Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
There's Shakti, but there's also Galtran, who feels great with armor. Offense helps those who have melee units as their main damage dealers. But, for example, Rampart needs ranged attacks and defense, and attack is needed, of course, but significantly less.
I saw a post on the forums about an experiment: - with equal Defense and Attack; - with equal levels in Attack and Defense skills; - with the same number and quality of creatures – the one with higher Defense wins.
I saw a post on Bay while the experiment was being conducted: - with equal Defense and Attack; - with equal levels of the Attack and Defense Skills; - with an equal number and quality of creatures - the one with Defense wins.
Well, I do not agree with this. In a hero vs. hero battle, it is already very difficult to say what is better. I tested it personally. Kreg against Tazar, both level 20, equal parameters and each with 1 Archangel. The damage turned out to be equal down to the single digit!!!
But in battles with neutrals, armor is still more important, as it often saves you from random losses, from neutral BD drops, etc., and consequently leads to fewer failures. Reliability still decides!
P.S.: On Bay they play TE, where Armor reduces 20%, not 15% like in SoD; that's a completely different story...
Well, I do not agree with that. In a hero vs. hero battle, it's already very difficult to say what is better. I tested it personally. Kreg against Tazar, both level 20, equal stats, and each has 1 Archangel. The damage turned out to be equal down to the single digit!!!
But in battles with neutrals, armor is still more important, as it often saves you from random losses, from neutrals' morale drops, etc., and consequently leads to fewer failures. Reliability still wins!
P.S.: In Bay they play TE, where Armor reduces 20% instead of 15% like in SoD; that's a completely different story...
Perhaps it is because of TE, perhaps in the early stages the advantage lies with whoever has Attack, but it would be interesting to know if the Heroes have more than 1 Creature in their Army. Intuition suggests that the larger the Army on both sides, the more Defense wins.
Shakti exists, but so does Galtran, who feels great with armor. Offense is a good help for those whose strike force consists of melee units. But Rampart, for example, needs ranged attacks and defense; attack is certainly needed, but much less.
Gosha doesn't rely on defense; he relies on raising skeletons. Without that, he would be a weak hero, and armor wouldn't help him. This is a fact. Rampart needs ranged attacks and defense more in the first 2-3 weeks. After that, angels, vipers from hives, etc., become the main deciding factors. It's unlikely that you can rely on elves in a battle against a human opponent.
Added 1 minute later Dubrovin Pavel
Perhaps it's due to the tech tree, or perhaps in the early stages, the advantage lies with the one who has Attack, but it would be interesting to know if the heroes have more than one unit in their army. My intuition suggests that the more numerous the army on both sides, the more Defense wins.
As you wrote earlier, the first turn often decides the outcome. If it's the one with Attack who goes first, then defense may not help at all.
Stop derailing the "Reports..." thread. It's better to post here.
Dubrovin Pavel
I saw a post on the forums about an experiment: - with equal Defense and Attack; - with equal Attack and Defense skill levels; - with an equal number and quality of creatures - the one with higher Defense wins.
Here's a simple example:
A hero with a group of creatures and an Attack Expertise (+30%) skill attacks an opponent with a Defense Expertise (-15%) skill. The base damage is 100. As a result of the Attack Expertise, the damage is 100 * 1.3 = 130. Now, this damage is reduced by 15% due to the Defense Expertise. We get 130 * (1 - 0.15) = 110.5. A hero with Defense Expertise, when attacking a hero with Defense Expertise, will inflict only the base damage of 100.
Conclusion: in melee combat, the hero with the Attack skill deals 10.5% (110.5 - 100) more damage to their opponent with Defense.
However, the Attack skill only increases damage for melee units (archers have their own skill - Archery), while Defense affects both melee and ranged units. Therefore, if there are many archers in the army, which is usually the case, I think it's better to take the Defense skill. But if I'm planning on having only melee units, then I'll probably choose Attack.
Perhaps this experiment involved archers, because when comparing two equal melee armies, the army with the hero with the Attack skill should win, logically.
My intuition tells me that the more powerful the armies are on both sides, the more likely Defense is to win.
Since we've already started a serious off-topic discussion, I'll share something. About 7-8 years ago, I created a map for a 1-on-1 game. The idea was that in the end, two main heroes would meet with a large number of units (4 identical castles built over a month and a half + hidden bases of levels 4, 5, 6, and 7, with 1, 1, 2, and 3 units each). So, we played this map about 100 times, and I don't remember a single instance where a hero with low attack won. A hero with low defense sometimes won. If anyone is interested, I can tell you which castles are the strongest when there's an equal number of units of the same type, and which are definitely the weakest, and which pairs are the most interesting to play with.
Okay – I think that debates about the merits of attack versus defense can be discussed in the appropriate thread. I ask that all those participating in the discussion go there! In the future, all posts here that are not reports and their confirmations will either be moved or deleted!!! And the authors will receive warnings...
P.S. I couldn't resist: o Defense is naturally better than attack!!!!!
Если тебе не везёт в жизни, - играй в какую-нибудь другую игру:rolleyes: Лидер клана "Из многих единое" Приключения – это сплошные неприятности, только про них почему-то потом интересно вспоминать...
There's a map called TK3. Try playing it! This map has been tested over the years, and many top players have played it. I wouldn't be afraid to say that it has been played more than 1000 times, and even entire tournaments have been held on it. I remember reading a report about one on heroes.by. This arena map will really help you rethink your entire assessment of combat and look at things differently.
I'll repeat once again that in a battle between heroes, attack is equal to defense. When fighting neutrals, defense is definitely the way to go!!!
There's this map called TK3. Go play it! This map has been tested over the years, many top players have played it, and I wouldn't be afraid to say that at least 1000 games have been played on it, and even entire Tournaments were held. There was definitely one on heroes.by, I read the reports. So, this arena map will really help you rethink your entire assessment of combat and look at things differently.
I'll repeat again that in hero battles, attack is equivalent to defense. When fighting neutrals, defense is definitely the way to go!!!
Why do I need other people's maps? I perfectly know which factions are stronger and which skills are more important when fighting a large number of units of the same type; we were talking about battles with a large number of units – I answered, and I stand by my words. I don't need to rethink anything. Attack is generally better than defense, and Gosha is not at all strong because of his defense, but the Шахтёр is mainly strong because of his attack. When fighting neutrals, defense is FAR from being unequivocally better than attack; I could come up with a dozen or two situations off the top of my head, but I'm too lazy.
Added after 4 minutes Ta Kotoraya...
P.S. I couldn't resist: o Defense is naturally better than attack!!!!!
In my opinion, 30% is more than 15%. That's a FACT. Everything else is just opinions and speculation: rolleyes:
Allow me to add a few lines of off-topic discussion.
Ask Ambersoler (the creator of PhysMig) to help you, or open PhysMig yourself and read it. I can't quote it exactly (I don't have Office on my computer right now), but it says that 30% of the attack is not actually an attack, but just one of the four damage modifiers (or base damage, I don't remember). And 15% defense is exactly 15% of the total damage (all four components).
I don't remember the formulas, but they are definitely in PhysMig.
P.S. And the posts can be moved, for example, to the "Disputed Questions" section.
Сейчас балуюсь этим https://vcmi.eu/download/ За то что нейтралы не бегают за единичкой, для меня это уже стоит того
Dirty_Player
