Which is more important and why?
Attack STATS or defense STATS?
for ex:
unit one
15 attack 10 defense
unit two
10 attack 15 defense
:duel:
Printable View
Which is more important and why?
Attack STATS or defense STATS?
for ex:
unit one
15 attack 10 defense
unit two
10 attack 15 defense
:duel:
We don't know the formula for RTW, but in MTW the two hypothetical units would be equal in a one to one match up. The chance to kill is the difference between the attack and defence stat, which would be zero for either unit trying to kill the other.
Simply adding the attack and defence stat (ie treating them equally) gives a good idea of a unit's combat power in melee, although morale also seems important - especially in some mods like RTR.
Wider issues are discussed by posters in your other thread on defence or attack.
So in MTW it would be impossible to kill a unit with a higher defence than your attack? Seems a bit odd.
No, it is possible, but it takes longer. And that means, the unit with the higher defense can fight on and inflict damage on its attacker. And if they can do damage faster than they receive, well, it´s obvious, isn´t it?
However, that´s the very basic, there´s also factors like morale, fatigure and terrain coming into play.
On average attack is better, since sometimes, units can attack, but not be attacked, like at the begining of flanking, when attacked units doesn't face flankers. Or when two units attack one unit.
But, in prolonged fight, face to face, one to one, they should be equal.
Well, if you can make your attack significantly higher than the enemies defence, attack will prevent them attacking at all if you charge them. Or at least, it'll stop the first rank or two. If you manage to do that then most enemies would rout and you'd hopefully avoid a prolonged battle altogether.
This is a very good point, although I suppose the reverse sometimes applies - you can get attacked and can't attack back. This may be particularly important regarding the armour component of defence, which helps against missiles. However, given that the AI is not so good at flanking or using missiles, I agree with you that attack is better.Quote:
Originally Posted by player1
The (attack of the striker) - (defense of the target) is a number that appears in the exponent of a constant. I think that constant is 1.1 in Rome. That expression is then multiplied by another constant which was 1.9% in MTW. So the basic algorithm is something like:
chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.1 ^ (att - def + combat modifiers)
The exponent would be limited to a range of -41 to +41.
This would give chance to kill a range of .04% to 96%
Ah, yeah that makes much more sense. So a peasant against an elephant would have to attack 200 times. I'm guessing kill actually means remove a hit point? Then it would be 2000 times. On average of course.
The lethality number {which is my name for it , given C/A forgot to name it properly ;p} definitly effects the chance to kill .Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I use it to not only facilitate longer fights {which is common} but also to better represent the relative lethality of a given weapon so that with modifyed attack rates they can allow attack factor/skill to represent purely skill level , which I find more intuitive and pleasing .
I'm not sure what its' effect is exactly {couldn't give you numbers with confidence} , but I did notice that it seemed to mesh with changes in attack rate {time between animation cycles} reasonably well atleast for between 0.1 - 0.5 lethality and 0 - 25 attack rate ; ie increasing .4 to .5 lethality with attack rate 25 was reasonably similar in effect to lowering 25 to 20 attack rate with .4 lethality .
Yes I forgot about lethality. That's a new combat factor in Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Frost
So, essentially, attack positively affects chance to kill while defense affects chance to be killed...
makes sense
So if that is the case, it would be desirable for units that charge to have high attack. And static units should, generally, have higher defense stats.
But then consider two units who are not charging, and they are instead facing each other fighting. In this instance, the attack and defense stats cancel one another out. So, a 1 attack 10 defense unit vs a 1 defense 10 attack unit would be equivalent. (terrain and other factors being equal of course).
Yes, that's my understanding too.
Yeah thats pretty much it. There are of course a few other factors like weapon reach (pikes in phalanx formation) and also a difference between "light" and "heavy" types although we dont know precisely how that works.
CBR
Units with att/def 0/10, 5/5 and 10/0 are all equal in overall combat power, but they will inflict and suffer casualties at different rates against a given target. High attack factor is desireable when you want to break a line as fast as possible or maximize the initial kills on a flanking attack. High kill rates also have a dynamic effect on morale and depress morale more than low kill rates. At least that's the way it worked in the previous games. I'm not sure about RTW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
Okay... so how does this factor for multiple hit point units?
Would it be better to have a 60 man 10 att 10 def w/ 1 HP, or a 30 man 10 att 10 def with 2 hps?
I would imagine that it is better to have the larger unit because more people equals more chances to kill.
(BTW, I'm thinking RTR 6 right now)
So, Consider
a 30 man 10/10 2hp vs. a 60 man 10/10 1hp
I haven't done a test on this, but wouldn't the 60 man unit win?
The 30 man unit has, hypothetically per instant, 30 chances to kill, while the 60 man unit has 60 chances to kill (or however many troops are in contact with one another, you get my point).
Anybody done tests on this?
Well normally a unit is in several ranks so your 60 men might not be able to get that many 2 on 1 situations and if they cant do that then the 2 hp unit would win.
CBR
CA said that light and heavy weapons have no difference in effectiveness - it's just a tag, probably used for sound:Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=39668
I think you are right in this - 2hp does not translate into two attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
One thing I noted about 2hp units, though, is that they are pretty resistant to missile fire. Those 2hp hypasists (sp) units in RTR 6 just don't die to javelin fire. I think the hits are spread over the unit. I suppose it pays off when the javelined soldiers enter melee with only 1hp rather than 2hp. But while you are shooting them as they charge, it feels rather like you are shooting Arnie in Terminator.
Hm thats interesting as I was told otherwise during 1.2 betatest. But I never really tested it.
CBR
2hp units are better when assaulting stone walls when not number of soliders, but quality of individuals counts more.
In other cases, having twice more troop is better.
Even in MP you could see that players prefer their generals to be regular cavalry instead of bodyguards.
Actually, it's not used for voice, there is seperate tag for them (which also has often heavy or light in name).Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
But, it is used when AI decides their building preferences, as well as when assigning formation in battles.
Also, that tag has nothing to do with heavy, light weapon description that can be seen in unit cards, and is used only for weapon upgrades.
That makes sense. But then which is better for holding the walls: high att/low def or low att/high def. Similarly, which is better for taking the walls?Quote:
Originally Posted by player1
I would imagine that a high def would be more important in taking the walls, simply because they need the oppoprtunity to stay alive to try to attack. They cant attack if their dead... Hmmmm, in that case, maybe high def is better in all circumstances, unless you are flanking/surrounding.
If the 30 man 2 hp unit fought the 60 man 1 hp unit one man at a time, that would give even chances of winning. If the 60 man unit can get any 2 on 1 situations, that would give it the advantage because the second man gets a free strike with no counterstrike coming back at him. In addition to that, the second man might be striking from a flank and get a combat bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
There is something different about melee between the previous combat engine and RTW's conbat engine. In the previous engine, it didn't matter who struck first because every man got to strike once within a combat cycle. Two men could kill each other within a combat cycle, and all combatants had the same length cycle of 1 second. I've never seen two men kill each other in RTW. It seems in RTW that, if a man kills his opponent with his strike, the opponent dies and doesn't strike back. So, it makes a difference who goes first, and it would also make a difference if a man had a faster combat cycle than his opponent because he'd strike more often.
Consider the fact that the 30 men would likely kill a whole lot of enemy troops before suffering much themselves. A moralepenalty they do not sufferthemselves, so if they are very low morale the 2 hp might be a major bonus.
But the 60 men might get several cases of flanking attacks and dual fights (ganging up), effectively elininating a lot of the advantage of 2hp. This of course is better the longer the fight is, so would apply better to higher morale.
I remember something about the defense stat that is rather disturbing.
It has been mentioned by devs that the def skill only apply to the front and right (swordarm parrying for instance). Obviously that is not true as several units have no shield (that applies to the left and front) and they can still survive attacks on the left.
I did a test of modded Cilicians several months ago (about the same time as a armourtest concerning charges) getting charged on the flanks by good chargers (Companions). It was quite problematic to get it to work as individual soldiers turned to face the attack. But eventually I marched the Cilicians during the attack (so they couldn't turn to face the charge) and it turned out that the left was far more vulnerable than the right, but it did get stronger as I strengthened the def skill. But it never got as strong as the right.
So we have a case where very high def skill troops might be easier to attack on their shielded side rather than the unshielded one.
Armour is equal to a def skill to all sides (and rear) as well as missileresistance. Obviously the very very best of the three defensive values.
Kraxis is correct. Armour rules. There is not much penalty for it (is there any at all in RTW, there was in MTW) and much of your charge bonus is based on armour, so it contributes to attack. Plus armour is better vs. missiles than def. skill (which doesn't help at all) or the shield bonus (which only helps from specific angles.)
And you guys are refering to armour, as opposed to say defense skill or shield, do I understand that correctly?
Defense has three components: armour, shield, and defensive skill. Armour applies to all attacks, while shield and defensive skill are directional in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I see this some times, yes. You fire javelins, several volleys in to 2hp unit, and no one dies. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
Then, suddenly one volley kills a heap of them!! :charge:
After that, if you stab them, they bleed like other men. :bow: