Multiplayer observation

[telly]

You're delibrately taking that sentence out of context to nitpick :). Of course I'm not saying that a unit's other stats like hitpoints and resistances are irrelevant.

[Dave]

I think that in general, it's better to have all your attack power concentrated in one attack. For instance, an Elvish Fighter would be more powerful if its 5*4 + 3*3 = 29 damage attacks were amalgamated into a single melee attack, of e.g. 7*4 = 28.

Consider that it'd change Orcish Grunts much more if we increased their damage to 11-2 than if we gave them a 2-2 ranged attack.

Likewise, a Ranger would be considered absurd if it could have all its damage concentrated into one 14-4 attack.

David

[telly]

Ah yeah. I agree with that, in theory it makes no difference if all the units have infinite hp or something near and can't move (er heh..) i think.. But in practice it is better to have all the damage consolidated in one super attack where you have a chance of killing a unit outright or at least hurting them a lot in the one turn before they can scarper.

[turin]

which is why most type C units have a higher cumulative damage than type A or B units.

[MRhe]

I know that's what you're saying, but I disagree. Depending on your opponents' units, this makes a big difference in whether you recruit melee or ranged specialty units.

No it doesn't. The total damage they do is what matters, wether they do it as a ranged attack or a melee attack or both is fairly irrelevant.

You keep saying this, but you're just restating your claim. You aren't convincing me that you're correct. Simply adding a unit's melee and ranged damage isn't a good way of judging a unit's value, because it can only use one type of attack per attack phase.

But attacking first can be a huge advantage, as you point out in your specific example of a 1v1 fight between orc and fighter in which the orc attacks first and hits at 100%. If the fighter attacks first during the First Watch, then he shoots the orc for 9 (assuming 100% hit rate). Now the orc attacks, does 22, and the fighter does 20. Leaves Elf = 10, Orc = 9. Then the Elf can theoretically kill the Orc on the next phase with his ranged, risking no further damage. Whoever attacks first matters a huge amount in this example, mainly because the Elf has ranged whereas the Orc does not.

So the elf has a better chance of winning if he attacks first and the orc of winning if he attacks first. Who gets the first attack matters most with opposite attacks (ranged vs melee) and least with the same attacks (melee vs melee or ranged vs ranged). In all those cases, whoever has the iniative has the advantage, it doesn't matter at all wether they have ranged units or melee units or a mix.

You just contradicted yourself here. "Who gets the first attack matters most with opposite attacks (ranged vs. melee)...whoever has the iniative has the advantage, it doesn't matter at all wether they have ranged units or melee units..." Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The initiative is important, but it depends on the situation. If I am able to shoot at you and damage you before you can even swing at me then I'm in a superior tactical situation.

Also, your example is completely ignoring relevant factors, such as the probable sound strategy involved. Two or three Elves can concentrate on a Grunt, shooting it during the night and holding their ground. In your example, most players would likely retreat the Elf instead of leaving it to its likely death on Turn 3. These combats don't occur in a vaccuum. As a general tactic the ability to deal out damage without retaliation is enormously valuable. Let us also not forget that if the Orc misses on Turn 3, the Elf's retaliation could kill the Orc. There's a genuine risk involved.

This example does occur in a vacuum because it is only that, a simplified example to illustrate my point. There is no ability to deal out damage without retaliation in wesnoth (except for ulfserkers against a unit with no melee attack). There is always the chance you'll miss and get attacked the next turn. Two or three elves can concentrate on a grunt? Two or three grunts can concentrate on an elf, whats your point?

When I say "damage w/o retaliation" I mean in a given attack phase. I thought that was clear. Obviously the enemy can retaliate on his turn. My point about concentrating units was meant for extrapolation: Two or three elves can shoot an orc and he won't be able to do anything until his actual attack phase. If two or three orcs attack an Elf, he has to potential to deal out 5-60 pts. of melee damage, depending on how successful their attacks are. The very fact that the orcs will likely be weakened although they will very likely kill the elf demonstrates the power of ranged vs. pure melee.

This makes little sense, and is hardly an argument against my claim. The orc is a powerful chaotic melee unit; as such he is weak during the day. If you let him sit around and absorb damage during the day of course he's going to die. What you can do is retreat/protect/heal them during the day. This is less true for, say, the higher-level orc leader, who has a ranged attack, so he can shoot at enemy melee units during the day if possible.

You're arguing that mixed melee/ranged units are better than just melee units and using Elf fighters against grunts as an example. But elf fighters stats are better than grunts so its an unfair comparison.

Everything else being more or less equal, yes, I think that mixed are better than pure melee units. Obviously units have certain variables that can outweigh this (alignment, HP, damage capability, etc.). The Footpad example, as was mentioned, is a perfect example. The mixed unit's versatility here is simply outweighed by the power of the grunt's melee.

Your comment about trolls is true, but irrelevant. Two fighters shooting at a troll will destroy him eventually.

This is just rubbish. You always have twice as many units as your opponent?

No, but my point is that except for a 1v1 situation, ranged troops are able to shell trolls very effectively. On the troll's turn, he can attack and risk further damage to himself, expediting his demise.

[turin]

lets you and your opponent have equal forces. you have in A) mixed fighters, in B) pure melee. they have pure melee. its your turn, no combat has been initiated yet.

turn 1, you:
A) you go forward, with your ranged killing off 1-3 of the enemy's units, taking no damage. you now have a numerical advantage, and it is their turn
B) you go forward, attacking and having both sides take equal damage. since your's is concentrated you kill 1-3 enemies, but take considerable damage. it is their turn.

turn 1, them:
A) their troops attack you, killing 1-3, and taking considerable damage from retaliation. numerically you are equal now, they have taken more damage, and it is your turn.
B) their troops attack you, killing 2-4, since your troops were already wounded. they now have the numerical advantage, but probably have more wounded units, and it is your turn.

turn 2, you:
A) You kill off 2-4 of their wounded units, taking no damage in retaliation. You now have a strong numerical advantage, your surviving units have taken little damage, but it is their turn.
B) you kill off 2-4 of their wounded enemies, taking damage by retaliation. You now have a numerical advantage, but your troops are wounded and it is their turn.

----------------------

I hope this illustrates what we are trying to say. Actually, a scenario C), with a mix of melee and ranged units, would probably be most effective, since you can get kills with ranged units and then put melee units in their place. This results in you getting maximum kills, and them taking maximum damage on retaliation.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Actually, a scenario C), with a mix of melee and ranged units, would probably be most effective, since you can get kills with ranged units and then put melee units in their place. This results in you getting maximum kills, and them taking maximum damage on retaliation.

Dark Adepts and Walking Corpses are an amazingly powerful combo. Pity I can't pull it off more often. All my multiplayer games recently have been dedicated to testing.

[turin]

um, and when i said "taking maximum damage in retaliation", i meant "DEALING maximum damage in retaliation". taking damage is not a good thing.

[Elvish_Pillager]

um, and when i said "taking maximum damage in retaliation", i meant "DEALING maximum damage in retaliation". taking damage is not a good thing.

No you didn't, you actually said "THEM taking blah blah damage" which is them taking the damage, not you. Taking damage is good when your opponents are doing it.

[turin]

um, and when i said "taking maximum damage in retaliation", i meant "DEALING maximum damage in retaliation". taking damage is not a good thing.

No you didn't, you actually said "THEM taking blah blah damage" which is them taking the damage, not you. Taking damage is good when your opponents are doing it.

should have read my original post more carefully...

nothing like trying to correct an error you didn't make.

[telly]

In the first turn and the second turn, you have both A and B kill the same number of units? That suggests that A's ranged attack is equal to B's melee? But then A go on in the enemy's turn 1 to cause them 'considerable damage' which suggests that A's melee attack is just as strong as well. And it seems like A have the same hp as they take the same number of casulties as B do and the enemy.

So its a bit confusing but what you seem to be demonstrating is how (all other things being equal) a unit with both (for instance) 10-2 ranged and 10-2 melee attacks is better than a unit with just 10-2 melee...

[turin]

In the first turn and the second turn, you have both A and B kill the same number of units? That suggests that A's ranged attack is equal to B's melee? But then A go on in the enemy's turn 1 to cause them 'considerable damage' which suggests that A's melee attack is just as strong as well. And it seems like A have the same hp as they take the same number of casulties as B do and the enemy.

this is true. thus falls all propaganda.

my real argument was for a mix of melee and ranged units, not a mob of all mixed fighters. mixed fighters are mostly useful when in good defensive territory and not trying to deal damage, just to survive.

So its a bit confusing but what you seems to be demonstrating is how (all other things being equal) a unit with both (for instance) 10-2 ranged and 10-2 melee attacks is better than a unit with just 10-2 melee...

actually, its trying to show how a team consisting of roughly equal portions of 10-2 melee units and 4-2 melee 8-2 ranged units can beat a similar sized group of 10-2 melee units.

[telly]

You just contradicted yourself here. "Who gets the first attack matters most with opposite attacks (ranged vs. melee)...whoever has the iniative has the advantage, it doesn't matter at all wether they have ranged units or melee units..." Which is it? You can't have it both ways. The initiative is important, but it depends on the situation. If I am able to shoot at you and damage you before you can even swing at me then I'm in a superior tactical situation.

No, I didn't contradict myself. You just completely misunderstood me...

[telly]

actually, its trying to show how a team consisting of roughly equal portions of 10-2 melee units and 4-2 melee 8-2 ranged units can beat a similar sized group of 10-2 melee units.

Yeah but in that case the 4-2, 8-2 units do more total damage.

What I've been saying is that mixed units have no advantage if they still do the same total damage. i.e. A 5-2, 5-2 unit is no stronger than a unit which does one 10-2 attack.

[turin]

actually, its trying to show how a team consisting of roughly equal portions of 10-2 melee units and 4-2 melee 8-2 ranged units can beat a similar sized group of 10-2 melee units.

Yeah but in that case the 4-2, 8-2 units do more total damage.

What I've been saying is that mixed units have no advantage if they still do the same total damage. i.e. A 5-2, 5-2 unit is no stronger than a unit which does one 10-2 attack.

yes, but units that are equivalent rarely do equivalent damage. a 5-2 melee 5-2 ranged has NEVER been said to be on par with a 10-2 melee. but a 6-2m 6-3r bowman (with total cum damage 30) only costs three more than a grunt with total cum damage 20! PLUS he gets both a ranged and a melee attack! and this is not the exception, more like the rule.