Posts from Do you prefer armor or attack?

You know, in my opinion, the choice isn't that obvious.
If in an example where a hero took two defenses (becoming 2-12), they are attacked by a hero with parameters 11-3, then these heroes will deal damage according to one formula, and the damage will be lower. But if the hero on the arena had initially taken attack, it would be 4-10 against 11-3, and that's a completely different game! The choice must be made based on the situation. Maybe we have
tactics + mass haste. Then go for attack.

Trying to tailor your build to the enemy hero in HoMM3 is a thankless task, unlike in HoMM5, for several reasons:
1. It's very difficult even by week 2 to estimate the ratio of attack and defense of the opponent (perhaps with the exception of Barbarians and Swamp), because stat artifacts are very powerful. This isn't HoMM5, where nothing more than +2 to everything simply exists. And if the racial profile is attack, then attack will be the highest.
2. The fight with the enemy is essentially one single battle, while everything else is against neutrals with similar attack and defense values. That's who you should orient yourself toward.
3. You often don't know who has the right of first move or if tactics will work at all.
Of course, if you are sure that you strike first, then attack bonuses increase, but not as much as it seems. After all, each subsequent point of attack gives a smaller relative increase than the previous one. While for defense, it's the opposite—a larger one.
And since we're talking about a specific example—the choice on the arena with parameters 2-10—then your example regarding the battle with an enemy hero is statistically not very correct. Based on the ratio of stats and their sum, I would logically assume that the game is being played by Swamp, end of week 1 or beginning of week 2, if a skilled player is playing. The stage of taking various crypts is over (and if they are encountered, they pose no problem), the main thoughts are how to break into a hive or a fatter "can" [strong neutral camp], the turn hasn't even reached the enemy yet. Therefore, as the key battle of this game stage, I would consider taking "can" 3 or 4 (if Tazik has offense or something good in his book). The main damage dealer will be a stack of 2 hydras, but they must be preserved, and then some math. We already have hydras with parameters 16(18)-18(28), and the question is where to distribute another 2 points if fighting griffins 8-8. If +2 attack was taken, then hydra damage will increase by 1.6/1.5 = 1.0(6) times. If +2 defense is taken, then the damage received will drop by 0.45/0.5 = 0.9 times. That is, either +6.7% damage to griffins, or -10% from griffins. All other stacks in the battle are essentially meat, and for them, defense is definitely more important. A few choices in favor of defense can quite possibly move a hero from "normally takes 3" to "normally takes 4" on day 8-9.
Yes, there are cases where you're forced to orient toward attack—shooters and wolves—but that might come back to haunt you later. After all, in HoMM3, the role of shooters is not very great even by week 3.

Of course I understand that in Dragon Utopia, for example, the choice is made in favor of defense, but in crypts, "cans", or external dwellings, at early stages of the game, I would still give preference to attack.

I don't get you. Crypts and external dwellings (except level 7) are battles with almost zero-stat heroes. You just take whatever comes. If we're talking about "cans", that's mainly for Rampart and Castle. And in hives, only defense is needed.
I'll give my general IMHO: investing in the attack parameter often only allows you to pass already passable battles more easily (the exception being mostly finishing off with shooters at the limit of the stack so they don't block later), while investing in defense allows you to pass a battle that you shouldn't attempt without it—either a wipe or key losses.

For example, we have Shakti with a powerful stack of Trogols. For him, attack is much more important than defense because it's crucial to eliminate the enemy stack with a single strike and avoid taking any damage in return! If the stack is too focused on attack, they will be targeted first, while the main stack will be attacked last. Attack will be more effective for ranged units, I think that's obvious. It will also be better for units with retaliation! Oh yes, and another very important point. If there is a ballista, attack significantly increases its effectiveness. With Gurnisson, the ballista can tear through everything! :smile54:

For example, we have Shakti with a powerful stack of Trolls. For her, attack is much more important than defense because it’s very important to eliminate the enemy stack in one hit and not take any damage in return!

This is debatable. I am generally willing to agree for battles in Metro and against Blessing. If that's not the case, then with such a focus on attack, you will either fight weak neutrals or periodically receive retaliation. And 6 speed doesn't guarantee going first. IMO, Shakti's attack becomes unnecessary if, in maximum buildings (except for Merfolk, but there, precise calculations are possible), Trolls destroy stacks under Blessing. This happens around week 2, sometimes even week 1. Even I had a game where I got incredibly lucky and managed to sequentially defeat maxed-out Gnomes, Bank, and Fortress units in week 1.

If the stack is too focused on attack, they will target weaker units, leaving the main stack for last.

And when will this "last" happen in Fortress on grass? In the second round.

Units with retaliatory attacks would also benefit from this!

