Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
I did not mean to insult you. It is your prerogative to play any way you want. Good luck.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Imbalance between Military Strength
- Thread starter ChimaeraW
- Start date
ChimaeraW
New Member
I did not find anything that you have said insulting. I talk straightforwardly, and I like people's talking in such a way, also. You do not have to mince your words, indeed, when you are speaking to me. Everyone has their own style.
Dominator - X
Well-Known Member
Are you saying this is a bad thing? It is a great strategy and suggest that you reciprocate.
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
*If you're not up against barbarians
ChimaeraW
New Member
It is, sometimes, a bad thing, because they would kill two to three of your soldiers at the end of the battle. If they target different soldiers, the damage then would be diversified. I would rather choose the latter.
ChimaeraW
New Member
I do not like barbarians, either, because they seem to ignore those battle rules. But I usually use artillery or ranged units against them.
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
I think that the point @Dominator - X was making is that it's a great strategy for you to use, even though it's bad when it's used against you.
They don't ignore battle rules, they have a special ability that makes their remaining units harder to kill for every one of them you kill.
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
Perhaps not. If you have a well-levelled AO then it's often advantageous to spread it around and not waste potential critical hits on severely damaged enemies especially if your attack boost plus crit is a single shot kill.
xivarmy
Well-Known Member
100% of killing one unit that won't hit you back is still better than (say) 50% chance of 2 wounded units and 50% chance of 1 dead, 1 wounded in almost any situation that it's worth worrying about which is better. The attack reduction from wounding a unit is no more than half (and probably less), and the expected damage reduction from halfing attack is no more than half (and probably less).
The barbarian exception discussed earlier only holds because their stats *before* you kill any barbarians are so pathetically low that you can take some hits if you have to (before you kill any).
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
A lot depends on the players Era (Keen Eye?), their attack/defense boost, and the level of attrition. I'm in SAJM, rocking a 2500/1400 boost, and only manually fight at 100+ attrition where I prefer getting hit by many, highly damaged, defenders to getting hit by fewer, full strength ones. YMMV.
xivarmy
Well-Known Member
If you're talking situations where you're trying to count Keen Eye & AO Crit combined procs to get a kill I could maybe see the point (if you get the proc you want it's better, if you don't get enough procs you want you're resetting the fight - and you can always leave finishing off one last wounded unit for the last attack before you have to let them go - where seeing if you get one more proc is a gamble before you swap sides).
But you're not defending shit with 1400 defense boost against 3k+ boosted defenders, even if they are wounded.
Emberguard
Well-Known Member
I agree killing a unit outright is usually better. There are outlier situations even before Keen Eye where it’s worth considering shifting around which units you hit first (particularly because your own units get reduced attack when wounded). But usually that’s when you have multiple turns left to play with, and can afford to come back to that wounded unit before it gets its turn again, hitting it with your weakest unit to finish it off.
But those are very specific situations that takes time for a player to figure out, and if we’re giving generic, simple to follow advice then simply saying focus on killing one unit is more often than not the correct advice
But those are very specific situations that takes time for a player to figure out, and if we’re giving generic, simple to follow advice then simply saying focus on killing one unit is more often than not the correct advice
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
Every battle that I fight is a situation where Keen Eye and a %chance for AO Crit apply. Unless I use lower age units, and I don't, there's no way around it.
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
So what you're saying (that you left out of your original comment) is that you agree that there is a very narrow set of circumstances where it makes sense to hit multiple enemy units even if you're leaving some of them merely wounded when you could finish them off. Which translates to it being a better strategy in the vast majority of cases to finish off each unit you attack if you can before moving on to another unit.
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
Actually, I'm just saying what works best for me. Is it a "narrow set of circumstances"? Maybe, I don't know. I just find it better to hit every unit that can hit me on their first strike then come back to finish any survivors off on my second strike. I can fight to higher attrition, taking fewer losses.
xivarmy
Well-Known Member
I meant that you're specifically trying for a particular number of double-procs (that are *both* crit & keen eye and therefore are 1-shots from 4 base damage; where keen eye alone requires 5, and AO alone requires 7.
I have however tested the damage formula adjustment for taking hits - and the way it lines up there's almost no situation where absent other considerations taking 2 hits from wounded units is better than 1 hit from a full health unit. You might get lucky on top for it to seem that way, but there's no mathematical reason for it to be better on average.
ChimaeraW
New Member
In most cases, yes; but I do not find it useful when using Paratroopers. The enemy's troopers usually take the first attack and target my Rogues (if there were any); but, occasionally, they would target my Mechanized Artillery and killed it first. Whilst the enemy's attack and defence bonuses are very low and much lower than mine, their paratroopers are still able to deal the same level of damage to my artillery. The fast units target one battle tank until it dies. It again proves that attack (183%) and defence (108%) bonuses are useuless.
This is why Alcatraz is necessary, because no player in the game, no matter how high the attack and defence bonuses are, would be able to sustain without getting units from the Alcatraz.
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
Your 183%/108% boost in ME is not "useless", it's just too low to be of much benefit.
ChimaeraW
New Member
Perhaps it is too low in ME. But it is already much higher than the enemy's. Would this be fair?