Ambush? I think I don't get it.

[Celtic_Minstrel]

It could be though, by removing attacks_left of moving unit. That said, current behavior is good enough for me.

This seems relatively east to implement, and I personally wouldn't mind it, though I wonder if it would adversely affect balance?

I'll look into implementing it for UMC purposes at least, even if it's not actually used for the ambush ability.

EDIT: By the way, all four hiding abilities (ambush, concealment, submerge, and nightstalk) use the same "Ambushed!" text. Should that be changed?

[Ravana]

[hides] could have key describing what should happen with attacks when unit is discovered. For message there already is one.

[kurt751]

I for one would be already happy if the name was changed to "Stealth" or some such. Easy, no balancing or code changes required.
As Tad_Carlucci already mentioned, the corresponding abilities for undead or fugitives have fitting names. The "misleading advertising" issue is only for the forest-hiding units.

[Celtic_Minstrel]

Given that the alert text is also "Ambushed!" for concealment, nightstalk, and submerge, I'd say that's not quite true. That said, that's as easily changed as the other.

[Andrettin]

I for one would be already happy if the name was changed to "Stealth" or some such. Easy, no balancing or code changes required.
As Tad_Carlucci already mentioned, the corresponding abilities for undead or fugitives have fitting names. The "misleading advertising" issue is only for the forest-hiding units.

IMO "Ambush" fits better than "Stealth", as it helps to differentiate from other similar abilities based on other sorts of terrain (like Camouflage).

[kurt751]

the alert text is also "Ambushed!" for concealment, nightstalk, and submerge

Yes, but that is less important since it's only a passing message about a situation, not the description of the ability.
(Besides, I don't really see what else one could put there. "Peekaboo"?... )

[kurt751]

it helps to differentiate from other similar abilities based on other sorts of terrain (like Camouflage).

There is an ability called "Camouflage"?
Do you mean "Concealment"?

Anyway, Ambush, Nightstalk, Concealment and Submerge are one and the same ability, only the hide conditions change (forest, chaotic time, village, deep water). I don't think changing their names to Stealth, Nightstalk, Concealment and Submerge would create a lot of confusion.

[ForestDragon]

it helps to differentiate from other similar abilities based on other sorts of terrain (like Camouflage).

There is an ability called "Camouflage"?
Do you mean "Concealment"?

Anyway, Ambush, Nightstalk, Concealment and Submerge are one and the same ability, only the hide conditions change (forest, chaotic time, village, deep water). I don't think changing their names to Stealth, Nightstalk, Concealment and Submerge would create a lot of confusion.

'Camouflage' is a UMC ability (also used in utbs) that makes you hide in sand

btw, now that i think about it, ambush is actually named kinda right, it's main use isn't being a stop sign like you think, but getting not found, and then attacking out of nowhere. stop-sign tactic is more of a one for woses, but even they are better if attacking out of nowhere on their turn.

[FelixMage]

btw, now that i think about it, ambush is actually named kinda right, it's main use isn't being a stop sign like you think, but getting not found, and then attacking out of nowhere. stop-sign tactic is more of a one for woses, but even they are better if attacking out of nowhere on their turn.

Yeah, that was the point I was making a few posts back.

[Gyra_Solune]

The term 'Stealth' is ambiguous and you kind of want ability terms to be immediately obvious. Ambush may not /technically/ mean hiding in bushes but the name sure sounds like it and if you search 'ambush' that's most of what you see in terms of images. 'Stealth' could imply invisibility just about anywhere and is too generic considering it indeed shares its mechanics with a number of other abilities.

I actually think perhaps 'camouflage' would be a better name, if anything? Since that very much traditionally refers to the practice of covering yourself in natural detritus to blend into forested environments, though I'm unsure what would be a term for hiding in the sand to replace that usage. The only good examples I can think of in reality are from the Tuareg. Maybe something like 'sand cloak', much as I dislike two-word ability names, but that one's short and obvious enough to show what it probably does, maybe.

[Celtic_Minstrel]

Camouflage is not specific to forests; it can apply in any environment. It's true that the commonly seen camouflage patterns are generally intended for forests, but there are other patterns for deserts and probably patterns for other environments as well.

[kurt751]

The term 'Stealth' is ambiguous and you kind of want ability terms to be immediately obvious.

Well, we're in the third page of posts about "Ambush" not being obvious either...

