This doesn't change my stance on which stat to pick but Melee Defense is reduced by 30% when attacked on the side and 60% when attacked from behind. Plus there are units with high melee attack too which are less effected by Melee Defense increases. Especially on harder difficulties. In the end though, most foot characters don't do that much damage anyways. If you're gonna boost melee attack, make sure it's on monstrous lords who can't cycle charge easily.
Sometimes defending with only 30% or 60% also means that melee defense never ever becomes redundant. Whereas melee attack increases in lategame campaign often are already redundant.
What do you think of boosting melee attack on characters that you use to take down SEM's or lords? Like assassins for example? Is it just unoptimal gameplay anyways?
Haha was about to make that30/60% comment :D But yeah, we can add that often foot base lords and heroes are quite durable anyway and you use them to stop enemy from advancing and shoot or charge them, so fully agree with MD > MA.
@@armotonpuppe2278 the bone boy used as an example in particular I usually have fighting lords because you can't just fill them with arrows and don't really have a back line you're struggling to protect like HElves, usually I go melee attack and embed him into some skeletons but idk I also thought attacked in the rear was 90% so... for an assassin the ranged weapon seems key, not their melee stats, but I don't play DElves much at all
isnt the damage blocked by armor change by 5%? its 61% to 66% so its protecting u from only 5% of the damage from non AP units. also, melee defense becomes much smaller when flanked, so its actual effectiveness is not that great...unless at ridiculous levels, at least when surrounded
In the end yes. But your heroes don't start at lvl 50. Ofc there are better places to spend your skill points early to maximize your heroes effectiveness. But by all means just start by leveling the charge bonus first since "none of it matters" lmao
I always came to the same conclusion, but for different reasons. The melee heroes and lords only rarely have the purpose of dealing damage with their attacks. They are supposed to intercept units and hold back formations. A hero with 5 weaponstrength and 12 melee attack could do this....... if he had 200 armor and 80 Melee defense.
@@starcraft2own Ehm, they don't? The AI always puts its high level vampire lords on dragons. Sending in melee heroes is not really the name of the game there. Focus fire is.
Another thing about MD is that a melee Lord usually won't be a terribly significant source of a strong stack's damage output, but will likely be a major source of its morale. The most important thing they can do is stay alive and unbroken, to keep the rest of your army fighting for longer. For melee Heroes, the most important thing can be staying alive to give your stack campaign bonuses like extra Movement or Replenishment after the battle ends.
I had a different theory that had the same result. Melee attack is giving your character value for their one attack every couple seconds. Melee defense is giving your character value for every enemy entity attacking them every couple seconds. Melee defense gives a "bigger bonus" this way when outnumbered, and single entities like heroes and lords are usually outnumbered.
On the other hand, melee attack gives a bonus to your lord's high weapon strength and melee defense gives a bonus against the enemy infantry's low weapon strength. I think this more or less cancels out the effect of being attacked by many enemies.
@@zakharov7953 Against infantry, the lord or hero is usually executing models with their attacks when they hit. So an increase to offense is limited in value there unless they're specifically designed to duel other single entities. You're usually killing 2 to 3 models a swing with most lords or heroes regardless, and there's a hard cap of about 3 to 8 models that can even be damaged per swing, depending on the lord or hero. You aren't wrong at all, melee attack multiplies usefulness with weapon damage and that's an important consideration. But given the hard damage-per-swing cap against infantry blobs, if there was a way to speed up the time between attack animations, that would make a much larger impact.
Something I love about videos from creators like you and Zerkovich is I genuinely learn how to be better at the game. Concentration of force, when and when not to use spells, how splash attacks actually work, etc. All things that I literally had no clue about when I first picked up the game 9 months ago.
This was mainly a comparison when fighting units with your lord/hero, but what about dueling other lords/heroes? Is Melee Attack or Melee Defense better in general?
Really depends on the lord/hero you are facing. Unless their MD is way higher than your MA I found weapon strength+ap percentage and hp+resistances the more deciding factors in straight duels. (if you don't want to count buff/debuffs I guess) It gets also way more complicated on the field. For example large entity Lords get shoot to shit while smaller Lords can be way more durable than you'd think.
Want to take out a caster quickly or grind a regenerating lord/hero down before he hits the healing cap? In those cases I would argue that Melee Attack becomes more important than Melee Defense; though if your lord/hero doesn't have armor-piercing attacks, I would just level Melee Defense anyways, since they won't ne doing damage against most enemies anyway
I would say it also depends on the type of units your hero/lord is fighting. Against very aggressive units(high MA), you will mitigate more damage by killing the unit faster. Also, against high MD units, you will get a higher increase in damage potential by going into MA. MD is great for foot characters that have their flanks secure and wants to grind down the enemy(usually also have access to some form of healing). If your lord on a monster is being targeted by archers, I would rather kill/route the enemy unit 25% faster, rather than mitigate 50% of the melee damage that is coming from melee(those who attack in the front. I will still get hit a lot from the side or back).
Another thing I considered when decided to invest into melee defense first is longevity. Campaign battles aren’t isolated so reducing damage during a battle can be the difference between getting wounded/killed in the next battle.
I generally pick depending on the character's role in my army. Especially relevant in Chaos Warriors where I started actively thinking about it. In my chaos warriors armies, I always like to have a lord that casts and an exalted hero, because experience is so important in their roster, the passive gen and unique lines of heroes are greatly appreciated in my armies. Generally in that exact same army, I have heroes mount up on a horse and take the assassin role. They kit out to kill an important single entity, like wizards or weaker lords. So they become fast duelists, and I value attack over defense here because I need them to end fights faster so the wizard can't get value and most times if a blob is threatening to catch them I can just run away. For an undivided hero I put them on a manticore and do the same thing but with flying. On the other hand, the lord in my armies are always either a caster, a bigger entity, or otherwise a kingpin that needs to survive. As a matter of fact 90% of the time my lord is the unit that must survive the battle, so tanking up on them is a given. Defense is so much better there so they can more safely wade through infantry and position where they need to. If either character's role is to instead remain out of melee and cast spells or use abilities or auras, for example if one of my heroes was riding upon a chaos warshrine, instead of beefing up their attack or defense I start to prioritize effective health, and therefore take armor earlier, so that ranged fire can't whittle them down as fast. Warshrines are a great example because for their powerful aura, they're slow and have a massive health pool, which gets better value from armor. If it's a flying caster sometimes I'll look at getting them melee attack if I can, just in case they need to throw down against another flying wizard or sky junk. Basically I build my unit up for their role or what I expect will happen to them in a fight. Still, this video taught me that defense is much more impactful than I first thought.
You'll probably have to take charge bonus because you'll have more points to spend that slots to spend them on, but it's definitely the second last thing to put points into - training being the last.
A little extra to consider is that increased attack will theoretically decrease damage taken in two ways> 1. the faster the enemy units die, the less time they have to deal damage. 2. the faster the enemies die the greater the leadership debuff from said damage and the sooner that unit will break/route. Also For high mobility sniping heroes it means the target dies quicker so less of a window is needed to snipe a target. For lords this means the army wide debuff applies sooner, or a key artillery piece can be neutralized more quickly.
In my mind, the level point order (battle skills) is always sth like this: Resistances -> Speed -> MD -> WS -> HP -> MA. When it comes to missile units, reload time reduction comes before missile strength and ammo. Of course no lord or hero in the game has buffs for all of the above, but the principle is the same whether some are missing or not.
I've been playing a mazdamundi campaign, and so I have actually tried to make sure most of my saurus scar veterans are as good at dueling big targets as possible having a fighty character to accompany the slann lord helps quite a lot because obviously the slann generally can't really be committed to melee, but overall I agree that melee defense is more valuable! Just a niche situation i could think of where you might want a good duelist to accompany a lord that isn't so good in melee combat.
I choose prefer to the role of my hero. If he would tank tons of shit, blobbing them - then MD obviously better. But if my hero should eliminate enemy characters - then MA is way to go))
Depends a bit on what the character is going to be used for, doesn't it? Against infantry, there's not much point to upping your charge bonus, but against characters, SEMs and monstrous infantry, the fact that charge bonus also increases weapon damage can be quite huge.
Hmmm I usually take the armor bonus, thinking that it helps the character reduce damage from melee AND range for only one level point, but I see now it does not make much of a difference... Espicially since you never let your single entities take too many volleys anyway. Good to know !
Additional reason to take melee defence is the power of magic and missiles. Being able to survive longer in a melee blob is incredibly valuable. Still interesting number comparison. I'd argue there are certain heroes where armor isn't terrible. Glade captains for example go from round 40 to 70 armor iirc (yes they get 30 armor from red line). Bringing them from low to medium/high
Ever since Warhammer 1 ive always prioritised MD and ignored charge bonus... wish they would think of something better than charge bonus for a lord or hero ffs... most of the time they exist to force a blob around your hero that you smash with ranged/arty/magic
My reason for prioritizing melee defense stems primarily from survivability. They're going to be exposed to a lot more attacks per man than most units are as they don't have any backup dancers innate to them, so they are going to be making a lot more melee defense saves because they'll be on average fighting five to ten models at once. Armor is handy (heck, some of the older game units just need some armor to be able to hold like they should), but melee defense is what truly keeps units alive because a successful MD check means no damage at all. And for lords that end up getting stuck in from aggressive animations or who might get surrounded, MD is their ability to survive without taking as much damage. Plus, missile damage is usually the best way to deal with the enemy, so having melee defense lets you keep the enemy at arm's length while filling them with the magical arrows of staunch warrior maidens or blackpowder blessed :D
Yeah good question, Because a lot of guys get knocked back but get up afterwards sometimes and that makes me wonder again if there is: a) a limit to # of units hit by damage spread or b) if damage spread technically hits all affected but just runs out after going through/killing a number of guys before affecting the ho of the rest more BUT could get higher
Hmm, I always used defence becouse it keeps my heroes alive alittle longer, when I'm ocupied by other parts of battle. Great to have all of this in numbers.
When levelling lords and heroes, my priority is always upkeep reduction and recruitment maxed, then passives, ( when lord is mounted defensive stats, namely missile and magic resistance ); Magic, and finally yellow tree, one point on everything, then max HP, armor, melee defense and melee attack, and double stat bonuses. This ensures that lord / hero defenses are always highest, and melee attack to actually hit, so i never make that choice, to me it's just going down the list of priorities. When it comes to skill trees, to me, defense is the best offense. Melee lords get armor and physical resistance items, while casters get ward save, so they can hold their own in melee too. I like to empower the whole army instead of one or two elements, so everything holds their own, reducing micro
The right answer is melee defence but for a different reason. Lords are supposed to charge into infantry to blob them up so you can rain arrows and magic on them. The damage of said lord does not matter.
Yeah, melee defense is certainly one of the more important skills/stats for heros, particularly if your using these guys to take the pressure off your own units.
Thing is, for assasin type lords or duelists, you might still want melee attack because their purpose is not to hold back enemies, but to kill enemy lords, wizards, and most importantly, melee lords that are also wizards. They need to do that as fast as possible without really worrying about the damage they take. The rest of heroes and lords should take melee defense though.
A little late and maybe already mentioned but... With the amount of points to spend on heroes in WH3, you'll probably end up fully skilling your heroes anyway, making the choice moot, after a while anyway. Charge bonus increases weapojn strength as well
I'm curious tho, like charge buff on chariot lords like beef men. Also isn't armor better I you don't plan to melee fight? For instance if you know your turning your lord into a terrorghiest riding bad butt slap some extra armor for the expected arrow/ranged attacks?
The way I see it: survive first (melee defense, armor), then hit the enemy (melee attack), then do damage (weapon strength), then finally buff the charge.
Still think it's worth taking the MA instead depending on your lord/hero's role in the army. A lot of the time I'm using a bunch of them in a goon squad to wipe out enemy characters as quickly as possible. In these cases I don't care about defense anywhere near as much as I care about ensuring that their targets die instantly.
Elden ring video: spend 80% of the video leading up to the tip This guy: “it’s defense, stick around to find out why” Me: “no that’s all I need to know” *ends video likes*
Is charge bonus only impacting chance to hit on a charge? I thought it impacted a damage bonus units received for several seconds after connecting with a charge.
Thy for the Information. I always thought Charge Bonus increases the DMG done depending on where you Charge in? (side, back , front) im pretty sure i saw a video of sorts...?
Solid analysis. :D Question. Are there also a lot more rolls on melee defense for a hero in an infantry fight than melee attack too? So even if the chances were more even you would still benefit from a buffed melee def stat.
You really should make a video that goes over yellow tree priority. MD is usually the best and Charge/armor are very low priority. But where on the priority ladder do you place Weapon Strength/Hit points?
I'm not sure I agree with the usage, I don't use my lords to kill infantry, I use them to kill the opposing lord which I'm not smart enough to calculate the new stats for but generally your lord tends to win out in the end if you're trying to snipe so melee attack to speed that up means there's less time for your army to take damage before theirs gets hit by the lord dead debuff.
I thought that if someone hits you in the back (phwoarr) you'll be hit 100% of the time, so it mostly doesn't matter how good your melee defence is if you're surrounded? So I thought investing in melee attack would be better..
What I've always wondered was whether or not (or to what degree) 'bonus vs x' and charge bonus damage deal armour piercing damage or what the go was with those two damage types, as I've never heard anyone mention it.
Bonus vs x increases melee attack and weapon strengh against x. Now, I think it increases both base weapon damages and base armour piercing weapon damages, but it is to be confirmed
But what if I have single entities that are supposed to fight other single entities (like nakari or whatever). Don't I get a lot more survivable when I kill the opposing sem in one less attack?
i'd give a generic lord or hero melee defence, but to very hard hitting legendary lords with high mass, maybe with sword of khaine too, i prioritize melee attack, just because i just want them to delete all the single entities units they face as fast as possible
I remember getting the word of khaine with skaven once, some random warlord assigned at the defense of the Bretonnian coast, got the sword and that turned him from one of the weakest army into the strongest one appart from Ikit's. I just maxed as much missile defense and ward save and threw him at anything elven or norscan that got too close. The only downside is I had to build a shit load of bells. Everyone got a bell. That skaven, that skaven, that skaven too, everyone gets a bell.
@@InquisitorShepard yes a friend of mine plays Ikit claw too, he always wind up with Alarielle bringing him the sword of khaine before turn 40 or something
you forgot one important stat about charge bonus and why you should always take it, you have 49 points to spend and only so many places to spend it in, eventually you will put some there because you have no other choices.
how does ward saves , phisical/range/magic/poison resistance calculation works? mind making video about these and resistances/weaknesses how their damage calculation applies/works? and its resistances?
There is no poison resistance, as there is no poison damage(very few exceptions to this, like Skarsnik). Poison is a debuff that lowers enemy stats and you cant resist it. If a poison deals damage, it is "true damage"(pure AP) and can only be mitigated by Ward Saves as far as I know. Resistances are combined and checks if an attack has certain tags. If it is regular physical damage from an arrow(ranged attack), then Physical Resistance, Missile Resistance and Ward Saves are all combined, up to a cap of 90% damage reduction. If the attack has the Fire tag, then Fire resistance(or weakness) is also applied. If an attack is Magical, it ignores any Physical Resistance. That should be all of it.
@@fendelphi i know , just wanted to bulk everything as damage types/resistances , how they work reguarding to other defenses and damage calculation , as game never explains it
Is charge bonus really useless? In WH2 I fond out that the minotar heroes were performing better whith charge bonus maximised instead of weapon strenght. I had to choose between the 2, since I first spec into assasination so that they will live longer. So no, charge bonus is better than weapon strenght for a hero.
How does splash damage work? Like, monsters don't just hit a single infantryman, do they? Is that reliant on melee attack? Also, do Lords/Heroes do splash damage, because the idea of sending one dude against a unit of 120 just sounds like it would take forever, even if their stats are up for the task.
Huh very interesting! I actually always went charge bonus and melee attack to make the lords/heroes more impactful. The AI usually doesn't assign correct responses to them, so I am more worried about making them more threatening quicker. Melee defense usually being the second option and then everything else. I wondered how the charge bonus worked! I was under the impression it also increased damage so I usually give it to heroes and lords that I expect to charge a lot of infantry for that extra bit of dmg. Survival usually is not being that big of an issue anyway as I never try used my lords to create ai blobs as much I think that strat is a bit boring. Gotta say tho, after I saw what imrik did to my heroes, I will pay attention to melee defense more!
It does increase damage, but on most single entities the question is, does the added damage really matter? If they already have huge weapon strength then that might not make that much of a difference (especially if they end up fighting infantry where chances are they one or two shot models anyway).
I think charge bonus adds to both melee attack and damage for a few seconds and then declines. Not sure if that has changed. Edit: That makes extra Charge Bonus better for Lords/Heroes that cycle charge instead of melee attack and sometimes even damage.
@@Kalulosu so my reasoning is for infantry is that since the damage is evenly spread among entities hit (e.g. you splash dmg 5 dudes, your weapon damage is divided by 5) you still want the extra damage to get more damage especially Vs more elite units. But this seems like smth I will have to test properly!
It does increased damage (basically, you get a bonus to melee attack and weaon damage equal to the charge bonus value that decays across a duration of 15 seconds after the charge). The issue is that even with splash damage, you are likely to just overkill models which wastes damage potential. If you kit our your character explicitly for dueling or monster killing, it's a different story.
Which is also why an extra 30 Charge bonus can be important for characters without Perfect Vigour or ways to replenish Vigour. It helps counter various MA debuffs.
Against most fodder/chaff units, you Lord/Hero's Melee Attack+Charge bonus already ensures hit on the charge, so the additional charge bonus is only for slightly more damage on said charges. However, against high tier units or enemy lords and heroes(60 MD or more), extra Charge Bonus will make a difference.
Why not both lol, immortal empire has plenty of trait points to spend and most of the older characters dont even get to choose when they can fill out every tree
I get that charge bonus is a nothing burger, but man, what I'm supposed to do with 50 points? Even if I max out everything some heroes have some left... :D
It does, but if you're a single-entity hero, your weapon strength is high enough that the increased damage from the charge bonus is kinda negligible. What real difference does a temporary 30 damage make when you're already doing 400? Especially against infantry, because that 400 is already waaay overkill for most infantry.
@@shadowblade5656 thank you, that is something along the lines of what I was thinking for the most part too but I just wanted to be sure. I really appreciate it. Perhaps if you're an armor piercing/magical attack lord and frequently sent against other cav or monsters for your Anti Large attack > then perhaps a little increased damage it's just a little more helpful; I did a 'head to head' once with a friend but we really just wanted to be 'same team different races' He chose Durthu, I chose Alberic, That paladin hero you start with hit lvl 20 so fast for me I said 'lol he's a keeper now either way' and didn't worry about blue skills or much defense > I don't remember if it was just his particular skill tree as a Brettonian Paladin, but he just had so many dang potential increases to Charge Bonus in there that I had to see what would happen if I stacked em. I think his got either a 130 increase or 130 total(more likely), but either way it was amusing.
@@shadowblade5656 ooh wait (just woke up srry) what about the 'Duelist' vs. 'Smack a buncha guys at Once' Lords? Does 'Smack a buncha Guys' get a somewhat higher chance to smoke/farm more advanced infantry in a single swing/per swing than before if he tried that route (in case one or two get back up for the damage spread out sometimes) or do you think the number of entities he's allowed to smack could even go up? :D Heck Zerkovich might have done q video on this but it's been a long time
@@sonofthebearking3335 If you've got charge defense, it could be better to go out front and let the monsters or cav charge you, so you wanna be bracing and therefore won't get charge bonus. If you're mounted and can move around and reposition and get in and out of combat to make good use of your charge bonus, go for it. If you're playing Bretonnia or someone and just wanna see the absurd numbers get even more absurd, that's a lot of fun too. I find that trying to leave combat and re-charge a target I'm duelling tends to be problematic sometimes, I usually dont try it much. As far as heroes/lords hitting multiple targets, I dont actually know how that works. I *think* it's "you have a limited number of total targets you can hit, which is fixed and can't normally increase, and you deal full damage to all of them" but I dont know that for sure.
