Multiplayer observation

[Elvish_Pillager]

It can do 0, 2, 4 or 6 point of damage that round. The round after the dwarvish fighter can hit back for up to 24hp, whereas the elf can do only 16hp. Why is that irrelevant?

No it can't, because the Elvish Archers ganged up and killed it. Then when any Dwarvish Fighter attacks, it takes damage but can't kill, and if they gang up on one they all get damaged and you can kill them next turn.

[telly]

Ah I'm not paying attention he switched from fighters to archers..

[telly]

No it can't, because the Elvish Archers ganged up and killed it. Then when any Dwarvish Fighter attacks, it takes damage but can't kill, and if they gang up on one they all get damaged and you can kill them next turn.

Elvish archers when they gang up on dwarves with their ranged attack, they take no damage but it needs at least 3 elves to kill one dwarf. On the other hand dwarves because their single melee attack is so strong when they concentrate their force they only need 2 dwarves to kill one elf. Against that they take 4-2 melee damage. So without taking in factors just as terrain and mobility into consideration (which aren't relevant to this discussion), the dwarvish fighters can be seen to have a significant advantage.

6 dwarves vs 6 elves ok.
very deterministic examples again

elves first.
(6 dwarvish fighters vs 6 elvish archers)
elf turn they attack 2 dwarves with 3 archers each, kill both take no damage.
(4 dwarves vs 6 elves)
dwarf turn they attack 2 elves with their 4 dwarves, kill both, two take 8 damage, two take 4 damage
(4 dwarves 28, 28, 32, 32 vs 4 archers)
elf turn attack 2 dwarves with 2 archers each, killing both taking no damage.
(2 dwarves 28, 28 vs 4 archers)
dwarf turn they attack 1 elf with both remaining dwarves killing it (20 and 24hp they have now).
(2 dwarves 20, 24 vs 3 Archers)
two archers attack and kill 1 dwarf, the other archer attacks the remaining dwarf hurting it.
(1 dwarf 4hp vs 3 archers)
remaining dwarf attacks an archer and dies in the process
Final result 3 archers 2 unhurt, 1 with 21 hp remaining.

dwarves first
dwarf turn they attack 3 elves with 2 dwarves each, killing all of them.
(6 dwarves 28, 28, 28, 32, 32, 32 vs 3 elves unhurt)
elf turn, 2 archers attack 1 dwarf killing it, other elf weakens one dwarf
(5 dwarves 16, 28, 28, 32, 32, 3 archers)
dwarf turn 4 dwarves attack 2 elves killing both, 16hp dwarf moves behind the others.
(5 dwarves 16, 24, 24, 28, 28, 1 archer)
elf turn remaining elf attacks a dwarf
(5 dwarves 8, 16, 24, 28, 28, 1 archer)
dwarf turn they kill last elf
Final result 5 dwarves 8hp, 16hp, 24hp, 24hp, 28hp respectively.

[Elvish_Pillager]

So without taking in factors just as terrain and mobility into consideration (which aren't relevant to this discussion),

But they are highly relevant. The Elves are faster by 50%, and are thus much more likely to attack first.

[telly]

So without taking in factors just as terrain and mobility into consideration (which aren't relevant to this discussion),

But they are highly relevant. The Elves are faster by 50%, and are thus much more likely to attack first.

Uh. Its not relevant. Of course all things, being equal the faster the better obviously. But I'm trying to explain why a unit with otherwise identical stats with both ranged and melee attacks has no advantages over a unit with a single stronger melee attack. What relevance does mobility have? None at all. Thats why I kept away from using real units in my previous examples, it was MRhe who kept bringing up the ridiculous elf fighter vs grunt comparison. If you like, for the previous example, say I modded the gamefiles so dwarves have 7 move and elves have 36hp. Ok?

[Elvish_Pillager]

But I'm trying to explain why a unit with otherwise identical stats with both ranged and melee attacks has no advantages over a unit with a single stronger melee attack.

Well, that is certainly false, because it has at least one advantage, which is that it can take less damage when killing a unit it totally outnumbers. There may be 'few advantages', but there are not 'no advantages'.

[MRhe]

But I'm trying to explain why a unit with otherwise identical stats with both ranged and melee attacks has no advantages over a unit with a single stronger melee attack.

Well, that is certainly false, because it has at least one advantage, which is that it can take less damage when killing a unit it totally outnumbers. There may be 'few advantages', but there are not 'no advantages'.

This is a good, concise statement of an advantage the mixed unit has over the melee.

In effect this becomes another facet of a unit's characteristics, like speed, HP, defense %, etc. Depending on the situation, these various aspects can be either quite important or somewhat irrelevant. If you can't see the usefulness of a mixed unit now, then I don't think I can help you.