Heavy infantry vs Fencer

[CoolDude]

who is the better


1.guarding a village

2.a 1vs1 fight.

[Lord-Knightmare]

1. Can't tell. Heavy Infantryman's resistance weakens the strikes of foes while the Fencer's defense cuts down their chances.
2. Depends on the type of foe. Archers or Healers? Then Fencers. Fighters? Heavy Infantryman are your choice then.

[Reepurr]

1. Depends. Marksman or Magical? Pierce or Fire? What is the attacking unit?
2. Presuming you mean HI .v. Fencer. If so, it's all down to luck - a HI can cripple a Fencer and eventually kill it, but only with good luck.

[Desertofsounds1]

First of all they're totally different kind of units.

1. Depends about the opponent. Usually HI.

2. HI vs fencer, HI wins.

edit: you gotta remember that HI is more expensive too.

[tr0ll]

2. in a flat small arena the HI would win
in practical use the fencer is more mobile and likely to get better terrain

[psychic]

HI wins the guarding village battle hands down due to resistance imho, since most of the units effective at booting a HI is effective against fencer too.

For the 1v1, i can give some real numbers:

Defense = +30% for fencer
Resistance = +50% for HI, -20% for fencer

Non trait damage output, HI = 22, fencer =16

22 - 0.3*22 +0.2*22 = 19.8 for HI

16 - 0.5*16 = 8 for fencer

since the number for HI is greater than for fencer, HI will win

[Atz]

For the 1v1, i can give some real numbers:

Defense = +30% for fencer
Resistance = +50% for HI, -20% for fencer

Non trait damage output, HI = 22, fencer =16

22 - 0.3*22 +0.2*22 = 19.8 for HI

16 - 0.5*16 = 8 for fencer

since the number for HI is greater than for fencer, HI will win

Those numbers are incorrect. For some reason you've added damage from the fencer's weakness to impact without taking into account the chance to hit (ie. even if the fencer had 100% defence and couldn't be hit at all, you'd be claiming it would take .2*22 damage). You also appear to be assuming that the fencer is on 30% defence terrain, while the HI has 0% defence (which is NOT the same as 60%/30% or 70%/40%). Plus you didn't take into account their HP, and didn't account for Wesnoth's rounding.

Regardless, it should be pretty clear that fencers are terrible against HI in a straight-up fight, even without doing such calculations. Blade is HI's highest resistance, and fencers aren't really designed for that sort of fight. They've got plenty of other benefits - fencers are cheaper, have skirmisher, have two more move, and get a larger benefit from the "strong" trait.

[psychic]

Those numbers are incorrect. For some reason you've added damage from the fencer's weakness to impact without taking into account the chance to hit (ie. even if the fencer had 100% defence and couldn't be hit at all, you'd be claiming it would take .2*22 damage). You also appear to be assuming that the fencer is on 30% defence terrain, while the HI has 0% defence (which is NOT the same as 60%/30% or 70%/40%). Plus you didn't take into account their HP, and didn't account for Wesnoth's rounding.

Err, how is 30% difference in defence different whether you consider 0/30,30/60 or 40/70. (There are many instances when proofs dont hold true at boundaries, so considering 0% or 100% for argument's sake is meaningless)

Besides i specifically used the words "since HI's number is greater", no where did i mention damage or anything like that, indicating the numbers are not actual values you would encounter in a combat, the values are just to give some sort of mathematical proof.

[wesfreak]

Atz's point was that your "mathematical proof" was innaccurate and useless.

If you actually use the hp: Fencers have 28 hp. Heavy infantrymen do 11 damage. 11*1.2 rounded =13, so a heavy infantryman needs 3 hits to kill the fencer. If there is .4 chance to hit the fencer, .4x = 3 where x is the # of attempted hits x = 7.5, so it will take 4 attacks for an HI to kill a fencer. (or 5 attacks if the fencer is on 70% terrain.

HI have 38 hp. Fencers do 2 damage per hit on the heavy infantryman, so they need 19 hits to kill the heavy infantryman. Using the same math, they need 7 attacks to kill a heavy infantryman or 8 if it's on better ground.

This means that 1v1, HI are better than fencers, (not counting traits or TOD, which would make a big difference) but who would honestly attack a fencer with an HI or vice versa? There is no way an HI can actually attack a fencer 4 times without getting away.

[Atz]

Err, how is 30% difference in defence different whether you consider 0/30,30/60 or 40/70. (There are many instances when proofs dont hold true at boundaries, so considering 0% or 100% for argument's sake is meaningless)

Because that is how statistics works. The value of reduced change to be hit is not uniform over all values. In fact, it grows exponentially as defence increases.

Let's say that a unit has 80% defence. It is expected to get hit 1/5th of the time (or 2/10). Now, if it has 90% defence (a 10% increase), it will be hit 1/10th of the time. Ie. This is half as much as the initial chance, so it will survive twice as long, on average.

Compare this with a unit that has 20% defence. It will be hit 4/5ths of the time (or 8/10). If we increase defence to 30%, it will be hit 7/10ths of the time. Note that this is far more than "half as much", and the unit will not survive twice as long. For that to happen, we would need to decrease the chance to hit to 4/10.

Thus, it is clear that a 10% change in defence from 80% to 90% is far more valuable than a change from 20% to 30%; and in fact, going from 80% to 90% defence is equivalent in value to going from 20% to 60%. It's easier if you think about it in chance to hit rather than defence, really - going from 2/10 to 1/10 means you get hit half as much, so it is equivalent to going from 8/10 to 4/10.


Also, what wesfreak said.