I disagree. Whilst It ranges depending on the situation, if were talking solely footlord/hero vs infantry regiment, armour is far more important than you give it credit for. Yes, having 10 more armour is going to remove very little damage from each hit, but damage resistance (in this case armour) multiplies health, in terms of calculating effective health. Meaning the higher the entity health, the more potent damage resistance (in this case armour) is: +20 armour on a saurus warrior with 100 health is going to make it FAR more tanky than on an empire soldier with only 69 health, even more so w. a lord/hero that has 2000-10000 or even more health, at that point even the smallest damage reduction value is going to end up giving THOUSANDS in effective health. Every little bit counts for high health single entities, and doesn't count at all for basic infantry.
More like this. I get to choose what units to attack and how to enhance my heroes, but am never told exactly how everything stacks up against each other so the choice is meaningless without information on which to base it. Should I put swords into boyz and greatswords into black orcs? Or should I accept that the black orcs will murder what they meet and sacrifice the swords? Will greatswords kill goblins much faster than swords will? The game should explain how much of a stat difference matters and when it's excessive. Until it does, maybe a RUclipsr can fill the gap.
On that sense i can tell you: Swords vs swords, cuz spear vs swords you loose. Spears have higher melee defense than swords, so they'll hold, but start dying quickly. Axes have higher melee attack than swords, so they win, maces have higher melee defense, so depending on melee attack they win ( saurus for example ) Great swords usually are anti-infantry, this stats imo skip any resistances ( minus ward save ) so will deal more damage to all other infantry units. The caveat is that being a higher quality unit, comes with less models, so higher numbers can win against great swords. The goblin vs great swords scenario for example, great swords win, if goblins don't get AP. If they do, they win. ( This is why I like buff spells, and don't use the red tree, lore of little WAAGH can be surprising )
Nowhere did I find anything telling me that the hit rate is, say, 50% when the same, 60% at +5 and 90% at +20 and above. Maybe the help sections have improved since I bought the game. What about unit numbers? Do long lines wrap around and create defence penalties, or do the wrapped unit models all face outwards in different directions, making unit numbers simply about hit points? A guide explaining some of the programming and unit behaviour did not exist when I looked for it. Yes, even an idiot can guess a reasonable answer. But the precise hit rates etc. - the unguessable detail - are not given.
@@quentincroft6172 there you go, precise stats don't exist, for that you got Zerkovich for example. He also goes deeper into units wrapping around, yes, thicker / thinner formations are taught by Zerkovich and party elite. What you need to know logically is higher melee attack than defense means very high chance of hitting, thinner formations deal more damage, but takes more damage. Thicker formations last longer, but run the risk of being surrounded etc. He does deep dives into the math involved, but tbh you don't need that much info, cuz the point ain't to min max that deeply. If you feel the need to do so, legend of total war teaches all the cheese / min max / doomstack tactics. ( But enticity obviously dives deep into multiplayer and explains all the math involved, for efficient comps, since efficiency / countering is key for multiplayer )
@@quentincroft6172 imo, it's best this way, cuz content creators establish a nice bridge between the player base, and the company. So the barrier of entry isn't as high as StarCraft 2, but the peak is similar.
and then you realise that heroes have so high stats that you want them to actually deal damage in a battle thus you want the attack so your lords dont end the battle with 0 damage taken, 0 damage done
It doubles your armour, so definitely yes, but it still depends on what you are facing. Against HE spears and archers which lack AP, it's very useful. Against shades and darkshards? Not so much.
His damage calculation is based against enemies with roughly 1/4 AP ratio. Which is "the norm" for many melee units. But there are also a fairly high amount of units with poor AP ratio(1/6 or less) and against them, Armor is very efficient. The good thing about armor is that it works against melee, ranged and magic, assuming that they are not pure AP.
Or, and don't tell anyone I told you this, you download the mod that gives you 10 extra skill points on your lord and 5 on your hero and you just take it all :P
This doesn't change my stance on which stat to pick but Melee Defense is reduced by 30% when attacked on the side and 60% when attacked from behind. Plus there are units with high melee attack too which are less effected by Melee Defense increases. Especially on harder difficulties.
In the end though, most foot characters don't do that much damage anyways. If you're gonna boost melee attack, make sure it's on monstrous lords who can't cycle charge easily.
Sometimes defending with only 30% or 60% also means that melee defense never ever becomes redundant.
Whereas melee attack increases in lategame campaign often are already redundant.
What do you think of boosting melee attack on characters that you use to take down SEM's or lords? Like assassins for example? Is it just unoptimal gameplay anyways?
Haha was about to make that30/60% comment :D But yeah, we can add that often foot base lords and heroes are quite durable anyway and you use them to stop enemy from advancing and shoot or charge them, so fully agree with MD > MA.
@@armotonpuppe2278 the bone boy used as an example in particular I usually have fighting lords because you can't just fill them with arrows and don't really have a back line you're struggling to protect like HElves,
usually I go melee attack and embed him into some skeletons but idk I also thought attacked in the rear was 90% so...
for an assassin the ranged weapon seems key, not their melee stats, but I don't play DElves much at all
isnt the damage blocked by armor change by 5%? its 61% to 66% so its protecting u from only 5% of the damage from non AP units.
also, melee defense becomes much smaller when flanked, so its actual effectiveness is not that great...unless at ridiculous levels, at least when surrounded
and then you remember that level cap is 50 now, so none of it really matters anyway since even that charge bonus is gonna get leveled in the end lol
Then there's also mod that give extra skill point, so there's a chance to fill all of them.
In the end yes. But your heroes don't start at lvl 50.
Ofc there are better places to spend your skill points early to maximize your heroes effectiveness.
But by all means just start by leveling the charge bonus first since "none of it matters" lmao
Early game it's important to prioritise though
Yeah, so this is basically a tip for how to start out going through the tree, not about the finalized build.
But MD is still better because it increases the chances that your lord/hero survives until level 20.
I always came to the same conclusion, but for different reasons.
The melee heroes and lords only rarely have the purpose of dealing damage with their attacks.
They are supposed to intercept units and hold back formations.
A hero with 5 weaponstrength and 12 melee attack could do this....... if he had 200 armor and 80 Melee defense.
And what unit is left to deal with the couple of vampire lords that's doing the same to your army?
@@starcraft2own Army loss them. Or shoot them.
