit in my eyes than the thunderer.
The point that I have bolded twice can be perceived as either a strength or a weakness. First, it can be considered a strength as Elves can be Dextrous, granting +1dmg to all ranged attacks; for the Archer it would be an additional 4 potential dmg per turn. As a weakness however, it creates a lower probability of landing maximum damage: even against an opponent with a mere 20% defence, the archer has a mere 40.96% chance of delivering all 4 blows to his target - compared to an 80% chance for the Thunderer to land his single blow, delivering maximum damage.
I will make a chart later as to %s and potential damage, but for now I argue that the high damage potential in one strike is more of an asset than the greater expected value over many strikes. Not only does it allow for a higher % for maximum damage as stated, which is crucial when trying to swing a fight in your favor in my opinion, but it allows for a much higher % of 1 hit kills, preventing the unit from taking any damage.
This last part in bold is also strengthened by the Thunderers good resistancies and higher hp, as already stated.
Thunderers also have high defensive % holds in both mountains (70%) and hills (60%), although the Archer does have higher defensive %s overall. The fact remains that a Dwarf in the mountains is just as hard to hit as an Elf in the forest.
And, although Thunderers have less movement than Archers, this is tempered by the fact that Thunderers are not slowed down in either cave, sand, hill, or mountain, where the Archer is slowed to 3, 2, 2, and 3 respectively.
To sum of the points of my argument:
1) Thunderers, though slower, have a better movement type than archers.
2) Thunderers have high defensive % strongholds just as Archers do.
3) Thunderers, though they deal less expected damage than Archers, deal it more effectively.
4) Thunderers have more hp and higher resistancies than archers.
5) Thunderers are cheaper than archers and level faster.
Those are the main concerns of mine. Please discuss and leave feedback. It is also my opinion that the Dwarves are slightly overpowered as a faction, but that is an argument for another time and another thread.
One asset of mulitple strikes over 1, however, is that the attacker has more opportunities to kill a weak opponent. For this purpose the Thunderer does have a respectable melee attack, though it only gives 2 swings and is melee, not ranged. This is another point to consider as a benefit to the Archer.
Another downside of the multiple strikes of the Archer is that it can lose one of those strikes when slowed; the Thunderer cannot lose his 1 strike.
(I know slow is undergoing a change, but as of earlier tonight it still removed an attack so I am arguing with that as a basis.)
All are points to be considered and balanced before you cast your vote.
Another downside of the multiple strikes of the Archer is that it can lose one of those strikes when slowed; the Thunderer cannot lose his 1 strike.
(I know slow is undergoing a change, but as of earlier tonight it still removed an attack so I am arguing with that as a basis.)
All are points to be considered and balanced before you cast your vote.
-
Yogibear
- Retired Developer
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: September 16th, 2005, 5:44 am
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
Hmm, some of your points are certainly valid, but i also think there is a few things you underestimate (this is mostly related to multiplayer):
1.
Most fast units have significantly lower hitpoints and are very expensive. The main reason IMO for this is, that they play a crucial part in the beginning of a game, where your goal is to get as many villages as possible. Sometimes one movepoint more can make a great difference as it allows you to catch that one more village, that starts getting you an economical advantage. If the front is fixed, movement is not that important anymore but that can change every minute, for example if a frontline gets broken somewhere.
2.
Yes, the elvish archer is fragile, but it doesn't mean that is killed easily all the time. In fact that depends on your strategy. If you put an archer in the forest or on a village, your enemy will have a very hard time to kill him. And beware if the time for counterattacking comes...
An archer is not a fighter, just like a mage isn't. If you put them on bad terrain and expose them, they die very fast. But if you keep them covered and put them in good terrain, they are a horrible to attack unit. I would never attack an elvish archer in the forest unless i can make sure to get at him with at least three units.
A thunderer serves a different purpose. It allows for different, probably more versatile tactics as it can be exposed on the frontline for 2 or 3 turns, depending on terrain.
3.
