How do attack values work? Attack + lethality, armor/shield/etc

[Intranetusa]

How to attack values work exactly? Attack and lethality.

Is a high attack/low lethality better than a low attack/high lethality?
(ie. 17/.11 vs 9/.225)

Do shields count as armor in melee only in front/left side of the unit? Do armor count against missiles? What's the ratio of shield vs armor in their defense against missiles/melee?

Is shield or armor given equal weight as defense skill in regards to melee combat?


I'm in the process of tweaking the unit stats values and knowing this info would be very helpful. If there's a link describing this, that would be great too.

Thanks

[vartan]

I would also like to know the math behind all of this. I don't know why but I tend to multiply attack value by the lethality because I perceive that as the "true" attack value. Then there are AP weapons. I suppose you could multiply their "true" attack value by two. Then compare? Probably not the smartest thing to do, but...

[Grade_A_Beef]

Attack registers whether the soldier hits or not, lethality registers whether it's a kill.

Considering how slow horse lances are able to punch a hole in any unit, low attack and high lethality will usually trump high attack and low lethality.

Shields count as a defensive value in melee on the front and left side (but not the right, where it's skill and armor.) Armor counts against missiles. I don't have the info to help you with the ratio of shield vs armor

Yeah, pretty much, they all defend on different sides of the body (shield left and skill right. Both in the front), with only armor being omnidirectional

I don't have the link for you, sorry

[vartan]

Skill is omnidirectional, too, or if it isn't, it should be. Why is it only on the right? The man can only dodge on his right but not on his left? Perhaps the right side of his brain isn't properly sending nerve impulses to his left side of the body?

[Paltmull]

Just a guess: Wouldn't <high attack/low lethality> be more effectictive when fighting an enemy from the front, whereas <low attack/high lethality> would be better for attacking flanks and rear? I mean, high attack won't matter that much when flanking anyway, as the enemy is unable to block. And since most attacks are likely to hit, then lethality will be what counts. This should then be the opposite when attacking from the front. High lethality won't do any good if you can't land a hit anyway.

I hope this post is comprehensible, I'm a bit tired :P

[Intranetusa]

Just a guess: Wouldn't <high attack/low lethality> be more effectictive when fighting an enemy from the front, whereas <low attack/high lethality> would be better for attacking flanks and rear? I mean, high attack won't matter that much when flanking anyway, as the enemy is unable to block. And since most attacks are likely to hit, then lethality will be what counts. This should then be the opposite when attacking from the front. High lethality won't do any good if you can't land a hit anyway.
I hope this post is comprehensible, I'm a bit tired :P

Hmmm...

So units with high lethality (ie. those crazy 2-handed swordsmen) = bad against units with high defense skill (ie. Gaesatate)
especially since high lethality usually goes with AP bonuses, and Gaesatate wear no armor anyways...

High lethality + AP bonus = good against units with higher armor, but lower defense (post-Marian cohorts)

[Apázlinemjó]

Hmmm...

So units with high lethality (ie. those crazy 2-handed swordsmen) = bad against units with high defense skill (ie. Gaesatate)
especially since high lethality usually goes with AP bonuses, and Gaesatate wear no armor anyways...

High lethality + AP bonus = good against units with higher armor, but lower defense (post-Marian cohorts)

Two handers are bad at frontal assaults, if somene wants to use their full potential, then the charge from rear is the advised.

[Ca Putt]

afaik armor value is multidirectional for melee and ranged, and is the "only" thing affected by AP-weapons as their name suggests. Shield is left and frontside for melee and ranged. ddefence is to be seen more of a parrade than a dodging action and thus is only for melee and the front and rightside(where the weapon is located)

So units with high lethality (ie. those crazy 2-handed swordsmen) = bad against units with high defense skill (ie. Gaesatate)
especially since high lethality usually goes with AP bonuses, and Gaesatate wear no armor anyways...

High lethality + AP bonus = good against units with higher armor, but lower defense (post-Marian cohorts)

I would agree with this especially as high armor value often goes with relatively low defence value, still high lethality is always of use :D

Still a information on the exact math with the attack value vs total defence would be more than welcome.

[The Celtic Viking]

Armour counts in all directions, but against armour piercing weapons only half of it is counted.
Defensive skill counts to the front and right, but not at all against missiles from any direction.
The shield value counts from the front and left, and is counted double vs missiles from the front.