Blocking an enemy is fine for characters on foot, but a character on a big monster will mitigate more damage by killing models and routing units.
@@fendelphi The list of heroes with big monster mounts is rather short.
@@starcraft2own Ehm, they don't?
The AI always puts its high level vampire lords on dragons.
Sending in melee heroes is not really the name of the game there.
Focus fire is.
Another thing about MD is that a melee Lord usually won't be a terribly significant source of a strong stack's damage output, but will likely be a major source of its morale. The most important thing they can do is stay alive and unbroken, to keep the rest of your army fighting for longer. For melee Heroes, the most important thing can be staying alive to give your stack campaign bonuses like extra Movement or Replenishment after the battle ends.
I had a different theory that had the same result. Melee attack is giving your character value for their one attack every couple seconds. Melee defense is giving your character value for every enemy entity attacking them every couple seconds. Melee defense gives a "bigger bonus" this way when outnumbered, and single entities like heroes and lords are usually outnumbered.
On the other hand, melee attack gives a bonus to your lord's high weapon strength and melee defense gives a bonus against the enemy infantry's low weapon strength. I think this more or less cancels out the effect of being attacked by many enemies.
@@zakharov7953 Against infantry, the lord or hero is usually executing models with their attacks when they hit. So an increase to offense is limited in value there unless they're specifically designed to duel other single entities. You're usually killing 2 to 3 models a swing with most lords or heroes regardless, and there's a hard cap of about 3 to 8 models that can even be damaged per swing, depending on the lord or hero.
You aren't wrong at all, melee attack multiplies usefulness with weapon damage and that's an important consideration. But given the hard damage-per-swing cap against infantry blobs, if there was a way to speed up the time between attack animations, that would make a much larger impact.
I usually put 3 on MD and 1 on MA and then do the rest of the tree and after that I try to max what's most important for that character.
Something I love about videos from creators like you and Zerkovich is I genuinely learn how to be better at the game. Concentration of force, when and when not to use spells, how splash attacks actually work, etc. All things that I literally had no clue about when I first picked up the game 9 months ago.
This was mainly a comparison when fighting units with your lord/hero, but what about dueling other lords/heroes? Is Melee Attack or Melee Defense better in general?
Really depends on the lord/hero you are facing. Unless their MD is way higher than your MA I found weapon strength+ap percentage and hp+resistances the more deciding factors in straight duels. (if you don't want to count buff/debuffs I guess)
It gets also way more complicated on the field. For example large entity Lords get shoot to shit while smaller Lords can be way more durable than you'd think.
Want to take out a caster quickly or grind a regenerating lord/hero down before he hits the healing cap? In those cases I would argue that Melee Attack becomes more important than Melee Defense; though if your lord/hero doesn't have armor-piercing attacks, I would just level Melee Defense anyways, since they won't ne doing damage against most enemies anyway
I would say it also depends on the type of units your hero/lord is fighting. Against very aggressive units(high MA), you will mitigate more damage by killing the unit faster.
Also, against high MD units, you will get a higher increase in damage potential by going into MA.
MD is great for foot characters that have their flanks secure and wants to grind down the enemy(usually also have access to some form of healing). If your lord on a monster is being targeted by archers, I would rather kill/route the enemy unit 25% faster, rather than mitigate 50% of the melee damage that is coming from melee(those who attack in the front. I will still get hit a lot from the side or back).
Another thing I considered when decided to invest into melee defense first is longevity. Campaign battles aren’t isolated so reducing damage during a battle can be the difference between getting wounded/killed in the next battle.
Melee defense is actually the most important stat for lords, with the exception being armor for large entities who will eat lots of missile fire
I generally pick depending on the character's role in my army. Especially relevant in Chaos Warriors where I started actively thinking about it. In my chaos warriors armies, I always like to have a lord that casts and an exalted hero, because experience is so important in their roster, the passive gen and unique lines of heroes are greatly appreciated in my armies. Generally in that exact same army, I have heroes mount up on a horse and take the assassin role. They kit out to kill an important single entity, like wizards or weaker lords. So they become fast duelists, and I value attack over defense here because I need them to end fights faster so the wizard can't get value and most times if a blob is threatening to catch them I can just run away. For an undivided hero I put them on a manticore and do the same thing but with flying.
On the other hand, the lord in my armies are always either a caster, a bigger entity, or otherwise a kingpin that needs to survive. As a matter of fact 90% of the time my lord is the unit that must survive the battle, so tanking up on them is a given. Defense is so much better there so they can more safely wade through infantry and position where they need to.
If either character's role is to instead remain out of melee and cast spells or use abilities or auras, for example if one of my heroes was riding upon a chaos warshrine, instead of beefing up their attack or defense I start to prioritize effective health, and therefore take armor earlier, so that ranged fire can't whittle them down as fast. Warshrines are a great example because for their powerful aura, they're slow and have a massive health pool, which gets better value from armor. If it's a flying caster sometimes I'll look at getting them melee attack if I can, just in case they need to throw down against another flying wizard or sky junk.
Basically I build my unit up for their role or what I expect will happen to them in a fight. Still, this video taught me that defense is much more impactful than I first thought.
You'll probably have to take charge bonus because you'll have more points to spend that slots to spend them on, but it's definitely the second last thing to put points into - training being the last.
A little extra to consider is that increased attack will theoretically decrease damage taken in two ways>
1. the faster the enemy units die, the less time they have to deal damage.
2. the faster the enemies die the greater the leadership debuff from said damage and the sooner that unit will break/route.
Also
For high mobility sniping heroes it means the target dies quicker so less of a window is needed to snipe a target.
For lords this means the army wide debuff applies sooner, or a key artillery piece can be neutralized more quickly.
In my mind, the level point order (battle skills) is always sth like this: Resistances -> Speed -> MD -> WS -> HP -> MA. When it comes to missile units, reload time reduction comes before missile strength and ammo. Of course no lord or hero in the game has buffs for all of the above, but the principle is the same whether some are missing or not.
I've been playing a mazdamundi campaign, and so I have actually tried to make sure most of my saurus scar veterans are as good at dueling big targets as possible having a fighty character to accompany the slann lord helps quite a lot because obviously the slann generally can't really be committed to melee, but overall I agree that melee defense is more valuable! Just a niche situation i could think of where you might want a good duelist to accompany a lord that isn't so good in melee combat.
I choose prefer to the role of my hero. If he would tank tons of shit, blobbing them - then MD obviously better. But if my hero should eliminate enemy characters - then MA is way to go))
Depends a bit on what the character is going to be used for, doesn't it? Against infantry, there's not much point to upping your charge bonus, but against characters, SEMs and monstrous infantry, the fact that charge bonus also increases weapon damage can be quite huge.
