Posts from Harmony - Troop Symmetry

All the same principles apply when using resurrection. It doesn't reduce losses to 0, but only halves them. That is, large losses still remain large.
Essentially, resurrection provides the opportunity to defeat stronger neutral creatures earlier with the same losses. For example, defeating 100 hypothetical Hydras without resurrection may be equivalent in terms of losses to defeating 120 hypothetical Hydras with resurrection.

Plus, even if we accept this point of view, developing in the Castle is already a deliberately chosen strategy, so why should it fit all decisions?

In the first month, the middle, and sometimes even the end of the game is often determined. The obvious endgame is when everything is built, and there is nowhere else to develop, and you simply accumulate troops (the most tedious part).

In theory, it might work somehow, but increasing the penetration will shift the "balance" in its favor.

Essentially, you're saying that you personally don't like the focus of a super-perk on dealing damage, because such a perk probably doesn't fit your play style very well. But no one is forcing you to take it.

I don't want this "efficient" one to always be the same.

Actually, I specifically stated that leveling up a creature is a rather rare occurrence, not a "constant and repetitive" one. Unless you make leveling up a creature your own style.

In reality, the game usually ends much earlier than the Super Unit appears, due to the requirements for obtaining it.

If the requirements for obtaining a Super Unit are reduced (for example, by reducing the number of required skills), then, given the relative ease of obtaining it, everyone will definitely choose this path.

Right now, I'm choosing between two options:
1) Humans will have an enhanced Guardian Angel as their Super Unit.
2) Leave the Unrelenting Force as the Human Super Unit (you can apply the mod from the neighboring topic for a second strike here).

Well, I didn't see any wheels...
So, what are we talking about? Something that doesn't exist?

People get +25% damage on a counterattack. Just +25%. What happens if you add another +100% to the attack?

Does "true luck" give 100% to both attack and counter-attack?

Luck without Spellpower doesn't have enough predictability, which isn't taken into account in the average damage value, but it reduces its value.

That's also incorrect. Essentially, we have a 30 to 50% bonus from luck (there can be artifacts that are easy to obtain, and you can't really put anything else useful in their slot). Plus, there's Elven Luck (damage from successful attacks * 1.25).
So, the modifiers are:
Without Luck and artifacts: 1.375
With artifacts but without Luck: 1.625
With Luck: 2.25
The increase in average damage is 63.6% and 38.5%, respectively (because percentages should be calculated not from the base damage, but taking into account all bonuses, minus Luck).
An additional advantage of Luck, besides counterattacks, is the stabilization of probability. Luck without the skill doesn't have enough predictability, which is not taken into account in the value of the average damage, but it reduces its value.

It's inappropriate to consider artifacts – anyone can have them, or they might not have them at all – we're looking at raw skills.

Elven Luck with its additional 25% bonus should also be disregarded – this is a bonus from a completely different skill, not from a specific skill unit – the skill tree on the first page shows that Elven Luck is present in the entire Luck line.

It's inappropriate to consider artifacts – anyone can have them, or they might not have them at all; we're looking at the raw skills.
Elven Luck with its additional 25% bonus should also be disregarded – it's a bonus from a completely different skill, not from a specific skill. In the skill tree on the first page, you can see that Elven Luck is present in all the Luck skills.