Tactics for the Swamp (Fortress).

Damage control. Here's the situation: 2 units of 20*5 HP = 100 HP each, with a damage spread of 1.75. I attack, dealing 20*(2..3.5) = 40..70 damage, and the retaliation is (6..12)*(2..3.5) = 12..30, which is already a 2.5 times wider spread. With armor, the retaliation will be 10..26, which, at first glance, is not very effective. Therefore, I only control losses by avoiding attacks on combat stacks, which is done through attacks, offense, or archery. What am I missing?

Well, in your example, even 4 units of damage is quite good. If you assume 4 units of damage per battle and multiply it by the number of battles, you'll get a significant saving. In 30 battles, we'll save 120 HP, which is 24 gnolls! Who would say that's not much?

Let's consider another situation. We put a certain number of golems in a defensive position. With armor, they can withstand attacks from 3 stacks of griffons, but without armor, only from two, and the third flies into the center. Which scenario is preferable?

I'm not even talking about the fact that defense also protects against random morale drops, etc.

In general, all these phrases and numbers about damage control are nonsense! (Please forgive my directness.) Without practical confirmation, they are worth nothing.

P.S. Comparing armor to attack is like comparing an archangel to a black dragon – it's a sign of inexperience!