Attack and defence rolls in MoM Patch 1.52.03

[resnet34]

This is the bit in MoM Wiki page on Attack rolls that confused me: 

On the other hand, however, because each figure attacks separately, the actual net damage is generally much lower in practice than the direct product of the Attack Strength and figure count would indicate.

I thoroughly understand the implications of such damage count, due to the floor function for any damage between 0 and 1. How does this work in GoG version, with community patch 1.52.03? The latter is better in my opinion.

[drake178]

What is confusing about it? A 4-figure unit with an attack strength of 5 has a damage potential of 20, same as a 20-strength Fire Bolt. Yet, the spell will typically do more damage on average unless the unit has a bonus to hit or the target has an effective defense of 0 (or something obscenely high).

There's no difference between vanilla and the CP here.

[resnet34]

What is confusing about it? A 4-figure unit with an attack strength of 5 has a damage potential of 20, same as a 20-strength Fire Bolt. Yet, the spell will typically do more damage on average unless the unit has a bonus to hit or the target has an effective defense of 0 (or something obscenely high).

There's no difference between vanilla and the CP here.

What do you mean by the comparison of spell to multifigure unit with the same raw attack?

[drake178]

Right. Sorry, I forgot that you didn't understand this the last time either... In theory, when speaking about conventional damage, whether the source is a unit or a spell is largely irrelevant, because the mechanics are meant to be the same. There are some nuances that apply to only one or the other, but they generally don't affect the basics of the resolution. In my previous response specifically, this means that you can substitute the 20-strength Fire Bolt with an attack from a single figure unit that has an attack strength of 20 and arrive at the same conclusion, provided that the unit does not have any modifiers to hit (for the spell, this is an implied circumstance).

We could call this, for example, the "definitive" damage potential if we wanted to specify it somehow. "Maximum" or "highest" could work too, but the damage potential is itself already a theoretical maximum, so that would probably be even more confusing. I decided not to call it anything in the article you quoted because defining this concept has almost no bearing on reality. It's only relevant in the one particular comparison between the amount of damage that a multi-figure unit would do if it used the product of its figure count and attack strength to perform a single attack, versus how multi-figure attacks are actually resolved in practice. While there are multiple ways to reach a total damage potential of 20 if one were to multiply figure counts by attack strengths, there is only one "combination" of these that has this damage potential using only a single attack. That is what the sentence in your original quote refers to as what the "direct product of the Attack Strength and figure count would indicate".

The only reason I mentioned any of this at all in the article is because the original game manual got it wrong, and in its combat example wrongly claims that multi-figure units multiply the attack strength with the figure count to make a single attack. This is not true. In reality, each figure in a multi-figure unit performs an individual attack instead, which makes the "figure count by attack strength" construct an entirely unnecessary abstraction that serves no practical purpose outside of one specific "what-if" comparison, that is the essence of the sentence you originally quoted. It is simply meant to highlight that, in an average scenario, separate attacks mean less overall damage than what a single attack using the product as the strength would cause, because each of those attacks prompt a separate defense roll, and more defense rolls means more damage reduction.

Is that any clearer?

[resnet34]

Right. Sorry, I forgot that you didn't understand this the last time either... In theory, when speaking about conventional damage, whether the source is a unit or a spell is largely irrelevant, because the mechanics are meant to be the same. There are some nuances that apply to only one or the other, but they generally don't affect the basics of the resolution. In my previous response specifically, this means that you can substitute the 20-strength Fire Bolt with an attack from a single figure unit that has an attack strength of 20 and arrive at the same conclusion, provided that the unit does not have any modifiers to hit (for the spell, this is an implied circumstance).

