The longest awaited unit evar?

[Bob the Terrible]

How about giving it a gauranteed 50% accuracy?

[lucienium]

Got it
I just thought that it seems like just one more unit. What is the difference between getting hit by a javilin and getting hit by an arrow?

nothing. but then again, whats the difference in getting hit with a thunderstick shot and getting hit with an arrow? its just one has less strokes and does more damage. javelin is in between; 2 strokes, not 1 or 3.

compare inferno drake with dragonguard. inferno drake deals a total of 45 damage while dragonguard deals only 40 (right?) but anyways, let's say dragonguard attacks an inferno drake with only 44 or less life remaining

-dragonguard's offense is now 44 (40 + 10% because of drake's negative resistance) and can therefore kill the drake in one shot. dragonguard takes NO damage because the inferno drake was unable to counterattack

-now, let's say the same inferno drake with 44 (or less) life attacks the dragon guard with let's say, 16 life. it can't kill the dragonguard with one shot (because it only deals 15 damage) so it therefore risks being killed by the counter attack. had it been able to deal, let's say, 22-2 damage instead, then it would have been a far better offensive unit.

basically, having less shots with more damage (even if the total damage dealt[40-1] isn't as much as one with more shots each with less damage[15-3]) has tactical advantages.

if u still don't get what i mean imagine fighting with a great mage that deals all of its damage in one shot, tsk tsk tsk right? specially cause every damage u can deal against a great mage is important. this is exactly why thunderers, thuderguards, and dragonguards are a little better than most non magical range attackers (elven marksmen and sharpshooters not included ...because of an obvious reason) and why drake slashers (they deal 16-2 damage AND have first strike) have a distinct advantage over drake gladiators who have more damage types and 6 more HP.

"strong" changes this rule however. having a melee attack with more shots is better when one of the traits ur unit has is "strong", which is why "strong" knights are better off as paladins rather than grand knights (in my opinion). the offense boost somewhat makes the paladin as powerful as ur average grand knight

sorry for the long post, i just had to let that out cause it seems some people don't realize the implications of this concern.

[turin]

It also has tactical disadvantage; if it misses, it does NO DAMAGE AT ALL.

Really, i think its pointless to compare more or less strokes for tactical advantages. They all have their good things and bad things.

[Elvish_Pillager]

"strong" knights are better off as paladins rather than grand knights (in my opinion). the offense boost somewhat makes the paladin as powerful as ur average grand knight

Strong Paladin: 9-5 -20%(holy) =7-5 =35
Average Grand Knight: 12.4-4 =49.6

Average Grand Knight is stronger. It's only a 1-stroke difference, so it's not much difference. (The Grand Knight and Lancer are also greatly enhanced by Strong.)

[autolycus]

The question you will always end up asking is: would the one-shot chance of killing the enemy be worth the ability to deal consistent damage?

One part of the answer is that in a do or die situation against a foe that can't be killed in one round by other units, the one-shot would always be more important regardless of how small the percentage of success is - it has a chance of success but the other one doesn't.

The other part of the answer is that if you have more time, the multi-shot attacker may have an advantage provided it has enough hp to last multiple rounds.

A lot of these things can be calculated statistically, but the fact remains that if you are in your last round and you can charge for 50-1 OR attack for 14-4 against the orcish leader with 44 hp left (because only one adjacent hex is available), you would choose the 50-1 all the time, because the chance of failure is less (assuming terrain etc same).

[lucienium]

It also has tactical disadvantage; if it misses, it does NO DAMAGE AT ALL.

