HoMM2 units' personal Attack Skill is redundant...or is it?

[Darmani]

you have two stats that affect the same result. that result being the unit's melee output against all targets.

take one out and increase the other, you'll ultimately have the same end result, that being melee damage.

We've spent the last page trying to explain that you won't have the same result. You might against a single target, but not overall.

You should draw those graphs. Visual information is always better.

Hmmm....I do need to learn Mathematica for work...

[dudejo]

i've tried out the Phoenix vs Golem scenario for myself in a mock fight.

at first glance, it fits the 12 - 10 scenario you say adds up to a 20% bonus.

so here's my shot at putting it all together.

1: Every point of Attack OVER the opponent's Defense gives +10% on the attacker's damage roll.

2: Every Point of Attack UNDER the opponent's Defense gives -5% on the attacker's damage roll.

when viewed that way, i'll admit it could be seen as a kind of armor-piercing mechanic.

[Darmani]

1: Every point of Attack OVER the opponent's Defense gives +10% on the attacker's damage roll.

2: Every Point of Attack UNDER the opponent's Defense gives -5% on the attacker's damage roll.

Congratulations on figuring that out by pure observation. But that information is in the HoMM II manual (along with the attack bonus maximum of 200% and the maximum defense resistance of 80%) , and I think we all assumed you already knew that.

What did you think Attack did?

[ThunderTitan]

when viewed that way, i'll admit it could be seen as a kind of armor-piercing mechanic.

Yeah, that's kinda what it is... it modifies dmg based on it's interaction with the defence value of the enemy... didn't we make that clear already?

[dudejo]

so that manual really does have all the little details...

i guess i should have known since some of that data looks like they pulled it straight out of the hex editor.

i often saw the 10% and 5% thrown around but i always thought they were talking about a straight damage increase/decrease.

EDIT :

when viewed that way, i'll admit it could be seen as a kind of armor-piercing mechanic.

Yeah, that's kinda what it is... it modifies dmg based on it's interaction with the defence value of the enemy... didn't we make that clear already?

now i know better but i originally thought it was a different calculation.

[ThunderTitan]

Man, i missed having 2 pages of straight up misunderstandings...

[GreatEmerald]

Just because I don't like running numbers in my head, what would these units be like:

• A unit with very low damage but with very high attack;
• A unit with very high damage but with very low attack;
• A unit with very low hitpoints but with very high defence;
• A unit with very high hitpoints but with very low defence?

[dudejo]

Just because I don't like running numbers in my head, what would these units be like:

• A unit with very low damage but with very high attack;
• A unit with very high damage but with very low attack;
• A unit with very low hitpoints but with very high defence;
• A unit with very high hitpoints but with very low defence?

the first one would be good against most of the Knight units, the Golem or the Lich.

the second one would be good against most ranged units or low-tier mobs.

the third one should only be coupled with either high speed or high attack because the low HP makes this type very vulnerable to magic.

the last one would make good castle garrison. heroes often have spells so having the HP to soak up the attack spells is always handy.

[GreatEmerald]

So the first one is very dependent on the enemy that is being faced, the second one deals pretty stable damage to everyone, but not as much as the first one potentially can, the third one is resistant to most attacks unless hit multiple times by the second one or the first one has even more attack than he has defence, and the last one can endure a lot, yet also takes a lot of damage? Interesting...

The last ones are sort of what Knight and Barbarian are in RPGs. I can't find a good analogue for the first ones, though. The first one would probably be something that has a lot of accuracy but little might, the second one would be the other way round. So archer and barbarian, perhaps? I guess the biggest difference between this and the RPG way is that in RPGs you can miss, while here you just deal the minimum amount of damage.

A while ago I experimented with ERM in HoMM3 WoG a little, and I tried to sort of adjust the creatures to be more similar to the ones from MM games, and I remember that it was very fitting to make Gargoyles have a lot of defence and very little hitpoints. That way much like in MM7, Gargoyles are resistant to physical attacks but are easily defeated using magic.

[Darmani]

We already have the latter two, and we kinda have the first two.

A unit with very low damage but with very high attack;

A Titan.

A unit with very high damage but with very low attack;

A Wolf.

A unit with very low hitpoints but with very high defence;

A Pikeman.

A unit with very high hitpoints but with very low defence?

An Ogre Lord.

[dudejo]

actually, i would see the Cyclops as the staple high attack/low damage.

12 attack ain't bad but 12-24 is even worse than a Giant.

edit : oops, major name screw-up.