I love short form content that you make! It manages to be exceedingly in depth, while leaving out anything superfluous.; just absolutely *chef kiss* beautiful
Same, informative and straight to the point. I also enjoy the lack of 5 minutes of shameless self pluck to pad out view time that most youtubers do nowadays.
My Valkia campaign has ended with my chosen at rank 7+ having 162 armor during battles,,, And 4 chosen DW and 4 chosen with shield practically ignore everything that has come against them,,, Alith Anar had some fun with when my chosen DW caught a few archer units. Khorne was happy with them that turn.
Armor is so insane that not having an AP units in a matchup against armored units is incredibly hard to win Khorne warriors are insanely effective soley because of their low cost and high armor Dwarves are the same but dont do damage
It's one of the dilemmas I haven't yet solved playing the Vlad campaign. Usually, I'm conquering elsewhere, which results in a giant Dawi empire that's difficult to dismantle. I have no clue on how to fight the Dawi earlier though, because those stunties are fully decked out and armored from the get go and VC doesn't seem to get any unit that's early and effective enough against the Dwarfs. :/
OMG I never knew those AP damage percentages were so consistent! It annoyed me SO much to have to look in the damage popup to figure out the proportions!
Finally! Tournaments players know all of this but most people could not see their discussions/thought process and noraml players actually can only guess what unit is cost effective by eye test. Hopefully everyone can now understand how much preparation is needed for all matchups to master a race.
Ent casually assuming we can multiply percentages in our head. Love the optimism there, but I'm still bringing the dread saurian so clearly I can't do math.
maybe its a bug, but i've learned from my first campaign being Vlad that in campaign the skill tree points and technologies that buff weapon damage for ethereal units gives them base weapon damage increase as well as an armor piercing damage increase, meaning that they go from 0 base weapon damage to... some, lol. It could also be intentional... but if it was intentional i don't understand why it would be XD
@@wesjanson6979 nah it's likely not intentional, they just forgot to change those buffs to 100% AP and those use their old split between AP and non-AP.
I enjoy these in depth tours of the mechanics. Please bring us the numbers behind the final boss of all TWW calculations: AUTO RESOLVE. Sigmar commands it!
Exactly why I adore Frontline infantry with 100 armor. Low armor 20% physical resist troops always feel terribly squishy when that 20% becomes 27 armor against zombies and whatnot.
I knew about the armor calculation being ~75% of the armor stat, but I never actally thought about comparing it to the effectiveness of shields. Also I had no idea about the standard 10% / 25% / 75% ap to base damage ratio, I thought they'd be much more diverse so I never bothered thinking about it much more. I enjoy your streams and memes a lot, but your informational videos have always been my favourite. They're the reason I subscribed, and the reason I stay!
So basically steam tanks and bastilodons only take armor piercing damage most of the time, and additional armor value past 200 becomes redundant. There's also the fact that damage resistance stacks with armor, reducing the armor piercing damage that would make it through, making your units that much tougher.
@@a0point0of0view1 damage resistance and armor damage reduction is not the same. Unless they changed it for Warhammer 3, having 200 armor and 90 % damage resistance will stack and in most cases reduce your damage taken to 0. It's not too difficult to do with the dwarves thanks to their runes and rune magic, and lotw has a couple of videos where this is the case too.
@@SleepyFen Armor can reduce the base damage completely, but then there's alway some ap damage. Both are then reduced/increased based on resistance, up to 90% reduced (or 100% increased) though. And damage can never go lower than 1. If you hit, you always deal at least 1 damage
@@Kraykz If i remember correctly - capped armor and capped resistances can result in taking 0 damage from low-tier archers, it was showcased by Legend in some single-man doomstack videos.
@@Kraykz If the damage taken is reduced bellow one by a combination of wardsave and armour then you can take 0 damage, i'm not sure if any value under 1 is enough or if it has to reach a certain point for rounding reasons but you can take 0 damage from attacks.
I am so glad I came across this video. I'm a casual player, but having this information now easily accessible now is going to super helpful in my games.
Great Video! There's a few incorrect values at 0:55 but it's pretty minor. The most important thing that is not mentioned though is that the value of adding more armor goes up with higher and higher armor values due to how percentages work. For example: Adding 10 armor to a 0 armor unit increases percent reduction from 0%->7.5%, in turn cutting damage taken from 100%->92.5%, a 7.5% reduction. Adding 10 armor to a 90 armor unit increases percent reduction from 67.5%->75%, cutting damage taken from 32.5%->25%, a whopping 23% reduction in damage taken!
yes. also i dont think that 150 armor will give 100% protection. it becomes less and less effective at those levels. it wont reduce damage taken by that much. maybe if u talk % based but its not really that significant anyway.
You're correct that 150 armor does not give 100% reduction (on average that is, it CAN give it for any particular hit), 200 armor does. Armor doesn't lose its value because of the down scaling of percentage points when above 100, ignoring armor piercing, this effect is outweighed by the ever increasing value of armor as you approach 100% reduction. But when you add ap to the mix, it does start to make higher values less efficient, as it essentially caps the percent reduction at the percentage of normal damage.
@@NitrosBG I do think that it makes the chance of taking no normal dmg much higher as the chance a random number selected would be lower than 100, very low. Still, the value of reducing normal damage a bit more, is really low. So stacking a bit more armor to heavily armored units, wont have any major difference. Above 100 armor, the value of extra armor becomes smaller.
@@cobrazax focus on the averages and changes in damage taken. An intuitive way to look at it is that 100% damage reduction is infinitely better than 99% damage reduction.
@@NitrosBG Sure but is it worth investing in it? To reduce base damage taken by a tiny amount? I really dont think its worth it. At least not on extreme armor levels. I put armor as the last trait to increase on my heavily armored characters like wight kings, when they got way more than 100 armor. Sure its useful but its effect is tiny overall.
Thanks for this Enticity. There's been some real misinformation on armor lately! People took an opinion to a hyperbolic extreme and decided armor was crap. It can do a lot for you!
Do a video on charge bonus. So much misinformation about it! After a successful charge, does it add to weapon strength? Melee attack? Both? For how long? What even is a “successful charge?” I’ve gotten so many conflicting answers!
The charge bonus will apply to both melee attack and weapon damage during a charge attack. In order for the charge bonus to apply that unit needs to actually have an attack order on the unit they are charging into otherwise there will be no bonus. Meaning you can technically intercept a charging unit before the charge occurs. not sure for how long the bonus applies but it is not for very long after the initial collision.
I started doubting armor when I had to hide the hammerers Throgrimm starts with from some goblin archers from the first battle back in WH1. But I came to think that the notorious paper armor effect of the hammerers is due to formation. Dwarves are simply super tightly packed which will make less shots miss compared to loosely positioned Saurus for example.
my brain has still trouble with the state value from anti infintry and anti-large, some units get bonus in that from lord traits or researches or have them in general. can you make everything you need to know about that. this one help me understand armor very well :D
Anti-infantry gives its value in additional attack when hitting an infantry target as well as increases the damage with the same split between base damage and AP damage as the base weapon strength. Anti-large does the same, but against anything that isn't infantry.
Anti Infantry Weapons give Melee Attack and Weapon Damage Bonus against Infantry, one example is Black Ark Corsairs who have 36 Attack, 21 Base Damage, 7 AP Damage, 8 Anti Infantry. When attacking Infantry unit it became 36 + 8 Attack, Base damage is 75% of the Weapon damage which makes the 8 Weapon damage turn into 21+6 Base Damage, while the AP become 7 + 2 due to being 25% of the weapon damage. Against high armored Infantry like Chaos Warriors the +2 AP won't do much but the 44 Attack will allow the BAC to get more hit with 9 Damage. Although I still think it should be fully AP, so BAC fighting Chaos Warriors will have 36+8 Attack, but having 21 Base Damage and 7+8 AP damage, due to the 50-100% of the Armor Roll the 100 Armor Chaos Warriors have, at a bad roll it will be 50 Armor which no base damage could get.
Quite simple: You add the bonus as both melee attack and weapon damage when fighting the right unit. So for instance, if you have a unit with 30 melee attack, 30 weapon strength (10 of which is armour-piercing) and a bonus vs large of 15 then this unit will have 45 melee attack and 45 weapon strength (15 of which would be armour-piercing) when attacking a large target. You just add the anti-large or anti-infantry level on top of melee attack and weapon strength whilst keeping the ratio of armour-piercing to non armour-piercing the same.
Its like a constant charge bonus against those units. more to melee attack (hit chance) and more weapon strength (damage). This makes these units able to be extremely strong against the correct unit type, as they do massive damage and hit way more times. Usually with most attacks. The trait is especially useful for many entities units as the damage boost is more significant for them. Each entity gets that damage boost. A single entity can enjoy the melee attack boost, but the damage boost is usually minor. This still makes it very useful, but not that much in the damage done in each attack. Also, infantry basically means anything that isnt large. That includes dog units, as well as even a lord like the strigoi ghoul king.
I had a lot of my lords and heros in my last Dwarf campaign get to 200 armor. It was a bit overkill honestly, but they held a line far better than any infantry could ever hope to. AP infantry don't usually have enough melee attack to pose a threat, only lords and monsters/cav on a charge were a threat. Really opened up the firing lanes for thunderers and irondrakes.
One category of AP you neglected to mention: 100% AP which is found on all ethereal units (such as Syreens, Cairn Wraiths and dwarfen ancestral heroes) and certain spells (such as lash of slaanesh).
Your calculation of average armor is incorrect. 130 armor rolls between 130 and 65, so there's a 30/65 chance it rolls for 100+ and a uniform distribution between 65 and 100 with a mean of 82.5%. That gives (65+17.5)*35/65+100*30/65 = 90.5%. It might not sound like a big difference compared to your calculation, but it becomes a bigger difference for higher armor values. With your calculation, armor would cap at 150 armor and 100% average reduction, but there is still a chance of rolling between 75 and 100, so it's obviously wrong. Armor only caps at 200 armor when there is no chance whatsoever of rolling less than 100.
Not only that but in most cases high armour means lower speed as was the deal with Empire Cav in WH2. Speed is in most cases more important than armour because armour counts for little if you can't catch the thing you're chasing.
@@myballsgetlikt1313 There are more exceptions to this, then things that follow it. Enough to say there isn't really any correlation to armor = slower.
If you guys want the numbers, Chaos Warriors (GW) take about 10.5 dmg/hit from Jade Crossbows, while Marauders take about 14.7 dmg/hit. For a unit with bronze shields to be as effective or more at absorbing missiles as Chaos Warriors (GW), they would need 59 armor or greater. Now to be fair, shields are obviously far better versus armor piercing missiles. Chaos Warriors (GW) take MORE damage than Marauders from Celestial Crossbowmen, with Chaos Warriors (GW) receiving about 13.3 dmg/hit and Marauders only receiving 10.8 dmg/hit.
One thing that wasn't taken into consideration is the fact that vigor affects armor. