zoog
Auto-translated
Let me state this right away: I believe that achieving quick results, 3-10 times better than in any real-time scenario, is a bug, not justified by any balance (like, there's a chance to lose a hero - well, and when entering a code, there's a chance that you'll be targeted). Archers, of course, are only effective when defending a Castle/Rampart/Tower.
Damage control. Here's a situation: 2 groups of 20 * 5 HP = 100 HP each, with a damage range of 1.75. I attack, dealing 20 * (2..3.5) = 40..70 damage, the counterattack is (6..12) * (2..3.5) = 12..30, i.e., the range is already 2.5 times larger, and with armor, the counterattack will be 10..26, at first glance - it's not very effective. Therefore, I control losses only by avoiding attacks on combat stacks, which is done through attacks, offense, and archers. What am I missing?
By the way, a question: there's a stack of 100 zombies, 5 squares away from them is a dragonfly, and 8-10 squares away are 100 gnolls and 15 lizardmen. What is the probability that the zombies will not go for the gnolls?
Damage control. Here's a situation: 2 groups of 20 * 5 HP = 100 HP each, with a damage range of 1.75. I attack, dealing 20 * (2..3.5) = 40..70 damage, the counterattack is (6..12) * (2..3.5) = 12..30, i.e., the range is already 2.5 times larger, and with armor, the counterattack will be 10..26, at first glance - it's not very effective. Therefore, I control losses only by avoiding attacks on combat stacks, which is done through attacks, offense, and archers. What am I missing?
By the way, a question: there's a stack of 100 zombies, 5 squares away from them is a dragonfly, and 8-10 squares away are 100 gnolls and 15 lizardmen. What is the probability that the zombies will not go for the gnolls?
648050691