Hmmm
I usually take the armor bonus, thinking that it helps the character reduce damage from melee AND range for only one level point, but I see now it does not make much of a difference... Espicially since you never let your single entities take too many volleys anyway.
Good to know !
I disagree on the charge, as charge also boost melee damage on top of melee attack, damage cannot be over stacked.
agree 100% with your assession. i always go Melee defence -> HP increase -> melee attack, ->armour -> charge bonus -> leadership.
Melee attack or Melee defence?
Me: *WOUND*
_Kills the torrent of heroes that piggyback your army_
This was super useful. More of this!
Additional reason to take melee defence is the power of magic and missiles. Being able to survive longer in a melee blob is incredibly valuable.
Still interesting number comparison. I'd argue there are certain heroes where armor isn't terrible. Glade captains for example go from round 40 to 70 armor iirc (yes they get 30 armor from red line). Bringing them from low to medium/high
Ever since Warhammer 1 ive always prioritised MD and ignored charge bonus... wish they would think of something better than charge bonus for a lord or hero ffs... most of the time they exist to force a blob around your hero that you smash with ranged/arty/magic
My reason for prioritizing melee defense stems primarily from survivability. They're going to be exposed to a lot more attacks per man than most units are as they don't have any backup dancers innate to them, so they are going to be making a lot more melee defense saves because they'll be on average fighting five to ten models at once. Armor is handy (heck, some of the older game units just need some armor to be able to hold like they should), but melee defense is what truly keeps units alive because a successful MD check means no damage at all. And for lords that end up getting stuck in from aggressive animations or who might get surrounded, MD is their ability to survive without taking as much damage.
Plus, missile damage is usually the best way to deal with the enemy, so having melee defense lets you keep the enemy at arm's length while filling them with the magical arrows of staunch warrior maidens or blackpowder blessed :D
Does charge bonus become more useful if your hero is on a chariot, or is it still just a negligible increase?
Yeah good question,
Because a lot of guys get knocked back but get up afterwards sometimes and that makes me wonder again if there is:
a) a limit to # of units hit by damage spread or
b) if damage spread technically hits all affected but just runs out after going through/killing a number of guys before affecting the ho of the rest more BUT could get higher
Hmm, I always used defence becouse it keeps my heroes alive alittle longer, when I'm ocupied by other parts of battle. Great to have all of this in numbers.
When levelling lords and heroes, my priority is always upkeep reduction and recruitment maxed, then passives, ( when lord is mounted defensive stats, namely missile and magic resistance );
Magic, and finally yellow tree, one point on everything, then max HP, armor, melee defense and melee attack, and double stat bonuses.
This ensures that lord / hero defenses are always highest, and melee attack to actually hit, so i never make that choice, to me it's just going down the list of priorities.
When it comes to skill trees, to me, defense is the best offense.
Melee lords get armor and physical resistance items, while casters get ward save, so they can hold their own in melee too.
I like to empower the whole army instead of one or two elements, so everything holds their own, reducing micro
The right answer is melee defence but for a different reason. Lords are supposed to charge into infantry to blob them up so you can rain arrows and magic on them. The damage of said lord does not matter.
Yeah, melee defense is certainly one of the more important skills/stats for heros, particularly if your using these guys to take the pressure off your own units.
Thing is, for assasin type lords or duelists, you might still want melee attack because their purpose is not to hold back enemies, but to kill enemy lords, wizards, and most importantly, melee lords that are also wizards. They need to do that as fast as possible without really worrying about the damage they take. The rest of heroes and lords should take melee defense though.
Yeah, always defense first. Send the characters in and blast them with ranged.
Less effective in WH3 than in WH2, but still pretty good.
Defence all the way from the beginning!
A little late and maybe already mentioned but...
With the amount of points to spend on heroes in WH3, you'll probably end up fully skilling your heroes anyway, making the choice moot, after a while anyway.
Charge bonus increases weapojn strength as well
I'm curious tho, like charge buff on chariot lords like beef men. Also isn't armor better I you don't plan to melee fight? For instance if you know your turning your lord into a terrorghiest riding bad butt slap some extra armor for the expected arrow/ranged attacks?
The way I see it: survive first (melee defense, armor), then hit the enemy (melee attack), then do damage (weapon strength), then finally buff the charge.
Still think it's worth taking the MA instead depending on your lord/hero's role in the army. A lot of the time I'm using a bunch of them in a goon squad to wipe out enemy characters as quickly as possible. In these cases I don't care about defense anywhere near as much as I care about ensuring that their targets die instantly.
another reason to consider defense is that many times you need your single entities to hold the line rather than deal straight damage.
Elden ring video: spend 80% of the video leading up to the tip
This guy: “it’s defense, stick around to find out why”
Me: “no that’s all I need to know” *ends video likes*
Melee has deminishing returns, essentially
There are also more items to add melee attack to heroes than melee defence.
My take has always been to prioritize melee defense if I plan on sending that hero into battle.
I go melee attack first to kill enemy lords faster. Then MD. Usually battles are so easy I just want to finish them faster anyways.
Is charge bonus only impacting chance to hit on a charge? I thought it impacted a damage bonus units received for several seconds after connecting with a charge.
Do you think you could make a video about damage resistances and how they effect damage?
I chose hard to hit at first anyway since this way your lord may make it to level 20 more easy.
After that you can take whatever you want.
Thy for the Information. I always thought Charge Bonus increases the DMG done depending on where you Charge in? (side, back , front) im pretty sure i saw a video of sorts...?
Solid analysis. :D Question. Are there also a lot more rolls on melee defense for a hero in an infantry fight than melee attack too? So even if the chances were more even you would still benefit from a buffed melee def stat.
Very good video! These video's are the number 1 reason I'm subbed, so I'm always glad to see them!
You really should make a video that goes over yellow tree priority. MD is usually the best and Charge/armor are very low priority. But where on the priority ladder do you place Weapon Strength/Hit points?
I like picking attack when I need that hero to snipe enemy lords. Else I go melee defense.
I'm not sure I agree with the usage, I don't use my lords to kill infantry, I use them to kill the opposing lord which I'm not smart enough to calculate the new stats for but generally your lord tends to win out in the end if you're trying to snipe so melee attack to speed that up means there's less time for your army to take damage before theirs gets hit by the lord dead debuff.
What you didnt mention is that armor also blocks missile fire whereas melee defense does nothing for it.
I thought that if someone hits you in the back (phwoarr) you'll be hit 100% of the time, so it mostly doesn't matter how good your melee defence is if you're surrounded? So I thought investing in melee attack would be better..
How does the math work for units with low base armor, like Cylostra's ghost paladin? I remember leveling armor on him in WH2 was really useful.
What I've always wondered was whether or not (or to what degree) 'bonus vs x' and charge bonus damage deal armour piercing damage or what the go was with those two damage types, as I've never heard anyone mention it.
The bonus has the same AP/non-AP ratio as your baseline damage.
It's whatever the unit's natural AP ratio is. If it has 75%/25% AP/Non-AP then 20 bonus vs. infantry would add 15 AP, 5 Non-AP and 20 melee attack.
Bonus vs x increases melee attack and weapon strengh against x. Now, I think it increases both base weapon damages and base armour piercing weapon damages, but it is to be confirmed
Ahhh okay, thanks guys!
But what if I have single entities that are supposed to fight other single entities (like nakari or whatever). Don't I get a lot more survivable when I kill the opposing sem in one less attack?
Also defense is better because keeping your hero alive is paramount.
Good stats, but what about accounting for heroes fighting other heroes and lords?
You'll pick all of them eventually so I guess the best option is whichever helps your hero to get to lvl20
i'd give a generic lord or hero melee defence, but to very hard hitting legendary lords with high mass, maybe with sword of khaine too, i prioritize melee attack, just because i just want them to delete all the single entities units they face as fast as possible
I remember getting the word of khaine with skaven once, some random warlord assigned at the defense of the Bretonnian coast, got the sword and that turned him from one of the weakest army into the strongest one appart from Ikit's.
I just maxed as much missile defense and ward save and threw him at anything elven or norscan that got too close.
The only downside is I had to build a shit load of bells. Everyone got a bell. That skaven, that skaven, that skaven too, everyone gets a bell.
@@InquisitorShepard yes a friend of mine plays Ikit claw too, he always wind up with Alarielle bringing him the sword of khaine before turn 40 or something
I always go def .
What about charge bonus on a general with a mount that you can cycle charge?
Melee defense for auto resolve
melee defence can be nice for sure, but attack can be handy to goon their lord quicker
Thing is charge also adds damage not just attack
you forgot one important stat about charge bonus and why you should always take it, you have 49 points to spend and only so many places to spend it in, eventually you will put some there because you have no other choices.
how does ward saves , phisical/range/magic/poison resistance calculation works? mind making video about these and resistances/weaknesses how their damage calculation applies/works? and its resistances?
There is no poison resistance, as there is no poison damage(very few exceptions to this, like Skarsnik). Poison is a debuff that lowers enemy stats and you cant resist it.
If a poison deals damage, it is "true damage"(pure AP) and can only be mitigated by Ward Saves as far as I know.
Resistances are combined and checks if an attack has certain tags.
If it is regular physical damage from an arrow(ranged attack), then Physical Resistance, Missile Resistance and Ward Saves are all combined, up to a cap of 90% damage reduction.
If the attack has the Fire tag, then Fire resistance(or weakness) is also applied.
If an attack is Magical, it ignores any Physical Resistance.
That should be all of it.
@@fendelphi i know , just wanted to bulk everything as damage types/resistances , how they work reguarding to other defenses and damage calculation , as game never explains it
Gonna max out the charge bonus first of all. Thanks for the tip.
I didn't understand why charge bonus is useless?
Is charge bonus really useless?
In WH2 I fond out that the minotar heroes were performing better whith charge bonus maximised instead of weapon strenght.
I had to choose between the 2, since I first spec into assasination so that they will live longer.
So no, charge bonus is better than weapon strenght for a hero.
How does splash damage work? Like, monsters don't just hit a single infantryman, do they? Is that reliant on melee attack? Also, do Lords/Heroes do splash damage, because the idea of sending one dude against a unit of 120 just sounds like it would take forever, even if their stats are up for the task.
But if you go with double skill point per level mod, you can have it all anyway! 😂🤣
I always thought that charge bonus was the bonus dmg dealt from a charge until now lmao
Charge bonus increases both MA and Damage for ~10 seconds after a charge.
Very telling you pointed at weapon strength when talking about melee attack.
Imagine not going full charge bonus as Settra, couldnt be me.
armor for heros is really good when they dont have any...
Huh very interesting! I actually always went charge bonus and melee attack to make the lords/heroes more impactful. The AI usually doesn't assign correct responses to them, so I am more worried about making them more threatening quicker. Melee defense usually being the second option and then everything else.
I wondered how the charge bonus worked! I was under the impression it also increased damage so I usually give it to heroes and lords that I expect to charge a lot of infantry for that extra bit of dmg. Survival usually is not being that big of an issue anyway as I never try used my lords to create ai blobs as much I think that strat is a bit boring. Gotta say tho, after I saw what imrik did to my heroes, I will pay attention to melee defense more!
It does increase damage, but on most single entities the question is, does the added damage really matter? If they already have huge weapon strength then that might not make that much of a difference (especially if they end up fighting infantry where chances are they one or two shot models anyway).
I think charge bonus adds to both melee attack and damage for a few seconds and then declines. Not sure if that has changed.
Edit: That makes extra Charge Bonus better for Lords/Heroes that cycle charge instead of melee attack and sometimes even damage.
@@Kalulosu so my reasoning is for infantry is that since the damage is evenly spread among entities hit (e.g. you splash dmg 5 dudes, your weapon damage is divided by 5) you still want the extra damage to get more damage especially Vs more elite units. But this seems like smth I will have to test properly!
It does increased damage (basically, you get a bonus to melee attack and weaon damage equal to the charge bonus value that decays across a duration of 15 seconds after the charge). The issue is that even with splash damage, you are likely to just overkill models which wastes damage potential.
If you kit our your character explicitly for dueling or monster killing, it's a different story.
Vigor debuffs attack more severely than defense!
Which is also why an extra 30 Charge bonus can be important for characters without Perfect Vigour or ways to replenish Vigour. It helps counter various MA debuffs.
That's a great point! I hadn't considered that.
Wait, why is charge bonus useless here?
Against most fodder/chaff units, you Lord/Hero's Melee Attack+Charge bonus already ensures hit on the charge, so the additional charge bonus is only for slightly more damage on said charges.
However, against high tier units or enemy lords and heroes(60 MD or more), extra Charge Bonus will make a difference.
Why not both lol, immortal empire has plenty of trait points to spend and most of the older characters dont even get to choose when they can fill out every tree
I get that charge bonus is a nothing burger, but man, what I'm supposed to do with 50 points?
Even if I max out everything some heroes have some left... :D
Nah I ll still take chargebonus and melee off, just because a lot of heroes have less skills than potential skillpoints...
Been a sec since I played and read descriptions, but doesn't Charge Bonus temporarily increase Damage as well as To Hit chance?
It does, but if you're a single-entity hero, your weapon strength is high enough that the increased damage from the charge bonus is kinda negligible. What real difference does a temporary 30 damage make when you're already doing 400? Especially against infantry, because that 400 is already waaay overkill for most infantry.
