Posts from Do you prefer armor or attack?

Yes, indeed, the counterattack will be greater than the attack, 100/88.
But if the unit with higher attack occupies a defensive position, its counterattack damage will be 110/85.
With a small number of units, occupying a defensive position can lead to victory, but with a large number, fewer units will counterattack, and the battle will be lost.

Because they attacked first every round, and the Barbarian's units that are higher up attack first, before the ones below.

As I understand it, the lower-tier Angels of the Swamp creature also attack first, but they just lie there quietly at the end of the battle, unlike the surviving Nagas. So, that's basically the question.

Most likely, it's due to the lack of a counter-attack in the battle between the Nagas.

I conducted an experiment. Equality of stats and troops, without morale or luck bonuses, etc.
-hero on the left side of the field (exp. attack) - on the right (exp. defense)
here it is visible that the damage dealt by 2 angels for the attacker is 110, and for the defender 100

Where is the equality? ;)
Equality is 10-0 10-0, but there's a counter.
Make it equal and you'll see. That whoever has offense will deal 144 (153 in SoD) while the armor-tank deals 150

Indeed, with equal sums of combat parameters, but when the difference (attack-defense) is greater than 0, the offense is better than the defense, not by 10%, but only by about 2 percent in the given case, and this difference decreases as the difference (attack-defense) increases. So, if we take the opposite scenario, 0-10 and 0-10, then the damage advantage of 10% remains.

Here's what I found in the documentation regarding damage calculation: The amount of damage is modified based on the difference between the attacker's Attack stat and the defender's Defense stat. If the attacker's Attack stat is higher, the damage dealt increases by 5% for each point of difference, but not more than 400%. If the defender's Defense stat is higher, the damage dealt decreases by 2.5% of the nominal damage for each unit of difference, but not more than 70%. Then, the damage may be further reduced if the defending unit has the Shield or Air Shield spell applied (this spell does not work when reflecting attacks from city towers – instead of reducing damage, it doubles it. Most likely, this is a programming error) or if the hero leading the unit has the "Weaponsmith" skill.

I don't understand... +30% attack - +15% defense... Which is better? Obviously, attack.

I don't understand... +30% to attack - +15% to defense... Which is better? Of course, attack!

Study the topic from the beginning!
On the previous page, Forrest explained everything in detail!

In my opinion, the skills are equivalent.
We tested: Tazar, level 20, with 10-10-1-1 stats and 1 Archangel, against Kreg with the same parameters, level, and Archangel; they deal the same damage to each other.

They only deal the same damage if both have experience-based attack and defense. If Tazar doesn't have attack and Kreg doesn't have defense, then Kreg hits 10% harder.

To be honest, it will be most difficult to choose a hero whose specialty is magic. I am one of them. However, in my opinion, defense is still more important, especially with a small army.

Armor is definitely stronger than attack. This isn't just an opinion; it's a fact. You only need to do a little calculation to see this. Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that the physics formulas are accurate.

Here's an example:

1. A hero with 10 attack, an Offense expert skill, and 1 Archangel.
2. A hero with 5 defense, an Defense expert skill, and a stack of Elves.
3. The Archangel attacks the stack of Elves.

The parameters are arbitrary; there could be different units and different parameters. I just need to use precise numbers to clearly demonstrate the advantage of defense.

So, let's calculate the damage from the Archangel. The components are:

1. Base damage = 50
2. Offense = 30%, which is 50 * 0.3 = 15
3. Damage due to the difference between the Archangel's attack and the Elves' defense. Let's calculate this in more detail:

Archangel's attack: 30 (unit attack) + 10 (hero attack) = 40
Elves' defense: 5 (unit) + 5 (hero) = 10

Difference = 40 - 10 = 30

Damage: 30 * 0.05 (constant) * 50 (Archangel's base damage) = 75

Total damage:

50 (base) + 15 (offense) + 75 (attack-defense difference) = 140

Note that out of 140 damage, only 15 is added by the Offense skill.

Now, let's account for the defending hero's defense, i.e., subtract 15 percent from the total damage.

15% of 140 is 21. The difference is 21!

In other words, Offense adds 15, while Defense reduces 21. Defense is king.

And this is all without taking into account luck, which also happens. And when it does, Offense still only adds 30% of the base damage, which is 15 hit points in our case, while Defense mitigates the luck factor to some extent, and the difference between Offense and Defense increases even more.

I would choose armor because it's impossible to avoid unpleasant encounters with neutrals/opponents, and you might not even have time to attack.

I ran a test with two heroes: one focused on attack and attack skill, and the other on defense and armor skill. I gave each of them 10 angels. The hero with the attack build always wins by a significant margin, even if the hero with the armor skill attacks first. If the attack hero attacks first, the result is even more decisive.

All of this is, of course, impressive and quite good, but it raises a fundamental question: "Who was involved in leading this battle, i.e., who were these two heroes, what were the conditions for their confrontation (in this case, the development of the heroes and their main attack and defense stats), what did they have during the battle (magic and artifacts - I assume there were none, as only attack and defense are being tested during development and gaining experience; therefore, the number and quality of the hero's army), and most importantly, who went first and attacked, while the other took the hit using defense and then attacked back, continuing this series?" If these aren't two clear examples, like Tazar and Crag Hack, then the possibility of a quality test can be considered incomplete and immediately becomes unreliable and questionable, as others initially invest in something that is already given to them and destined for them to learn and master, while these two heroes demonstrate and invest in what they are given from the very beginning, namely: attack and defense. Therefore, any other heroes will not be able to surpass those who have their own "gift from above."
UPD: I'm not trying to convince anyone or force them to follow this specific example of development; I'm just pointing out the key points that should be considered in any final battle between two powerful, main heroes, as this can play a major role in the final competition, and let everyone stick to their own opinion if they disagree with this.

It's unlikely to be 10 10 1 1; it will probably be 17 3 1 1.

17 3 1 1 definitely won't work. Based on my experience (without artifacts and visiting arenas, mercenary camps, Marlet's towers, and the library, which gives +2 to everything), it will be approximately 13 4 2 3.

Personally, I would choose attack, and I only take defense for heroes with that specialization.