Melee Defence, Armor, or Hit Points?

[Corvus_Alt1]

I'm a little confused as to which of these stats is better than the other. Is there any clear, objective ranking of the qualtiy of these skills?

[Fromage]

Hit Points are the most important IMO. When its zero, the unit dies.
Melee Defence is chance to not get hit in melee.
Armor, blocks weapon damage, but not AP.

[Green Raven]

When units clash, Melee Defence goes up against Melee Attack to determine if a hit goes through.
When a hit connects, Armor acts as a mitigating factor, deciding how much HP is lost from Weapon Damage.

So if you use the Ere We Go spell - which improves Melee Attack but doesnt affect Damage - on a Goblin who is desperatly poking his pointy stick at a Dwarven Iron Breaker, its just a waste of mana. The Goblin will land more hits, but those hits will bounce right of the armor.

Conversly, if you use the Occam's Mindrazor - Which only improves Damage - on Wraiths slaughtering a Peasant Mob, thats also a waste. Wraiths already have more than enough strength to kill off the enemy. What you want is a buff to Melee Attack, so they can finish them off faster.

[StarofTanuki]

imo
hit point "per" unit
armor
melee defend

[Corvus_Alt1]

Okay, so we have two in favor of hit points, followed by armor. Huh. I'm beginning to have slight regrets about favoring armor with one of my Arch Lectors now. Oh well, second best is still good.

[harleyquinrazer]

Lords and Heroes can never have too much HP.

Higher Defence means staying alive longer when dueling other lords, heroes, monsters and when fighting surrounded by overwhelming numbers.

Armour serves a similar role to defence with the added benefit of protecting against non AP ranged attacks. Not helpful when opposition is heavy on AP damage.

[Corvus_Alt1]

So, HP really is the best one? Okay, good to know. Hmmm... Is Armor more important than melee defense, or vice versa?

[drazan]

weapon damage > meelee attack> hitpoints > meelee defence > armour > charge


that's how i'd label them from "best to worst"

[Corvus_Alt1]

Really? You'd pick weapon damage over all of them? Huh... bit of a glass cannon approach, but I can see how that would work. Not sure if I'd put melee attack over defense, but I can see why that would be attractive. And I suppose, considering the existence of armor piercing, melee defense would be overall better than armor.

So, basically,

Hitpoints > Melee Defense > Armor

Weapon Damage > Melee Attack > Charge (at the very bottom)

Shame I screwed up a bit and put two points in my Reiksmarshall's Armor. Oh well, he's mostly just the recruiter/governer general of Reikland at this point, so it's doubtful he'll see too much combat beyond reinforcement.

Incidentally, would you give Lords and Arch Lectors horse mounts, or just keep them on foot?

[drazan]

Originally posted by Corvus917:

Really? You'd pick weapon damage over all of them? Huh... bit of a glass cannon approach, but I can see how that would work. Not sure if I'd put melee attack over defense, but I can see why that would be attractive. And I suppose, considering the existence of armor piercing, melee defense would be overall better than armor.

So, basically,

Hitpoints > Melee Defense > Armor

Weapon Damage > Melee Attack > Charge (at the very bottom)

Shame I screwed up a bit and put two points in my Reiksmarshall's Armor. Oh well, he's mostly just the recruiter/governer general of Reikland at this point, so it's doubtful he'll see too much combat beyond reinforcement.

Incidentally, would you give Lords and Arch Lectors horse mounts, or just keep them on foot?

yup, armour is good to have, but since every lord has ATLEAST 100 armour piercing damage, it's safer to go meelee defence first. better to not get hit at all, then taking "reduced" damage

and while some lords feel like glasscannon, the real powerhouses like grimgor, ungrim etc benefit much more from meelee attack and weapon damage then anything else
if you hit like a truck, and keep hitting like a truck then there is no lord that can match yours
weapon damage increases both base damage and armour piercing damage
a goblin big boss for example, while having weak combat stats..if you build him properly, he will have 4khp, 470+ weapon damage (with 150+ armour piercing) and depending on items on him can have both 60 meelee d efence and meelee attack) but, he's super fast
+15% speed so he can charge, hit, then run away and repeat
it's micro heavy, but very rewarding



and for lords, i rarely use mounts...allmost never even
i'm so used playing as grimgor that i don't feel the need for a mount, a small mount like a horse on the other hand can be useful for support lords/heroes, so they can strafe behind your frontline and provide their buffs/effects/pâssives to your entire line
very useful with stuff like hold the line

[Corvus_Alt1]

Thanks for the advice! Wish I knew how good hit points were a little earlier, but I suppose I can live with one mistake. It's either that, or I load up a previous save. Sigh. Really don't want to do that, he's got +30% province income. Oh well, I'll just tell myself that those are spare points for a governor general.

[Ape-tier Buffoonery]

The thing is most lords are already pretty good on their own. Atleast damage wise.

Its why most people, me included are in the "defensive" side of skills. To me personally its: hit points > melee defense > melee damage > melee attack (if some stupid low number like 30) > armour > melee attack (if not picked up earlier) > charge

Reasoning for this is health and the chance to completely dodge damage is too good to pass up and keeps that lord in battle a lot longer. Then increased damage because +15% coming off 300 or 400+ melee damage is huge. Armour is a bit low because lords usually have 100 or so already so a bit extra isnt that helpful.

Some lords get some wonky things like +speed which is nice and Id throw that in before melee attack, and then others get lame +melee damage vs a certain faction which is too situational for my taste.

[StarofTanuki]

Now i'm just looking on Karl fanz+Deathclaw 5100 hp and Orion 6800 hp

i change my mind

Armour > HP > melee def

[FrontlinerDelta]

It can depend.

Melee Defense is 100% mitigation when it "works". Buffing up to a high melee defense means fewer melee hits get through to deal damage, whether it's armor piercing or not.

Armor is nice in my mind because it lowers the amount of damage received from two sources: melee AND ranged. If you expect to be taking a lot of arrow fire, armor can shore that up nicely.

HP is pure tankiness.

[StarofTanuki]

also in my experience

melee def don't caculate on splash attack or very least effect , if it does why Valfgulf (big monkey bat) win vs ironbreaker
but tree man can't kill even 3 ironbreaker (while treeman have 100 ap value)

[Ape-tier Buffoonery]

Originally posted by FrontlinerDelta:

It can depend.

Melee Defense is 100% mitigation when it "works". Buffing up to a high melee defense means fewer melee hits get through to deal damage, whether it's armor piercing or not.

Armor is nice in my mind because it lowers the amount of damage received from two sources: melee AND ranged. If you expect to be taking a lot of arrow fire, armor can shore that up nicely.

HP is pure tankiness.

Sure armour mitigates ranged but like I said before most lords have 100 or close to that armour. So regular ranged damage which is like 15 to 17 damage 3 or 4 of it being pierce wont really increase or decrease with a lack or bonus of 10 armour unless their base armour stat is low, in the 30s or so.

So im under the impression if youre getting damaged by ranged the only real way to decrease that damage is by having a shield by default if your lord starts with it on foot or just take the fire and charge them if mounted. Items and weapon skills help, I wouldnt bother wasting a trait for the -10% ranged damage taken. Kinda wish that was a ward instead, thatd be useful.