We could call this, for example, the "definitive" damage potential if we wanted to specify it somehow. "Maximum" or "highest" could work too, but the damage potential is itself already a theoretical maximum, so that would probably be even more confusing. I decided not to call it anything in the article you quoted because defining this concept has almost no bearing on reality. It's only relevant in the one particular comparison between the amount of damage that a multi-figure unit would do if it used the product of its figure count and attack strength to perform a single attack, versus how multi-figure attacks are actually resolved in practice. While there are multiple ways to reach a total damage potential of 20 if one were to multiply figure counts by attack strengths, there is only one "combination" of these that has this damage potential using only a single attack. That is what the sentence in your original quote refers to as what the "direct product of the Attack Strength and figure count would indicate".

The only reason I mentioned any of this at all in the article is because the original game manual got it wrong, and in its combat example wrongly claims that multi-figure units multiply the attack strength with the figure count to make a single attack. This is not true. In reality, each figure in a multi-figure unit performs an individual attack instead, which makes the "figure count by attack strength" construct an entirely unnecessary abstraction that serves no practical purpose outside of one specific "what-if" comparison, that is the essence of the sentence you originally quoted. It is simply meant to highlight that, in an average scenario, separate attacks mean less overall damage than what a single attack using the product as the strength would cause, because each of those attacks prompt a separate defense roll, and more defense rolls means more damage reduction.

Is that any clearer?

You are a really weird entity m8, 'cause this passive-aggressive insulting you keep directing at someone who never wronged you in any way, is typically a red flag, which tells more about you than anything you write (or don't write), exposing your bitter and unhappy personality in a context where it is completely unwarranted. Well it doesn't hurt me in the slightest, as it's trivial to just brush it off. In short - it sucks to be you.  

In fact, if you felt like the post was not up to the standard - you could have just ignored or even deleted it - but no, you simply couldn't refrain from weaving your anonymous poison into your writing, much to the toxic delight of your barren sorrowful soul. Worst come to worst, if you felt you had to explain things all over again - you could have just left a link to the post where you had done it previously, case solved.

Even better - you can just ban me, and never need to read some repetitive junk written by a half-wit who fails to grasp even the most trivial aspects of the game.

Speaking of which - the only reason I asked the question is because you shit at explaining, your writing is quite bungled and inconsistent, and your (counter)arguments almost never deliberately address the raised points. This is particularly laughable when the arguments I provided were supported by rigorous mathematical derivations, as I did originally in the CC post. 

That clear enough? Accent not too hard, language and spelling accurate enough for you?

[drake178]

Is that a yes, then? Because I'm afraid I couldn't care less about what you just wrote. The only thing that matters to me here is whether you've obtained the piece of knowledge or understanding that you were seeking in your original post. Ironically, I didn't actually mean that one sentence, which I assume triggered your outburst, in a derogatory way at all. You got one thing right, though: I [am] shit at explaining. But that's not going to stop me from trying. If that bothers you, you can always write in your question that you want an answer from someone other than me. Maybe you'll get lucky - especially after this thread!

[rgp151]

I'll try to reset and see if this addresses your question. I'm not sure how this related to the patch exactly. I think the main reason the damage is lower with multi figures is due to defenses. If you have 8 figure normal elite Spearmen that do 3 damage, this is a total of 24 damage. Compare that to a hero that does 24 damage, and we can assume both have +2 to hit.

If the spearmen attack a defender that has 5 shields, then there will be eight 3 strength attacks, each of which will go up against 5 strength defense rolls. Assuming no defensive bonuses, this gives a 63% chance of each figure doing 0 damage and a 10% chance for each figure to do 2 damage. For an 8 figure unit, this gives the highest overall chance of doing 4 total damage, at about an 18% probably to do so. The average total damage will be 4.12,

On the other hand, if you have a single unit that does 24 damage, then its a single attack of 24 vs a single defense roll of 5, resulting in a much higher chance of doing between 10 and 12 damage. The average damage will be 10.5.

So that's the reason behind why multi-figure units do less net damage given the same aggregate damage potential as a single figure unit, and as far as I know, there is nothing different about this between 1.3 and 1.5.

There is this for further experimentation: https://masterofmagic.fandom.com/wiki/Damage_Calculator