The biggest disadvantage IMHO of the thunderer is the fact, that you can't rely on his attack. Say you have a situation where you have to kill a certain unit. It stands on a 50% defense terrain and you can reach it with 1 unit. There are 4 hitpoints left to kill it. The unit has no ranged attack and you have to attack from bad terrain. If you win, you can walk into a key point and keep it, if you lose, the counter attack will be terrible. Managing to hit 50% will be sufficient to kill the unit. This sounds very hypothetical but assume it to be an abstraction of many similar scenarios that all lead to the same question:
What are you going to do? Will you send your thunderer or your archer to kill the unit? I would always send the archer, since i can not rely on the thunderer. The archer has a very good chance of killing the unit, the thunderer has only 50%. You can use a thunderer, if there are 2 more units standing by to do the job if he fails. Or if it is not important if the job gets done now or next turn. But on crucial missions thunderers are the best way to challenge your luck.
To sum that up:
- resistances and hitpoints make a thunderer a strategically more versatile unit than an archer
- his "all or nothing" attack doesn't allow for crucial missions and therefore shrinks strategical possibilities
- his extra movement adds to the strategical value of an archer
Pretty much balanced, if you ask me.
1.
Most fast units have significantly lower hitpoints and are very expensive. The main reason IMO for this is, that they play a crucial part in the beginning of a game, where your goal is to get as many villages as possible. Sometimes one movepoint more can make a great difference as it allows you to catch that one more village, that starts getting you an economical advantage. If the front is fixed, movement is not that important anymore but that can change every minute, for example if a frontline gets broken somewhere.
2.
Yes, the elvish archer is fragile, but it doesn't mean that is killed easily all the time. In fact that depends on your strategy. If you put an archer in the forest or on a village, your enemy will have a very hard time to kill him. And beware if the time for counterattacking comes...
An archer is not a fighter, just like a mage isn't. If you put them on bad terrain and expose them, they die very fast. But if you keep them covered and put them in good terrain, they are a horrible to attack unit. I would never attack an elvish archer in the forest unless i can make sure to get at him with at least three units.
A thunderer serves a different purpose. It allows for different, probably more versatile tactics as it can be exposed on the frontline for 2 or 3 turns, depending on terrain.
3.
The biggest disadvantage IMHO of the thunderer is the fact, that you can't rely on his attack. Say you have a situation where you have to kill a certain unit. It stands on a 50% defense terrain and you can reach it with 1 unit. There are 4 hitpoints left to kill it. The unit has no ranged attack and you have to attack from bad terrain. If you win, you can walk into a key point and keep it, if you lose, the counter attack will be terrible. Managing to hit 50% will be sufficient to kill the unit. This sounds very hypothetical but assume it to be an abstraction of many similar scenarios that all lead to the same question:
What are you going to do? Will you send your thunderer or your archer to kill the unit? I would always send the archer, since i can not rely on the thunderer. The archer has a very good chance of killing the unit, the thunderer has only 50%. You can use a thunderer, if there are 2 more units standing by to do the job if he fails. Or if it is not important if the job gets done now or next turn. But on crucial missions thunderers are the best way to challenge your luck.
To sum that up:
- resistances and hitpoints make a thunderer a strategically more versatile unit than an archer
- his "all or nothing" attack doesn't allow for crucial missions and therefore shrinks strategical possibilities
- his extra movement adds to the strategical value of an archer
Pretty much balanced, if you ask me.
Smart persons learn out of their mistakes, wise persons learn out of others mistakes!
-
Doc Paterson
- Drake Cartographer
- Posts: 1973
- Joined: February 21st, 2005, 9:37 pm
- Location: Kazakh
- Contact:
I'd like to point out that some of your comparison info is wrong. The HP of the Thunderer is 37, not 47 (a huge difference, really).
The biggest error that you're making is the assumption that balance is based strictly on ratios between units; that cost, for example, is set in relation to the stats of all other units, in all of the other factions. This is not the case though. Units are balanced relative to the power level and characteristics of their faction, not relative to the power levels/ characteristics of other units. (Campaigns are not completely ignored during balancing, but unit adjustments are made almost exclusively for multiplayer purposes.) The Thunderer would therefore only need rebalancing if it knocked the Knalgan faction out of balance, and/or allowed for abusive strategies that specific other factions had an unreasonably hard time countering. That's certainly not the case with the Thunderers; every faction has some way to effectively deal with them. A player may not, for example, necessarily like the fact that they can't use a lot of Elvish Archers against Thunderers- But this does not imply any sort of imbalance present in the Thunderer.
