Posts from Do you prefer armor or attack?

From personal observations:
2. As for unit placement in the Utopia map, no matter how much I read about it, it doesn't seem to matter much. No matter what stack I put the unit that dragons target in the first round, they will attack it - the main thing is that they can reach it :)

Placement does matter in the Utopia map;
there are many examples - how to arrange troops so that dragons attack their own kind, and how they target nagas and hydras in the first round, and how they stick to your archers... by the way, sometimes it's beneficial to use archers as a decoy and to absorb return damage ;)

A golden proverb: "Live and learn"!
I've played online for so long, yet I didn't know something so elementary that it's almost embarrassing to talk about :(. Until recently, I could only distinguish maxed-out utopias from other utopias, but it turns out I didn't know so much—and basic things at that! Oh well. Defense definitely rules, IMHO! But that's not what I'm talking about. In Dragon Utopias, it's not just defense that rules, but also the positioning!!! I recently played a game with Oelm and took a level 3 utopia on week 3. My army consisted of 9 stacks of nags, 30 vivs, 3 angels, and an eater; I took the utopia with Nila lvl 15 and parameters 11-5. Having determined in advance that the defense parameters were low, I put the angels up for slaughter by attacking the greens with them, knowing they were doomed, but I saved the stacks of vivs and nags!! I lost all 3 angels and 1 viv. However, in a level 2 utopia!!! on the same game day, I lost 7 nags out of 9 with defense 18!!! The dragons simply started biting them immediately, ignoring the eater! I was very upset during that game, but didn't think much of it! Later, as it turned out, in the first level 3 utopia I put the nags in the 2nd stack, and in the second one in the 4th position! After the game, it was explained to me that the position of the striking stack is very important. After the game, I specifically checked by putting the nags in the 4th stack in a level 3 utopia. Lo and behold: the dragons started pecking at the nags first, ignoring the juicy eater in the form of 10+11 golems, although in the actual game the nags weren't touched once because they were in the 2nd stack!!! That is why I lost 7 nags out of 9 with defense 18 in a level 2 utopia, while in a level 3 one I didn't lose a single one with defense 4!!! I wrote this a bit clumsily, but I think my point is clear. It turns out the position of the striking stack in Dragon Utopias is also very important, regardless of parameters and defense!

Here's something else about the setup in Utopian: when I was preparing for Jebus, I was testing the Utopian map with Craig (around 20-5). I think it was level 3. I had a few angels (~5), a good number of vipers (>15), and a large group of wolves (around 70). Also, a few birds, 4 ogres, and orcs. My magic was mass haste, and the rest wasn't very significant. Basically, I wanted to take Utopian early, but I thought the wolves would definitely be targeted. So, I took orcs, hoping that the first attack would at least partially hit them. That's what happened; the golden units covered the orcs, and the black units attacked the wolves. Then, I looked for good follow-up moves. And suddenly, by chance, I mixed up the setup, arranged it strangely, and the first attack hit the ogres, and the second hit the birds. Then, mass haste, and everything was fine. I checked it 5 more times, and the dragons behaved the same way each time.
I'll try to find the save file to post, but I probably deleted it. But in that setup, I didn't find any logic. :D I remember putting the orcs in 6, the ogres in 3, the birds in 2, the wolves in 4, and the angels in 1. If I manage to generate something similar again, I'll post it here or in another thread.

I don't know. I had this thought: if the opponent casts Berserk, then attack becomes a disadvantage here, while armor helps... In general, it's good when the battle unfolds in such a way that attack becomes more useful than defense...

Added 2 minutes later
Or, if the opponent moves in such a way that my dragon damages my own warrior, then armor is also better than attack in this case...

I don't know. I had this thought: if the opponent casts Berserk, then attack becomes a disadvantage here, while armor helps... It's generally good when the battle unfolds in such a way that attack becomes more useful than defense...

Added 2 minutes later
Or if the opponent moves in such a way that my dragon burns my own warrior, then armor is also better than attack here...

Berserk is rarely cast. And if your dragon burns your own units, then you... see Invisible's signature :D

Well, what can you do? :( :( :( :(

As far as I remember, 30% offense is a bonus to base damage, which as a result may add significantly less to the total damage. I haven't tested it myself yet, but it turns out that with high enemy defense, the bonus could be more than 30%.

Let me clarify :)
If the attacking unit's attack is greater than the targeted unit's defense then

U=u*k+u*30%(if expert offense)

where U-damage dealt by the unit
u-unit's personal damage.
k-increasing coefficient equal to (attack minus defense) *5%

That is, we see that with higher attack, offense only increases base damage (as does shooting, for instance)

For example, a Barbarian Angel with 6 attack and expert off hits a unit with 6 defense. Angel's Damage=50*(1+20*0,05)+5*0,3=115 (instead of 130 if offense multiplied everything by 1.3)

If the attacking unit's attack is less than or equal to the targeted unit's defense then

U=u*k*1,3(if expert offense)

where U-damage dealt by the unit
u-unit's personal damage.
k-decreasing coefficient equal to (100%-defense minus attack *2,5%),
in this case, offense is compared with defense.

IMHO: defense is better than offense. :) arguments
1) works against everything (shooters, melee)
2) in Dragon Utopia and forests they kill us first and then we kill them (mostly); if there is no defense, then offense might not be needed :p
3) Offense with higher attack doesn't add 30%, but less (see formulas above)
4) In TE armored is 20%, meaning everything that hits you is *0,8. And that is good)

PS I consider Armored the best skill in TE. I always take it regardless of what else is offered

Thank you for the comprehensive comment.

in this case, offense is compared to defense.

I didn't understand this phrase.

Yes, Overpower adds 30% to the damage, no matter what anyone says. I saw it myself.

Thank you for the comprehensive comment.


I didn't understand this phrase.

This means that with lower attack, all damage is multiplied by 1.3
Just like defense, all received damage is multiplied by 0.8 (0.85 SoD)

Added after 59 seconds

Yes, offense adds 30% to damage, no matter who says what ) I saw it myself )

Hit a goblin with an angel that has offense and calculate the damage ;)

Maybe someone here will learn something new from this :)

/topic/5490/

I conducted an experiment. Equal parameters and troops, without any morale or luck bonuses, etc.
- hero on the left on the battlefield (offensive attributes) - on the right (defensive attributes)
- here you can see that the damage dealt by 2 angels is 110 for the attacker and 100 for the defender
- the beginning of the battle, the top 2 slots attack first for the attacker, the bottom 2 for the defender - the result
Conclusion: in melee combat, offensive expertise is definitely better by about 10%.

Hmm, how did the Nagas survive near the Swamp Lord? And there are quite a few of them...

Because they attacked first every round, and for the Barbarian, the ones above the puddle attack first.

What will happen in a battle of angels versus angels if the defender constantly uses the "Defense" skill? Will the defender then have an advantage?