Blade damage
Moderator: Forum Moderators
Blade damage
I recently noticed something. Among the physical damage types, there are plenty of units exclusively weak to pierce or impact, but there aren't any that are exclusively weak to blade except for wose. Is there a reason for this?
Re: Blade damage
You forgot all elusivefoot units (fencer line, footpad line, thief line, orcish assasin line). 
Proud creator of the :whistle: smiley | I prefer the CC-0 license.
Re: Blade damage
Yeah, but they're weak to all physical types though...
Re: Blade damage
They're weaker to blade. Slightly.
Well, blade is resisted by less types, too. It's just a matter of variety. Also balance, since blade is pretty much the most common damage type.
Well, blade is resisted by less types, too. It's just a matter of variety. Also balance, since blade is pretty much the most common damage type.
Proud creator of the :whistle: smiley | I prefer the CC-0 license.
Re: Blade damage
I think pierce is much more common. Also, probably flavour reasons.
Re: Blade damage
I haven't looked at the resistances, but I have compared how common each damage type is, at least among the multiplayer DEFAULT era. Blade is, by a decent amount, the most common, followed by pierce, impact, fire, cold and then arcane. What I did was looked at all the recruitable units for multiplayer (so this does not take into account any lvl 2 or 3 units... not that big of an oversight since probably 90% of the combat in a multiplayer game is with those lvl 1 and lvl 0s available for recruitment) and I added one to the appropriate column for each damage type the unit possessed. Therefore the elvish fighter contributed 1 to both the blade and pierce columns (two attacks of different types) but the dwarvish guardsman only contributed 1 to pierce because both of his attacks are of the same type. Now, I included all the attacks, even marginal ones like the skeletal archer's impact melee attack and the poacher's blade melee attack. Up top are the total numbers and below is the faction-by-faction breakdown.
Total Units: 6 + 8 + 7 + 7 + 8 + 7 = 43 units
(B)lade: 3 + 6 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 23 (53.5%)
(P)ierce: 2 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 1 = 16 (37%)
(I)mpact: 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 12 (28%)
(F)ire: 3 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 6 (14%)
(C)old: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 = 3 (7%)
(A)rcane: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 = 2 (5%)
Drakes (6 units)
B: 3
P: 2
I: 2
F: 3
C: 1
A: 0
Knalgan (8 units)
B: 6
P: 3
I: 2
F: 0
C: 0
A: 0
Northern (7 units)
B: 5
P: 2
I: 1
F: 1
C: 0
A: 0
Rebels (7 units)
B: 3
P: 4
I: 3
F: 1
C: 0
A: 0
Loyalist (8 units)
B: 3
P: 4
I: 2
F: 1
C: 0
A: 0
Undead (7 units)
B: 3
P: 1
I: 2
F: 0
C: 2
A: 2
Total Units: 6 + 8 + 7 + 7 + 8 + 7 = 43 units
(B)lade: 3 + 6 + 5 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 23 (53.5%)
(P)ierce: 2 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 1 = 16 (37%)
(I)mpact: 2 + 2 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 12 (28%)
(F)ire: 3 + 0 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 = 6 (14%)
(C)old: 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 = 3 (7%)
(A)rcane: 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 = 2 (5%)
Drakes (6 units)
B: 3
P: 2
I: 2
F: 3
C: 1
A: 0
Knalgan (8 units)
B: 6
P: 3
I: 2
F: 0
C: 0
A: 0
Northern (7 units)
B: 5
P: 2
I: 1
F: 1
C: 0
A: 0
Rebels (7 units)
B: 3
P: 4
I: 3
F: 1
C: 0
A: 0
Loyalist (8 units)
B: 3
P: 4
I: 2
F: 1
C: 0
A: 0
Undead (7 units)
B: 3
P: 1
I: 2
F: 0
C: 2
A: 2
Re: Blade damage
Well I'm sure that is a contributing factor, but anyone can avoid making blade damaging units, and now on the field some other damage type would be the dominating damage type. As my friend pointed out, "Why should I ever make any blade damaging units? No one's ever weak to them. *spams skeleton archers and adepts*"
After thinking on it for a while, it would make more sense to have hardly anyone exclusively weak to blade if blade was consistently the stronger alternative to any attack choice. That would mean you'd use blade for general purpose attacks and your other attack for everything else.
Looking at the default era,
Drakes:
Seeing as how the clasher does more piercing damage than the fighter does blade damage, the drakes destroyed my theory there. Other uses of of blade damage are as secondary backup attacks.