@@shadowblade5656 thank you, that is something along the lines of what I was thinking for the most part too but I just wanted to be sure. I really appreciate it.
Perhaps if you're an armor piercing/magical attack lord and frequently sent against other cav or monsters for your Anti Large attack > then perhaps a little increased damage it's just a little more helpful; I did a 'head to head' once with a friend but we really just wanted to be 'same team different races'
He chose Durthu, I chose Alberic,
That paladin hero you start with hit lvl 20 so fast for me I said 'lol he's a keeper now either way' and didn't worry about blue skills or much defense > I don't remember if it was just his particular skill tree as a Brettonian Paladin, but he just had so many dang potential increases to Charge Bonus in there that I had to see what would happen if I stacked em. I think his got either a 130 increase or 130 total(more likely), but either way it was amusing.
@@shadowblade5656 ooh wait (just woke up srry) what about the 'Duelist' vs. 'Smack a buncha guys at Once' Lords?
Does 'Smack a buncha Guys' get a somewhat higher chance to smoke/farm more advanced infantry in a single swing/per swing than before if he tried that route (in case one or two get back up for the damage spread out sometimes) or do you think the number of entities he's allowed to smack could even go up? :D
Heck Zerkovich might have done q video on this but it's been a long time
@@sonofthebearking3335 If you've got charge defense, it could be better to go out front and let the monsters or cav charge you, so you wanna be bracing and therefore won't get charge bonus. If you're mounted and can move around and reposition and get in and out of combat to make good use of your charge bonus, go for it. If you're playing Bretonnia or someone and just wanna see the absurd numbers get even more absurd, that's a lot of fun too.
I find that trying to leave combat and re-charge a target I'm duelling tends to be problematic sometimes, I usually dont try it much.
As far as heroes/lords hitting multiple targets, I dont actually know how that works. I *think* it's "you have a limited number of total targets you can hit, which is fixed and can't normally increase, and you deal full damage to all of them" but I dont know that for sure.
I KNEW I WAS ALWAYS LEVELING RIGHT
I disagree. Whilst It ranges depending on the situation, if were talking solely footlord/hero vs infantry regiment, armour is far more important than you give it credit for.
Yes, having 10 more armour is going to remove very little damage from each hit, but damage resistance (in this case armour) multiplies health, in terms of calculating effective health.
Meaning the higher the entity health, the more potent damage resistance (in this case armour) is: +20 armour on a saurus warrior with 100 health is going to make it FAR more tanky than on an empire soldier with only 69 health, even more so w. a lord/hero that has 2000-10000 or even more health, at that point even the smallest damage reduction value is going to end up giving THOUSANDS in effective health. Every little bit counts for high health single entities, and doesn't count at all for basic infantry.
Charge needs to be redone. So useless. And in hero v hero fights they tend to jump past the opponent anyway on the first strike
But then why u give Karl armor?
It depends.
More like this. I get to choose what units to attack and how to enhance my heroes, but am never told exactly how everything stacks up against each other so the choice is meaningless without information on which to base it.
Should I put swords into boyz and greatswords into black orcs? Or should I accept that the black orcs will murder what they meet and sacrifice the swords? Will greatswords kill goblins much faster than swords will? The game should explain how much of a stat difference matters and when it's excessive. Until it does, maybe a RUclipsr can fill the gap.
On that sense i can tell you:
Swords vs swords, cuz spear vs swords you loose.
Spears have higher melee defense than swords, so they'll hold, but start dying quickly.
Axes have higher melee attack than swords, so they win, maces have higher melee defense, so depending on melee attack they win ( saurus for example )
Great swords usually are anti-infantry, this stats imo skip any resistances ( minus ward save ) so will deal more damage to all other infantry units.
The caveat is that being a higher quality unit, comes with less models, so higher numbers can win against great swords.
The goblin vs great swords scenario for example, great swords win, if goblins don't get AP.
If they do, they win.
( This is why I like buff spells, and don't use the red tree, lore of little WAAGH can be surprising )
Thinking about the logic and reading stats closely can give you this information easily.
Nowhere did I find anything telling me that the hit rate is, say, 50% when the same, 60% at +5 and 90% at +20 and above. Maybe the help sections have improved since I bought the game.
What about unit numbers? Do long lines wrap around and create defence penalties, or do the wrapped unit models all face outwards in different directions, making unit numbers simply about hit points?
A guide explaining some of the programming and unit behaviour did not exist when I looked for it.
Yes, even an idiot can guess a reasonable answer. But the precise hit rates etc. - the unguessable detail - are not given.
@@quentincroft6172 there you go, precise stats don't exist, for that you got Zerkovich for example.
He also goes deeper into units wrapping around, yes, thicker / thinner formations are taught by Zerkovich and party elite.
What you need to know logically is higher melee attack than defense means very high chance of hitting, thinner formations deal more damage, but takes more damage.
Thicker formations last longer, but run the risk of being surrounded etc.
He does deep dives into the math involved, but tbh you don't need that much info, cuz the point ain't to min max that deeply.
If you feel the need to do so, legend of total war teaches all the cheese / min max / doomstack tactics.
( But enticity obviously dives deep into multiplayer and explains all the math involved, for efficient comps, since efficiency / countering is key for multiplayer )
@@quentincroft6172 imo, it's best this way, cuz content creators establish a nice bridge between the player base, and the company.
So the barrier of entry isn't as high as StarCraft 2, but the peak is similar.
i go melee defence first always cuz i dont want anyone to die😅
Wight king's ultimatum
and then you realise that heroes have so high stats that you want them to actually deal damage in a battle
thus you want the attack so your lords dont end the battle with 0 damage taken, 0 damage done
Is armor more valuable on low armor character like N'Kari?
It doubles your armour, so definitely yes, but it still depends on what you are facing. Against HE spears and archers which lack AP, it's very useful. Against shades and darkshards? Not so much.
Yes
His damage calculation is based against enemies with roughly 1/4 AP ratio. Which is "the norm" for many melee units. But there are also a fairly high amount of units with poor AP ratio(1/6 or less) and against them, Armor is very efficient. The good thing about armor is that it works against melee, ranged and magic, assuming that they are not pure AP.
Your information should be in an advanced tutorial!
Or, and don't tell anyone I told you this, you download the mod that gives you 10 extra skill points on your lord and 5 on your hero and you just take it all :P
is that even necessary anymore? pretty much all my heroes have way too many sp and even some of the lords
oh its Kevin RIP
The yellow line is kinda lame for vanilla lords, only defense boost is worth something...
I mean, the obvious thing here is that you will be maxing out your heroes pretty quickly anyway, so it's not really a choice.
So, charge bonus it is
Great game design when 2/4 of the options are practically useless. Arguably 3/4.