For example, Alex_P, who once tried to convince me that calculating damage in battles is completely unnecessary (and couldn't say how much damage 200 Troglodytes deal:)

And why would I need that? I believe that purely mathematical calculation not for a specific case, but for an imaginary situation, is not justified in terms of effort, since situations where a couple of extra points of damage decide the outcome of an unpredictable battle are very unlikely.
During the game, I prefer to look at how much damage the main stack deals and then estimate the upcoming battle — it's not hard to do, adjusting for the hero's Offense skill, additional attack parameter, number of monsters, and the defense of the intended target.
Don't misrepresent the info. Your question back then was about how much damage 200 Troglodytes would deal in a Griffin Conservatory, and there it's stupid to calculate — you need to look at the situation.
Sometimes it's roughly 170-500, and other times 300-900 (numbers taken without calculation, based on personal observations).

Added after 22 minutes

Yes, Pash, you're right about Alex:) , I remember in my only game with him, where due to my deep noobiness (only my 2nd month playing) I lost on day 117 even though the game was going well for me, and the funniest thing is that he also lost:D, because supposedly he was planning to take on angels with centaurs on week 1 and to speed up the pace he attacked 20-49 elves on the grass — just a fatherly game, nothing to say;)

What can I say to you... you said yourself that you're a deep noob, so why are you discussing my level of play if you're far from it? It's stupid to explain to you why I attacked the elves — there were about 46 of them, split into 2 or 3 stacks, some upgraded. In my memory, this is one of the few losses in all my games, and by the way, not without the help of neutral morale, but I never asked for auto, and in those rare cases when it was offered, I refused. Which is more than I can say for you and many other players, including top-tier ones.
In my opinion, there are 2 indicators here:
- Aggressiveness in the game
- And actually the player's skill
People who lose and use auto, for me personally, have less skill than their results suggest.
I think it's unnecessary to explain why — there have been many super-important games where not only did it not come to a fight, but there was no real clash at all... including cross-server and other tournaments where games ended on days 112-113 (among TOP players).

What especially amused me was his remark about taking Neo-Endi's maxed Griffin Conservatory as Cove without oil on week 2: he apparently lost a lot of Gnolls there — almost implying that 4 angels aren't worth the loss of 80 or 90 Gnolls:D ...

Such amusement is a very negative indicator of you as a person, but like Oelm, you heard/read what you wanted, not what I actually said/wrote. I roughly remember the gist of that phrase — it was about exchanging almost all of the Cove's two-week growth for 4 angels. Of course, there were maybe 2-3 Wyverns and 10-20 Lizardmen left, but the Basilisks and Gnolls almost all died, considering that 90 Gnolls is a very solid stack both in damage and tankiness and is clearly strong for the second week. In such situations, in a decent number of games, the opponent arrives with spell power 5-8 or maybe 10, and the angels die from magic, at best killing one of the opponent's 6-7 stacks per round in turn, but are neutralized in a couple of rounds by magic + getting swarmed, whereas if you hadn't lost the army, you could have fought wall to wall.
And by the way, I had a similar example where on week 3 the opponent traded 70%-80% of his native troops for 12 angels, while I, with my growth and only 3 angels, dug into his capital and held off the assault even with lower stats and development.

Added after 1 minute

Interesting, how did Alex_R manage to lose only 3 times in 2 years?

Probably a cheater too!?

Added after 10 minutes

P.S. If Alex_R is not confident in his gaming superiority, then playing with him is a big(!) problem.

What a clever thought! ... and I didn't even suspect I was such a big deal! :smile04:
It's just that in the statistics, I probably have one of the highest percentages of unfinished or unconfirmed reports, and clearly not through any fault of my own ;)
Although you're right about one thing — since I prefer to enjoy the game or chat with my opponent, but with people like you, that really is problematic.
P.S. Be less envious of others and take everything else more lightly.