The biggest error that you're making is the assumption that balance is based strictly on ratios between units; that cost, for example, is set in relation to the stats of all other units, in all of the other factions. This is not the case though. Units are balanced relative to the power level and characteristics of their faction, not relative to the power levels/ characteristics of other units. (Campaigns are not completely ignored during balancing, but unit adjustments are made almost exclusively for multiplayer purposes.) The Thunderer would therefore only need rebalancing if it knocked the Knalgan faction out of balance, and/or allowed for abusive strategies that specific other factions had an unreasonably hard time countering. That's certainly not the case with the Thunderers; every faction has some way to effectively deal with them. A player may not, for example, necessarily like the fact that they can't use a lot of Elvish Archers against Thunderers- But this does not imply any sort of imbalance present in the Thunderer.
I will not tell you my corner / where threads don't get locked because of mostly no reason /
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses. -Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
because I don't want your hostile disease / to spread all over the world.
I prefer that corner to remain hidden /
without your noses. -Nosebane, Sorcerer Supreme
-
Elvish_Pillager
- Posts: 8137
- Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
- Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
- Contact:
What with the (not, anymore, too) recent upgrades of other archers (the Skeleton Archer and Orcish Archer in particular), I'd say that the Elvish Archer is now slightly underpowered, since it costs more than any other normal archer and doesn't do a lot more damage. I think a 1-gold cost reduction for it would be good.
I did prefer it back in the days when all archers were somewhat weak, though, because that made them rarer and thus more likely to be able to shoot at melee enemies.
I did prefer it back in the days when all archers were somewhat weak, though, because that made them rarer and thus more likely to be able to shoot at melee enemies.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.
This is somewhat true, but consider that the Elves need that extra income in order to make up for lost gold spent on recruiting archers. Granted, it is only 1 gold more than the Thunderer, but villages should only allow 1 or 2 gold a piece (otherwise money will hardly be an issue at all). Grabbing 1 or 2 extra villages will only balance the gold issue. You do not consider in this argument poor terrain for the Archer to cross auch as commonly found hills and mountains and the less commonly found cave sand, and swamp.Yogi Bear wrote:Hmm, some of your points are certainly valid, but i also think there is a few things you underestimate (this is mostly related to multiplayer):
1.
Most fast units have significantly lower hitpoints and are very expensive. The main reason IMO for this is, that they play a crucial part in the beginning of a game, where your goal is to get as many villages as possible. Sometimes one movepoint more can make a great difference as it allows you to catch that one more village, that starts getting you an economical advantage. If the front is fixed, movement is not that important anymore but that can change every minute, for example if a frontline gets broken somewhere.
You can make the exact same argument for a Thunderer in the mountains. As you mention yourself, the Thunderer would also last longer.Yogi Bear wrote:2.
Yes, the elvish archer is fragile, but it doesn't mean that is killed easily all the time. In fact that depends on your strategy. If you put an archer in the forest or on a village, your enemy will have a very hard time to kill him. And beware if the time for counterattacking comes...
An archer is not a fighter, just like a mage isn't. If you put them on bad terrain and expose them, they die very fast. But if you keep them covered and put them in good terrain, they are a horrible to attack unit. I would never attack an elvish archer in the forest unless i can make sure to get at him with at least three units.
A thunderer serves a different purpose. It allows for different, probably more versatile tactics as it can be exposed on the frontline for 2 or 3 turns, depending on terrain.
In the described situation I would simply have the Thunderer use his melee attack as that would give him 2 chance to kill the unit - a 75% chance in fact. The archer has a 93.75% chance of killing the same target. And, although the Thunderer has less of a chance to kill this particular unit the cost of failure for him is less drastic. His off attack deals more damage in defense, he will live longer due to resistancies and hp, and he was cheaper to recruit in the first place.Yogi Bear wrote:3.
The biggest disadvantage IMHO of the thunderer is the fact, that you can't rely on his attack. Say you have a situation where you have to kill a certain unit. It stands on a 50% defense terrain and you can reach it with 1 unit. There are 4 hitpoints left to kill it. The unit has no ranged attack and you have to attack from bad terrain. If you win, you can walk into a key point and keep it, if you lose, the counter attack will be terrible. Managing to hit 50% will be sufficient to kill the unit. This sounds very hypothetical but assume it to be an abstraction of many similar scenarios that all lead to the same question:
What are you going to do? Will you send your thunderer or your archer to kill the unit? I would always send the archer, since i can not rely on the thunderer. The archer has a very good chance of killing the unit, the thunderer has only 50%. You can use a thunderer, if there are 2 more units standing by to do the job if he fails. Or if it is not important if the job gets done now or next turn. But on crucial missions thunderers are the best way to challenge your luck.
