Some tips for newbie warrior?

[Vilk]

Originally Posted by jwallstone

When attack < defense, it is not capped at -10. It is capped at -60, for a 2/3 reduction in damage, just like attack > defense is capped at +60.

+60 with 3.3% malus for each point and you get a 300% malus of damages with weaker units? Obviously that's not the right point.
Tipple damages (attack > defense) and Third damages (attack < defense) si clearly not symmetrical. Between 300% and 100% there's 200%. 200/3.3 = 60.

Between 100 and 33% there's 66%. 66/3.3 = 20. Lol ok 20 not 10.

Now the point if I remember well is that in fact it's more complicated when defense > attack, except that each point worth much less than 3.3% anyway. So it's still quite a big approximation to look only at attack and to forget the weak units point when you look at character level up management.

[jwallstone]

That's the wrong way to think about Attack and Defense. You can't simply subtract the bonuses. Between 100 and 33%, there is indeed a 66% difference. But you need Defense-Attack=60 in order to get that 66% reduction. Why? Because each point of defense gives a smaller % than the previous one. Having D-A=60 reduces damage to 33.3%, while D-A=59 gives 33.7%, only a 0.4% difference.

Now, you're probably thinking that means Defense is worth less the more you have. But that's completely the wrong way to think about it. In fact, this system is completely fair and values Defense and Attack equally. Like I said, you can't just take the DIFFERENCE between the percents. For example, with A-D=30, you get a 100% bonus to damage, doubling your damage. But if D-A=30 gave a 100% reduction, that means you get ZERO damage, making you invincible against that troop. Clearly, this is not equal and would make Defense much more useful than Attack.

In fact, both Defense and Attack are equally valued. Attack increases damage output by 3.3% per point, while Defense increase how long you live by 3.3%. Give a troop 30 more defense, it'll live 100% longer against all attacks. It's very simple. In fact, the whole business about having different equations if D<A and if D>A can be misleading. They both ALWAYS give 3.3% more damage or 3.3% more life, regardless of what the other troop's stats are.

If you look at it mathematically, Attack helps as follows: Damage = BaseDamage * (1+A/30). Now, if Defense equals Attack, then the troop should do BaseDamage, right? So you divide by (1 + D/30), and voila, you have Damage=BaseDamage. This also tells you what the formula for defense should be: Damage = BaseDamage / (1+D/30). That's why Defense gives less % difference the more you have: because it gives a factor of 1/(1+D/30). You can see for yourself that if you take the derivative, you get 1/(30*(1+D/30)^2). But the % difference doesn't matter, it's still giving you 3.3% more life with each point! In fact, if Defense modified the unit's life instead of the attacker's damage, you could have it simply increase hit points by 3.3% for the purposes of that attack rather than reduce damage and get the exact same overall effect.

[Vilk]

I wonder from what you deduce I was comparing attack and defense but that wasn't the point. The point was to compare Leadership and Attack.

Anyway you just confirm what I was saying, that an attack point doesn't worth 3.3% damages but less because of the case of Defense > Attack. That's exactly what I was trying to explain.

That put in question quite a lot the reasoning arguing that until level 14 Leadership doesn't worth much to be choose. Not too mention some other points linked to a bigger stack like some special unit skills linked to stack size and not at all to damages.

I don't want say that some variation like not pick much Leadership during first levels isn't a good option but it's not clear at all that it's the best and the single best.

EDIT: And about attack vs defense that wasn't my point, but about it, yes it's obvious it's symmetrical from a math point of view as it's just a difference between the two. But people argue that attack is still better because with good tactics your attack is more important, you take care to attack first and even if enemy stack counter attack it is already reduced, you even take care to attack more than you get attacked.

[Razorflame]

well obviously i hardly get attacked myself by enemy stacks
since i use slow or w/e spells i have avaible to make SURE i attack first!

and with that
ATTACK>defense

the hit is worth a penny
it removes a portion of the stack and completely vaporsied it
so what use is defense?

[jwallstone]

I understand that your larger point was about Leadership. My comment wasn't related to that. I just wanted to explain thoroughly the math behind the two stats, since you were calculating Defense bonuses completely incorrectly (like the -66% = 20 Def). This is something that I see all the time whenever this mechanic is used, from KB to HOMM and even Warcraft 3. I wanted to explain it in detail for everyone's benefit, not just yours.

On the issue of Attack vs. Defense, I completely agree that Attack is better. Over the course of the game, you should be dealing a lot more damage than you're receiving, if you're playing it right. My point wasn't about which is BETTER, but rather what they actually DO in terms of the math of combat. People in these forums are always (correctly) saying attack is better than defense, but then some people start thinking that defense is mathematically less advantageous, because it gives a smaller percent in damage reduction than 3.3%, rather than it being due to game tactics. I see it all the time, so again, I'm just explaining for everyone's benefit.

[Vilk]

Ok I didn't knew the formula and stupidly didn't read with enough care your post, first point is someone can paste the bit of code involved here? I don't like at all debate about something I don't have under my eyes.

Second I have to admit it I don't understand anything of your explanation, I feel a little idiot but prefer be frank if we are going to discuss that more.

I'd be agree that defense and value have the same value because it's just the difference of the two. But your attack and the opponent defense are more important than your defense and opponent attack. Just for tactical reason.

But I cannot be agree (don't understand a word of it) that enemy defense > my attack is symmetrical than enemy defense < my attack. In first case you fit 60 between 100% and 66% in second case you fit 60 between 100% and 300%. And look at life in one case and attack in another case means nothing for me. Not to mention that from what I read here the code isn't at all symmetrical, either it's badly programed either it's not symmetrical.

For me it's like if you compare cherry and apple and explain that ok the apple is bigger but they are the same because the cherry has more sugar. Don't despair make me understand that anyway, mmm and the original bit of code involved would help a lot.

EDIT: Quote that it's not attack vs defense but "enemy defense > my attack" vs "enemy defense < my attack". One more time, attack vs defense means nothing because it's just a difference of the two so obviously symmetrical and no need to look at from a life or attack point of view.