Really? Let's go through them: Harpies/Witches - they don't exist; they were already defeated in week 1, so it makes no difference; Nagas - given their speed, I personally prefer defense; Hydras - everything has already been said; Vampires - for those who huddle in a corner (their primary function), defense will be better; Cerberi - attack is better. That’s how things stand.

Oh yes, one more important point. If you have a Ballista, increasing attack significantly increases its effectiveness. For Gurisson, the Ballista generally tears apart everything!!!!!

Yes, attack is definitely more important for Gurisson, but he is just one hero, and not even the strongest. Even Barbarians still have Desa, Crag, Greckin, and Tiraksor. IMO, if you want to play as an artilleryman, play Heroes of Might and Magic V. It is possible there.

Much of what you say is correct! It's not for nothing that everyone takes defense... I'm just trying to say that attack is a normal and even worthy alternative.
A lot also depends on the presence of certain artifacts!

In a battle between equally matched heroes with equal armies, the ratio of attack and defense is practically irrelevant; what matters is their sum. That is, 3+7, 2+8, and 10+0 are approximately the same. The difference will be in the amount of damage, although it will be relatively small for both heroes.

If you have to choose whether to increase attack or defense, it depends on the tactics you use in battles. As Fireball wrote, if the troops are tough and have low damage, then increasing defense is more beneficial. If they have high damage and low hit points, then increasing attack is better, but again, depending on the battle tactics, this can all change.

If you have to choose between increasing attack or defense, I think it depends on the tactics you use in battles. As Fireball wrote, if your troops are tough and have low damage, then increasing defense is more beneficial. If they have high damage but few hit points, then increasing attack is better, but again, depending on your battle tactics, this can all change.

Well, I don't know, it's not easy to say definitively. On the one hand, increasing attack is good because you deal more damage, but on the other hand, increasing defense is also good because you take less damage and, as a result, deal more damage.

I don't understand the question. In this case, you were given a choice between attack/defense. Attack is preferable in almost 100% of cases. :rolleyes:

Come on :D I get the part about the choice. But defense is considered more preferable for online play. For example, in that same "can" [tight formation], defense would be far more effective, as it will allow the buratins to stand longer and fewer centaurs will be killed. And the grand elves will shoot everyone down there anyway. Defense allows for lower losses, especially in hives and Dragon Utopia, where usually we don't have the first turn...

1. Who considers this? I'm sure almost all experienced players will definitely choose attack, with rare exceptions when the situation isn't right.

This is the opinion of many players I've talked to, and in 99% of cases, when choosing between base attack and base defense, they'll choose defense.
I won't argue or prove anything, or provide arguments, because I realized that you don't have any authorities and you don't listen to anyone. I just stated the opinion of most of the people I've talked to and played with!

Many players I've talked to consider this, and in 99% of cases, when choosing between attacking or defending, they'll choose defense.
I won't argue or try to prove anything, or provide arguments, because I understand that you don't recognize any authority and don't listen to anyone. I'm just stating the opinion of the majority of people I've talked to and played with!

It seems to me that you're presenting your own opinion as a general one. I've read the opposite in the relevant threads :rolleyes:

In this situation, I would definitely choose defense. Although I don't consider myself a "strong" player, I have a feeling that most skilled players would prefer armor. Although, in reality, both have their own advantages.

In this situation, I would definitely choose defense. Although I don't consider myself a "strong" player, I have a feeling that most skilled players would prefer armor. Although, in reality, both have their own advantages.

It would be interesting to see the statistics. I'm sure that heroes with attack win much more often than those with defense. Except, of course, for defense specialists; that's a different matter.

In my opinion, you just don't understand that an expert offense isn't just 30% damage increase. :D :D

In my opinion, you simply don't understand that an expert offense isn't just 30% damage increase. :D :D

With all other factors being equal, it's +30. With expert defense, it's closer to +10 in reality. No, I'm not arguing, defense is a crucial skill, and I always take it when possible, but generally, attack is more important.

It would be interesting to see the statistics.

Create a poll! :)
The value of armor lies in saving units throughout the game and each battle. Offense only speeds up the killing of neutrals, which they die from anyway. For example, in Utopia, dragons attack immediately, and armor is much more valuable here.

Create a poll! :)
The value of armor lies in saving units throughout the game and each battle. And offense only speeds up the killing of neutrals, which they would fall to anyway. For example, in Utopia, dragons attack immediately, and armor is much more valuable here.

The best defense is offense (C) :D
And if we're serious, no matter what anyone says, attack sometimes, and even often, saves far more troops than defense. For example, Shakti without attack wouldn't be Shakti; he would lose troglodytes 5 times faster with defense instead of attack. Fact. And in Utopia, if everything is going well, dragons attack on the offensive, but when they take 30% more damage from attacks, it becomes much easier.