Let us take another example: You are attacking an enemy on grassland that has 14hp and has 3 ranged counter attacks. In order to attack this unit you must also expose yourself to grassland terrain. Who would you use in this situation? I would use the Thunderer as he has a 60% chance to kill the unit whereas the Archer has a 47.72% chance of killing him with only a 24.71% chance of avoiding a counterattack compared to the Thunderers 62.56% chance. The Thunderer will also be more resiliant and deal more damage to the probable melee counterattackers as well than the Archer.
There are many other such situations where we can find one or the other to be more valuable. Overall, however, I believe that the Thunderers 1-shot kill capability is at least balanced with the Archers slightly more favorable damage, but the Thunderer also seems to get the advantage in enough places to make him overpowered compared to the Archer.
Yogi Bear wrote:To sum that up:
- resistances and hitpoints make a thunderer a strategically more versatile unit than an archer
- his "all or nothing" attack doesn't allow for crucial missions and therefore shrinks strategical possibilities
- his extra movement adds to the strategical value of an archer
Pretty much balanced, if you ask me.
1) I agree
2) Contradicts #1. You have already stated that the Thunderer is more versatile.
3) Contradicts #1. You have already stated that the Thunderer is more versatile.
in more depth:
2) The Thunderers attack allows for damage avoidance against mid range hp enemies whereas the archers strikes do not. The Thunderer also has a 2 strike melee, similar but more powerful than the Archers, to adress low hp situations.
3) The versatility of the Thunderers movement type often makes up for the fact that he has 2 less movement points.
Last edited by JW on November 17th, 2005, 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You're absolutely right. That was a typo in transferring data. My apologies. The fact remains that the Thunderer does have a base 8 more hp than the archer in addition to greater resistancies.Doc Paterson wrote:I'd like to point out that some of your comparison info is wrong. The HP of the Thunderer is 37, not 47 (a huge difference, really).
I agree with your argument to an extent, but disagree with your statement: "The biggest error that you're making is the assumption that balance is based strictly on ratios between units."Doc Paterson wrote:The biggest error that you're making is the assumption that balance is based strictly on ratios between units; that cost, for example, is set in relation to the stats of all other units, in all of the other factions. This is not the case though. Units are balanced relative to the power level and characteristics of their faction, not relative to the power levels/ characteristics of other units. (Campaigns are not completely ignored during balancing, but unit adjustments are made almost exclusively for multiplayer purposes.) The Thunderer would therefore only need rebalancing if it knocked the Knalgan faction out of balance, and/or allowed for abusive strategies that specific other factions had an unreasonably hard time countering.
If you simply glance at the poll options you will notice that I have allowed for that viewpoint to exist. I argue that even inasmuch as faction balance is the true goal of balancing, the Elven faction has a hard time countering Thunderers. Woses have been a good counter in my experience, but they are more expensive and slower than Thunderers and far more easily hit. Elvish Fighters are also too fragile to withstand a counterattack from a similarly expensive line of Thunderers. It is my opinion that the Knalgan Alliance is overpowered, in small part, due to the Thunderer.
If you look at my original post in it's entirity you would have noticed the sentence at the very end. I suppose this is an inescapable argument, however, as it is intimitely intertwined with my current argument.
I request that you present a situation to counter the Thunderer.Doc Paterson wrote:That's certainly not the case with the Thunderers; every faction has some way to effectively deal with them. A player may not, for example, necessarily like the fact that they can't use a lot of Elvish Archers against Thunderers- But this does not imply any sort of imbalance present in the Thunderer.
This is what I was hoping for: a suggestion to balance either:Elvish Pillager wrote:What with the (not, anymore, too) recent upgrades of other archers (the Skeleton Archer and Orcish Archer in particular), I'd say that the Elvish Archer is now slightly underpowered, since it costs more than any other normal archer and doesn't do a lot more damage. I think a 1-gold cost reduction for it would be good.