Knalgan:
Many units use blade, and blade are typically stronger than the other damage types:
Fighter blade damage does more damage than their impact damage or the guardsman's pierce damage
Gryphon blade damage is really strong too
Thief, not so much, but they do have backstab
Makes sense for ulfserkers to do blade damage, they can potentially get one kill each per turn, and if there's any enemy with a particular weakness to them, it'll be pretty unbalanced
Northerners:
Grunt does more damage than trolls, the other primary melee attacker
Even the wolf rider and naga do more damage than trolls. I didn't notice that before.
Assassin does very weak blade damage with their main attack, but since it poisons and has high accuracy, I guess that makes sense
Rebels:
Blade seems to do about equal damage as pierce consistently (fighter melee is the same as archer pierce, rider does same damage for both attacks), but since pretty much all of them do both, I guess it's best left that way.
Loyalists:
Pierce damage reigns supreme here. The cavalier and fencers are no match for the spearmen, archers, mermen, heavy infantry, etc etc
Undead:
Bats are really expensive for a level 0 unit, and their blade damage isn't that great, even when leveled up. Makes up for their near consistent 60% defense I suppose
Ghoul does pathetic blade damage as well, but then again they poison, so it makes sense
Skeletons deal pretty heavy damage, and deal the most damage out of everyone
So other than Loyalists and Drakes, blade seems to consistently be the better alternative in general.
After thinking on it for a while, it would make more sense to have hardly anyone exclusively weak to blade if blade was consistently the stronger alternative to any attack choice. That would mean you'd use blade for general purpose attacks and your other attack for everything else.
Looking at the default era,
Drakes:
Seeing as how the clasher does more piercing damage than the fighter does blade damage, the drakes destroyed my theory there. Other uses of of blade damage are as secondary backup attacks.
Knalgan:
Many units use blade, and blade are typically stronger than the other damage types:
Fighter blade damage does more damage than their impact damage or the guardsman's pierce damage
Gryphon blade damage is really strong too
Thief, not so much, but they do have backstab
Makes sense for ulfserkers to do blade damage, they can potentially get one kill each per turn, and if there's any enemy with a particular weakness to them, it'll be pretty unbalanced
Northerners:
Grunt does more damage than trolls, the other primary melee attacker
Even the wolf rider and naga do more damage than trolls. I didn't notice that before.
Assassin does very weak blade damage with their main attack, but since it poisons and has high accuracy, I guess that makes sense
Rebels:
Blade seems to do about equal damage as pierce consistently (fighter melee is the same as archer pierce, rider does same damage for both attacks), but since pretty much all of them do both, I guess it's best left that way.
Loyalists:
Pierce damage reigns supreme here. The cavalier and fencers are no match for the spearmen, archers, mermen, heavy infantry, etc etc
Undead:
Bats are really expensive for a level 0 unit, and their blade damage isn't that great, even when leveled up. Makes up for their near consistent 60% defense I suppose
Ghoul does pathetic blade damage as well, but then again they poison, so it makes sense
Skeletons deal pretty heavy damage, and deal the most damage out of everyone
So other than Loyalists and Drakes, blade seems to consistently be the better alternative in general.
Re: Blade damage
Do not compare damage types, compare units or to a greater extent compare roles.
Drake fighters are a usefull unit for the drakes even if they use the supposedly "inferior damage type". They are faster(extra move +flying) and cheaper than clashers and come with a ranged attack. These qualities make them useful particuarly against undead and northerners.
Against most units, it dosn't matter what damage type is used.
Also you forgot about saurians, the strong presense of saurians in the drake vs loyalist match-up and their relative peirce/blade resistances give fencers and cavarlrymen a practical role (their speed is also important). Blade attacks are also much more effective on skelotons than peirceing attacks are.
Drake fighters are a usefull unit for the drakes even if they use the supposedly "inferior damage type". They are faster(extra move +flying) and cheaper than clashers and come with a ranged attack. These qualities make them useful particuarly against undead and northerners.
Against most units, it dosn't matter what damage type is used.
Also you forgot about saurians, the strong presense of saurians in the drake vs loyalist match-up and their relative peirce/blade resistances give fencers and cavarlrymen a practical role (their speed is also important). Blade attacks are also much more effective on skelotons than peirceing attacks are.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Re: Blade damage
For sheer ofensive power I consider Drake Fighter superior to Clasher.