Why is "stealth" ambiguous?
"Stealth" is the condition of not being easy to spot. Camouflaged units are "stealthy"...
On the other hand, "ambush" is a specific action, the action of attacking somebody by surprise.
So, if we want to be really serious about language, while an unit using this ability is definitely stealthy, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ambushing. It could be a scout who just walks around unseen to spy on the enemy movements.

[Samonella]

The very fact that an Ambushing unit completely stops an opponent in its tracks is what gives the ability its power. Elves are fast and zoom through their favored terrain, and an enemy that's been halted in place, most likely on flat ground, in the vicinity of forests is absolutely going to be punished hard next turn. Don't think of how it works as being literally turn by turn, i.e. 'an orc stumbles across a Ranger, who jumps out and goes BOO to halt them in place', think of it as being a bit more successive and along the lines of what the elves would do the following turn as being more immediate, i.e. 'an orc stumbles across a Ranger, suddenly it's surrounded by like five other elves'. It's entirely not necessary for the ambushing unit to 'initiate' the attack because it's already more or less done that on its discovery - it has engaged the enemy en route to their destination and put them in a disadvantageous position. The fact that the ambushed unit can start the 'actual' attack makes more sense as a retaliation to being caught and held up - the Orcish Assassin's first response to an elf appearing out of nowhere and getting in their way would be to start throwing poison knives at them...

...So sure, the ambusher may not be getting the first hit in - but the point is that neither the Wose nor Ranger are units you even /want/ to be caught in an engagement with. Especially since they synergize so well with the ridiculously fast Elvish Scouts and the crippling Elvish Shamans. Enemy unit walks right into your trap, whoops, it's suddenly pinned on two sides and afflicted with halved attack power, literally the worst situation for an enemy to be in when only attacked on three sides...by and large everything is primarily balanced for multiplayer, and what effect a unit's properties have on a campaign are explored later. It's okay for ambush to not be as good there since campaigns are inherently asymmetric in 99% of cases - but you definitely use it with a mind to block enemies off from important areas and it's still useful.

Don't be intimidated by the big paragraphs; I think Gyra_Solune hit it on the head here. The key to "ambush" is in how you use it. Invisible units can be very useful, whether it's for flanking or goading your enemy to attack in unfavorable conditions. In any moderate to serious play, every move is carefully considered, and to have one cut off might ruin a battle, especially if it's while discovering that there are more enemies than you had counted on. Strategies involving ambush are effective against humans and AIs, and merit the ability's name. I think that a new name is unnecessary, and that a new buff would be a terrible mistake.

[Tad_Carlucci]

There's two ideas going at once in this thread.

The first is, given the name "ambush" does it fulfill the implied promise of the name and, if not, how could it do so?

The second is, given the way the ability works, is "ambush" an appropriate name and, if not, what would be a more appropriate name?

Both are valid questions and they are not mutually exclusive.

The easier change is to use more appropriate words. That is nothing more than a translation issue. Simply correct the program-to-English table(s). Apparently, some other languages have already done so.

I think the confusion comes from the observation that, to adjust the function to the name (creating a new ability which takes over the displayed name and such) almost certainly implies assigning a more appropriate name and such to the current ability implementation.

[kurt751]

There's two ideas going at once in this thread.

The first is, given the name "ambush" does it fulfill the implied promise of the name and, if not, how could it do so?

The second is, given the way the ability works, is "ambush" an appropriate name and, if not, what would be a more appropriate name?

Both are valid questions and they are not mutually exclusive.

Very good analysis and worth repeating, for I somehow get the impression we're talking past each other.


Please let us refocus:
There is right now an ability available in 5 flavors ("Ambush", "Nightstalk", "Concealment" and "Submerge"), allowing units to hide in respectively forest, chaotic time, villages and deep water. Those 5 variants are actually one and the same ability code-wise, only the condition changes.

I (and apparently some other people too) think the english name of the "forest" variant of this ability doesn't fit. Not that it is wrong, you can always find some explanation about why it should have that name.
But, my point is, there might be a better fitting term for what this ability does.

Now *I* (that's me) do not suggest to change the ability, or add a new, "more ambushing" ability. I understand it's too complicated and not really necessary.
I only suggest to change the english name of the "forest" variant of the current ability.
My own suggestion is "stealth", but I don't pretend it's the best or the only choice: Open an english langage Thesaurus and pick a better one (it happens I don't have one).