I did prefer it back in the days when all archers were somewhat weak, though, because that made them rarer and thus more likely to be able to shoot at melee enemies.
a) the Thunderer
b) the Archer
c) the 2 factions overall to each other
This thread is simply a small step in the investigation of balance between all factions. And, although that is the higher aim, we must start with the basics: unit-to-unit.
Thank you for your opinion, EP.
I think if you reread my first post with careful eyes you will rediscover that I did not in fact ignore those points. Please do so.Noyga wrote:You didn't compare everything ...
The elvish archer is quicker and has a little higher overall defenses.
More strikes makes him a more reliable archer, and it still have a better average damage output than the dwarvish thunderer.
I don't think that the Dwarvish Thunderer is overpowered, and I think play experience bears this out.
The Elvish Archer indeed might be a little underpowered, and we could consider correcting this by reducing its cost by 1.
David
The Elvish Archer indeed might be a little underpowered, and we could consider correcting this by reducing its cost by 1.
David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
There is one more fact that I would like to call to the collective attention:
The Archer has a forked progression path. Along with this comes a higher xp total to reach 2nd level. The Thunderers progression is fixed, but happens more quickly.
Thank you for your reply, Dave.
Everyone should expect to see more such threads from me in the future. Hopefully the near future.
The Archer has a forked progression path. Along with this comes a higher xp total to reach 2nd level. The Thunderers progression is fixed, but happens more quickly.
Thank you for your reply, Dave.
Everyone should expect to see more such threads from me in the future. Hopefully the near future.
I must be doing something wrong, because I like elvish archers a lot more than elvish fighters at the current prices (I think mainly because they are faster). I might never buy any of the fighters if the archers are dropped in price.Dave wrote:I don't think that the Dwarvish Thunderer is overpowered, and I think play experience bears this out.
The Elvish Archer indeed might be a little underpowered, and we could consider correcting this by reducing its cost by 1.
David
One issue with the thunderers single attack is that in many cases it is overkill and you really don't get the full value of the attack, While it is nice to have a shot to kill before retalliation, it isn't so nice to have only one chance to kill instead of 2 or 3 when you don't need to do as much damage.
I tend to prefer the elvish fighter to the elvish archer. On average, I tend to recruit about 3 or 4 fighters for every archer: I find the archer to be more a specialist unit, whereas the fighter is more my standard unit for holding the line and occupying villages.bruno wrote:I must be doing something wrong, because I like elvish archers a lot more than elvish fighters at the current prices (I think mainly because they are faster). I might never buy any of the fighters if the archers are dropped in price.Dave wrote:I don't think that the Dwarvish Thunderer is overpowered, and I think play experience bears this out.
The Elvish Archer indeed might be a little underpowered, and we could consider correcting this by reducing its cost by 1.
David
One issue with the thunderers single attack is that in many cases it is overkill and you really don't get the full value of the attack, While it is nice to have a shot to kill before retalliation, it isn't so nice to have only one chance to kill instead of 2 or 3 when you don't need to do as much damage.
I don't think it woould hurt to reduce archer cost to 17.
it'd be good that the archer will cost less
(JW how did the match end? Sorry for Leaving when me and dopey were cornered)
(JW how did the match end? Sorry for Leaving when me and dopey were cornered)
I am Oreb, Lord of the Darthien
Give your comments to the World of Orbivm
Give your comments to the World of Orbivm
I don't see how the Archer's forked progression is particularly useful. Nine times out of ten in a multiplayer game, Marksmen will be more useful than Rangers. Marksmen can do much more damage than Rangers. I don't really see the point of the Ranger's extra melee attack, if I need melee I'll go find a Fighter, and if I really need ambush, I'll get a Wose.JW wrote: The Archer has a forked progression path. Along with this comes a higher xp total to reach 2nd level. The Thunderers progression is fixed, but happens more quickly.
Rangers are only really useful for ambush in maps where there are significant tracts of forest, which isn't something you normally see on a balanced multiplayer map. The only other use I can think of for ambush is hiding my leader from the enemy if they're coming to get him.
I'm not sure if unit advancement is still random if you score a kill on defense, but if it is the case, I would suggest that the Ranger line actually makes Archers less effective, not more.