New experimental version

[Seravy]

The cost of my Longbowmen are 450 yet they are worse than 9 Spearmen for 90 if I send them against a Skeleton. So what? This isn't a game where costs can offset using something against the wrong target. Multi-figures vs high armor = wrong target. At least until you put even more buffs on them and that high armor suddenly isn't enough...

[Nelphine]

multi figures should have minimun damage capped or hardcoded. actually, is it feasible to hardcode it on a per unit and per buff basis? (so you can make high-end buffs increase it by maybe 1 or 2)

Inviato dal mio GT-I9100 utilizzando Tapatalk

'Armor beats multi figures'

That's why I'm suggesting increasing minimum damage based on number of attacking figures. That way all units CAN use minimal damage rule if they have enough buffs, but it won't be as good for multi figures.

My suggestion would make the minimum damage for vezerkers start only once they reached 13 damage, instead of 6 damage like a single target gets.

This allows city troops like minotaurs and golems, who do seem reasonsble targets, to benefit. And heroes who don't get doom or phantasmal (since the AI can't pick items nearly well enough).

And my bezerkers, with the investment I've put in.. Would do minimum 12 or so. So they still get it, but its not the 24 you don't like.

[Nelphine]

(Also your longbowmen would be almost twice as good as the spearmen and that's a cost difference of a few hundred production, not 10s of thousands of power production and several starting picks. Scale matters.)

[zitro1987]

I'd rather remove the minimum damage concept over an arbitrary, non-intuitive mathematical set of rules that apply for some units but not others. Too confusing and seemingly impossible to resolve without rules and non-intuitive math.

Despite all the armor/spells I give to certain heroes, v.rare single-figure units wear them down easily.

[Seravy]

Bowmen have 1 swords, spearmen have 2 :D
Anyway, I could have said Death Spell against Paladins or 9 Cockatrices against a Gargoyle or 9 Storm Giants against a magic immune flying Storm Giant. Or a 10000 total cost nonflying hero (including artifacts) vs 2 Great Wyrms.

[Seravy]

I'd rather remove the minimum damage concept over an arbitrary, non-intuitive mathematical set of rules that apply for some units but not others. Too confusing and seemingly impossible to resolve without rules and non-intuitive math.

If that makes more sense, we can turn it into a unit ability the listed units simply have "Ferocius - deals minimal damage equal to..."

[Nelphine]

Also, if you put a few buffs on your great drakes (equal to the amount I'm spending on my bezerkers; say, blazing march, survival instinct, and summon champion/hero 5 times to get a soul linker), my bezerker minimum damage (with my suggestion) is 12; with your version is 24; and the great drake damage in either version is a minimum of 36-46. So, my bezerkers still don't remotely compare. But at least they CAN fight what the summon can fight, which for the cost investment, makes sense.

[Seravy]

lolwhat?

A Great Drake does 14 minimal damage, Breath included. No, 16 with the current rounding. Anyway, I'd like to see the buffs that make Great Drakes have 100 swords and breath strength for that 46 damage. If you find any, my nerfhammer is ready :D

[Nelphine]

24 minimum damage from bezerkers includes thrown attack. 46 includes breath attack (so 23 for each of standard and breath when they have +3 to hit from other buffs; dropping to 18 per attack so 36 for melee + breath if its +2 from other buffs)

How do you get 14 minimal? That would be 7, which would mean only 18 damage per hit, which would be if they had +5 to hit total; they START with more than +5 to hit.

[Seravy]

Okay so let me think this through. 46 guaranteed damage would require dealing 23 from both sources.
23*2+6 = 52 damage is needed before minimal damage.

That is 74 swords assuming a +4 To Hit. Berserk is not in the game anymore, you know...