As for attack vs lethality, I think Paltmull is correct. For the same reason, against units with low defense value, a high lethality is worth more than a high attack, while more defensive units are better met with a higher attack (though AP is even better, of course). Then attack speed can come into play, but I think only the cavalry lances have that to such a degree as to be worth noting.

But that's only speaking of green units. If we take experience into account, then a high lethality becomes ever more valuable, as the attack value increases but lethality does not. You're stuck with whatever lethality you start with, while the attack value is steadily devalued. With the examples you give, the potentials are 18/.225 and 26/.11; the former is clearly the better, because it easily has enough attack to land hits on a regular basis, while it has more than twice the lethality than the latter.

There is a guide to the EDU in the Scriptorium. Here's the link.

Edit:

Hmmm...

So units with high lethality (ie. those crazy 2-handed swordsmen) = bad against units with high defense skill (ie. Gaesatate)
especially since high lethality usually goes with AP bonuses, and Gaesatate wear no armor anyways...

High lethality + AP bonus = good against units with higher armor, but lower defense (post-Marian cohorts)

I don't think Paltmull was talking about defence skill at all, but rather the full defence value of armour, skill and shield added up together. The reasoning being that, since only the armour counts from the back, a unit attacking from the back need less in attack to land hits, and would thus profit more from being able to kill more often when landing hits: ie, higher lethality.

On the other hand, when attacking from the front you need to pass armour, shield and skill, so from there a higher attack becomes more important.

In other words, units with high lethality weapons are absolutely fabulous against Gaesatae when sticking their pointy things in from behind.

[Intranetusa]

Now one of the main questions is - is the armor, sheild, and defense equal?
ie. if engaging in front melee, what is better: having +1 shield or +1 armor or +1 defense?

From playing with TW Fanatic's hoplite tweak, it seems that giving hoplites short_pike as well as 6 points in shield makes them nigh invincible from the front against most units, even if it is a milita hoplite... So I'm assuming shield value is worth the most, then armor, and then defense skill?

And would defense skill count towards left side, front, and right side if the unit doesn't have a shield?

The guide says front and right only, so that would mean a unit with no shield and no armor would have a total of 0 defense value on its left side... O_o

btw, going off topic, can someone give me an example of the console code to spawn units?

I've been trying for a while without success. Maybe I should use the unit names in unit_dictionary_tag instead of descr_unit?

[The Celtic Viking]

Defense skill never work for any other direction than front and right. If a unit doesn't have a shield value, then it simply doesn't get any shield bonus.

As for unit creation, you can find the unit name in the EDU. It should be the first name given. For example, for 1 basic Pahlavan horse archer with 2 experience, 3 armour upgrade and 4 weapon upgrade in Persepolis it is:

create_unit Persepolis "steppe missile cavalry pahlava shivatir" 1 2 3 4

[Macilrille]

btw, going off topic, can someone give me an example of the console code to spawn units?

I've been trying for a while without success. Maybe I should use the unit names in unit_dictionary_tag instead of descr_unit?

Write exactly as follows:
create_unit settlement/"Character" "Type" _ _ _ _

-Character is in " " and is the character name, example create_unit "Lvcvis Romanvs"

-Type is the name you find in descr_unit, for example "roman infantry polybian triarii" some of the eastern and Cartie names are... not easy.

- _ _ _ _ is Number(1-20) Experience(1-9) Armour(1-3) Weapon(1-3), note that you can give units Gold and Silver shields and weapons still using the console despite EB not allowing anything over Bronze or 1.

If there are several characters of the same name (Lvcivs Romanvs, LvcivsA Romanvs - LvcivsB -> LvcivsL Romanvs I think L is highest), you type character_reset through the names until you see the one you wish to give units having his movement reset if it is your own or until the game lets you if it is another faction or Eleutheroi (IE the character exists).

Notice that if you give a faction units you also need to give it money as the upkeep will ruin it otherwise and effectively stop them doing anything. If you add units and money the AI will use it, if only units it stops in its tracks and just stand around.

I have often tried to use this, move_character(moving rebel stacks to nearest rebel settlement) and add_money to stop blitzing from AI factions and get a historical-ish expansion, but it never succeeds, even with 60+ units and a million Mnai The Yellow Death and Pontos in my current campaign is still overrunning the AS and the Sweboz still pwns their Eleutheroi neighbours. I am not certain it is worth the hassle. I have also used it to get reformed Sweboz infantry after reforms should have happened but only heavy cav was available. I created infantry in the relevant towns and gifted other factions with the equivalant Mnai.