[Question] How much does damage reduce attack?

[Johnny B. Goode]

That's fair. I was asked why I didn't tell my source their claim (that injured units do less damage) was wrong; the point I was trying to make is I don't have any evidence to support that claim. The burden of proof would fall on me, not them. The only realistic place to find that evidence is right here.

This is the third different reason you've given as the point of this thread. And you've repeatedly said you don't want to get too in-depth, yet you really are asking for an in-depth answer. There are too many scenarios and factors to boil it down to any set rule of thumb that will be relevant. Players have to evaluate each situation based on their own knowledge gained through trial and error. And the overwhelming reason not to use damaged units in most cases would not be their attack, it would be their likelihood of getting killed too quickly to be of any use at all.

Getting back to your original post and that scenario, the answer would depend on too many factors to give an all-encompassing answer. For example, if my unit was an Archer and the other two units were artillery, I would hit the healthy one. If the other two units were cavalry, I would kill the damaged one. Although in the second case I would still lose the Archer to the healthy one in most cases, it would just take longer. And both those are assuming my Archer was undamaged to begin with.

 

[Ben Jones the Newb]

This is the third different reason you've given as the point of this thread. And you've repeatedly said you don't want to get too in-depth, yet you

I was referring to this question and my response. The point of this thread has always been one simple question: what is the proportional relationship between damage taken and attack reduction.

Why do you keep bringing up confounding variables? That's like me saying I think there's a correlation between latitude and annual rainfall, and you saying "yeah but there's too many other factors to predict the weather just based on that." I understand.

I asked the question about which unit to attack first. It was answered. I realized it was too complex to for a simple answer, so I said let's get away from strategy.

It really isn't.

I've explicitly addressed your misunderstanding already. I didn't claim it's infallible, only that it's reliable enough that I'm not gonna dismiss their claim just because one random person tells me they're wrong - especially when other players think they're right.

Alright, this thread is getting more complicated than just doing the work myself. If you think there's too many variables to make useful predictions...wait till you see weather forecasts. I don't think I'll learn anything earth shattering, but I'll definitely win a few more battles. If it turns out the other source is wrong, that'll be the to know too.

 

[r21r]

Alright, this thread is getting more complicated than just doing the work myself. If you think there's too many variables to make useful predictions...wait till you see weather forecasts. I don't think I'll learn anything earth shattering, but I'll definitely win a few more battles. If it turns out the other source is wrong, that'll be the to know too.

since i read this thread im trying to understand where would it help me if it was true, but can't find anything as i'm not manually fighting, and the rare cases i do, the formula i use still seems irrelevant with if damage affects attack output.

maybe in a melee era would make sense

 

[Ben Jones the Newb]

since i read this thread im trying to understand where would it help me if it was true, but can't find anything as i'm not manually fighting, and the rare cases i do, the formula i use still seems irrelevant with if damage affects attack output.

maybe in a melee era would make sense

I'd be surprised if it factors in auto battle. I'm guessing that system doesn't use much more than relative strengths and dice rolls. I never autobattle.

Probably doesn't make much difference for very strong ages. If the effect is big enough, I could probably get rid of a couple of military buildings. I lose way less than 10% of battles and I fight a lot, so the best I can hope for is losing fewer units. Young players would benefit the most. On the other hand, I've been surprised before.

I think someone mentioned starting battles with injured units. Not sure where that came from, but I was thinking of units that are injured during battle.

If I do the study I'll post the correlation efficient to answer the question of whether there's any effect at all.

 

[UBERhelp1]

I'd be surprised if it factors in auto battle. I'm guessing that system doesn't use much more than relative strengths and dice rolls. I never autobattle.

As far as I can tell, the autobattle actually runs a battle with two AIs. If it just "rolled the dice" then units would be damaged much more randomly. With the autobattling, units can get damaged "randomly," moreso than just comparing strengths and choosing a random number.

Additionally, while starting a battle with injured units, I have not noticed increased damage against myself vs using undamaged units. So, I don't think starting with injured units causes any problems.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

You can actually watch an autobattle if you start the battle manually and then have it auto finish. Good luck to you on your research because I would be very much surprised if the difference mattered in very many battles. I went through several thousand manual battles when I began and I didn't see enough of an impact to be worth the work.

 

[Quickills]

Ok so that is entirely wrong. The health of the attacker has absolutely nothing to do with the damage it deals (unless it has an ability that explicitly changes that).

Health of the attacker (current life points) is explicitly used to calculate damage done.

Here is what the FOE Wiki says:

Each unit has a maximum of ten life points. The amount of damage points an attack deals is calculated using the current life points and the attack value of the attacker, the defense value of the attacked, modifiers for terrain, other bonuses (some units get bonuses if they fight against units of a particular type) and a random factor. Thus, a unit with a high attack rating deals more damage, and an uninjured unit inflicts more than a wounded one. On the other hand, high defense means good armor – the unit takes less damage. If a unit loses all its life points, it is destroyed.


Source: https://en.wiki.forgeofempires.com/index.php?title=Army_and_battles#Damage

This has gotten way more mathematical than I intended. I was hoping folks had a rule of thumb, like if your heavy knight has one bar of health, its attack is reduced by 20%. Sounds like it may only be true for artillery. I was making the point that if damage reduces attack, the relationship can be estimated with simple statistical models. I described how to collect the data, but I don't think it's worth doing.

So the rule of thumb the OP was looking for is an uninjured unit inflicts more than a wounded one. I think the random factor really throws an air of mystery that makes it hard to come up with or pin down much more than that.