It's all because of rounding and "magic 7-3". With daytime bonus this turns into 9-3 damage (8.75 rounds up) for a total of 27.
Clasher OTOH has "crappy 6-4" damage per strike. During day it turns into 7-4 damage (7.5 rounds DOWN, essentially 2 dmg lost per combat turn
) for a total of 28.
Fighter is cheaper and faster, therefore clearly works better in the ofensive role. Of course resistances/strong trait can change that (strong Clasher at daytime, ouch).
It applies both ways though, at night "magic 7-3" turns into "mediocre 5-3". Meanwhile "crappy 6-4" turns into "average 5-4".
And of course, at dawn/dusk "crappy 6-4" is better than "magic 7-3".
It's all because of rounding and "magic 7-3". With daytime bonus this turns into 9-3 damage (8.75 rounds up) for a total of 27.
Clasher OTOH has "crappy 6-4" damage per strike. During day it turns into 7-4 damage (7.5 rounds DOWN, essentially 2 dmg lost per combat turn
) for a total of 28.Fighter is cheaper and faster, therefore clearly works better in the ofensive role. Of course resistances/strong trait can change that (strong Clasher at daytime, ouch).
It applies both ways though, at night "magic 7-3" turns into "mediocre 5-3". Meanwhile "crappy 6-4" turns into "average 5-4".
And of course, at dawn/dusk "crappy 6-4" is better than "magic 7-3".
Re: Blade damage
I think you are underestimating the effect of what strong does to clashers 7-4 becomes 9-4 making strong clashers one of the most damaging units in the game at day.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Re: Blade damage
I don't know. I don't know how to play drakes well anyway.
Re: Blade damage
I don't think strong clashers at day are beaten by anything, actually. 9-4 is 36 average damage. Woses, wielding the most powerful melee attack unmodified of all, end at I think 16-2, which is only 32 average damage. The only thing that can match a drake clasher's average damage is a strong thief in backstab mode at night - 12-3 also equals 32 average damage. But, of course, you have to backstab to get it.
And then there's the night performance to consider. Any clasher still has 5-4 melee damage at night, and firststrike to go with it. They need that of course, being the slowest-moving drake unit and thus the most likely to end up having to tank. Fighters on the other hand end up with 5-3 or 6-3, depending on strength, making them significantly weaker. So while the fighter is faster, you need to use that speed to stay out of trouble at night, generally speaking. If you take the clasher, you have a higher chance to punish opponents that press the attack at night in too low numbers relying on their time of day advantage.
Dismissing any unit of any faction out of hand or for superficial reasons like "it has blade damage and blade damage is generally the least useful", in my eyes, often hints at a lack of understanding how that faction or the unit should be used. You don't have to recruit every unit in every match - indeed, it can be a grave mistake to do so - but you should understand each unit's potential roles. Fighters are not inherently better or worse than clashers.
And then there's the night performance to consider. Any clasher still has 5-4 melee damage at night, and firststrike to go with it. They need that of course, being the slowest-moving drake unit and thus the most likely to end up having to tank. Fighters on the other hand end up with 5-3 or 6-3, depending on strength, making them significantly weaker. So while the fighter is faster, you need to use that speed to stay out of trouble at night, generally speaking. If you take the clasher, you have a higher chance to punish opponents that press the attack at night in too low numbers relying on their time of day advantage.
Dismissing any unit of any faction out of hand or for superficial reasons like "it has blade damage and blade damage is generally the least useful", in my eyes, often hints at a lack of understanding how that faction or the unit should be used. You don't have to recruit every unit in every match - indeed, it can be a grave mistake to do so - but you should understand each unit's potential roles. Fighters are not inherently better or worse than clashers.
Re: Blade damage
Yes, of course. You're right.
Re: Blade damage
Horsemen beat clashers but that's it.
"There are two kinds of old men in the world. The kind who didn't go to war and who say that they should have lived fast died young and left a handsome corpse and the old men who did go to war and who say that there is no such thing as a handsome corpse."
Re: Blade damage
Uhm, what? Are we talking about the same horsemen? The ones with "charge" weapon special? The ones that would take 18-4 retaliation at day?
A weakened clasher (archers) which is finished off by a a horseman, that is a different story. But surely horsemen alone cannot take on clashers.
A weakened clasher (archers) which is finished off by a a horseman, that is a different story. But surely horsemen alone cannot take on clashers.