Really, i think its pointless to compare more or less strokes for tactical advantages. They all have their good things and bad things.

every tactical advantage has an equivalent tactical disadvantage. mind u the game works on chances, even those multi stroke low damage attacks can miss. multi stroke low damage attacks still have advantage however. they have more shots so even if the first shot misses, they may still end up dealing damage.

basically what i'm saying is

single shot attacks have a defensive implication: if it hits and kill, attacker does not risk being damage OR defender only risks being damaged once

multi shot attacks have an offensive implication: if the first attack DOESN'T hit, it can still end up doing damage.

let's compare a 40-1 and a 10-4 attack against a unit with 40% defense (ergo, 60% chance to hit PER shot
_______________________________________________________
40-1: 60% 40 damage, 40% 0 damage

10-4: 12.96% 40 damage, 34.56% 30 damage, 34.56% 20 damage, 15.36% 10 damage, 2.56% 0 damage
________________________________________________________
now let's compare the same attack but now against a unit with 60% defense (ergo, 40% chance to hit PER shot)
________________________________________________________
40-1: 40% 40 damage, 60% 0 damage

10-4: 2.56% 40 damage, 15.36% 30 damage, 34.56% 20 damage, 34.56% 10 damage, 12.96% 0 damage
________________________________________________________
as you can see, the multi shot attack has better chances of dealing damage. but less chance of doing more than half of it. it might seem like the single shot attack is at a loss but like i said, it's advantage lies on its capability to kill the defending unit with that "luck based" shot and incur less counterattack damage against the attacking unit

ANYWAY!!! my point is, given the same total damage. an attack with less shots with each shot dealing more damage is VERY different from an attack with more shots with each shot dealing less damage. it's really up to the player.

ok, just think about this. u have a drake slasher attacking someone with, let's say, 15 HP left (just imagine a scenraio where you HAVE to attack). without considering resistances, would u attack using the 11-3 attack, or the 16-2 attack? what if your drake only has enough HP to last 2 blows? 1 blow? what if that is the only unit u have that can attack the target?

the decision you would make will pretty much say something about how you play, whether you're a "gambler" or someone who wants to be "sure", etc etc etc

sorry, this is getting long ...i have to go to my friend's place ...oh! and yes, the percentages are accurate (unless the engine doesn't really use them) and they greatly affect your game (cause percentages are invoked everytime you attack)

[Dacyn]

every tactical advantage has an equivalent tactical disadvantage.

Actually, there is one advantage to a low-stroke attack that has no counterpart in a high-stroke attack: if you kill the enemy earlier, you get less retaliation.

it's really up to the player.

It also has to do with the situation, for example if the unit defending had only 11 HP then it is obvious which attack to use. And the HP of units is not random, for example no unit has HP>200. Basically, there might be a way to calculate based on our current unit and map set which of any two attacks is more valuable...

[Burnsaber]

Is this topic cursed or sonething? Again were seriosly off-topic......

[turin]

Is this topic cursed or sonething? Again were seriosly off-topic......

I don't think its a problem. All art has been completed... this thread is pointless now; discussion on stats should probably continue in DD.

[lucienium]

every tactical advantage has an equivalent tactical disadvantage.

Actually, there is one advantage to a low-stroke attack that has no counterpart in a high-stroke attack: if you kill the enemy earlier, you get less retaliation.

it's really up to the player.

It also has to do with the situation, for example if the unit defending had only 11 HP then it is obvious which attack to use. And the HP of units is not random, for example no unit has HP>200. Basically, there might be a way to calculate based on our current unit and map set which of any two attacks is more valuable...

i don't see the reason why u have to bring that up. do u know anyone here stupid enough to use a 40-1 attack instead of a 10-4 attack against an opponent with 1 life left?

and yes, i know it has something to do with the situation, which is why i mentioned some of the possible situations. i also didn't mention that HP is random and it can go beyond 200 (i don't get why miseducated people keep on putting words into the mouths of those who are better educated versed.) lastly, if u kept on calculating everything while playing then u wouldn't be playing ...u'd be a boring player ...the only reason why i brought up those values is because most people are unable to understand my point

[Dacyn]

i don't see the reason why u have to bring that up.

Bring what up?

(i don't get why miseducated people keep on putting words into the mouths of those who are better educated versed.)

You are the one putting words in my mouth; I never said that you said that.

I don't really understand the point of your post, as I agree with most of what you have said. If you have an objection, can you state it more clearly?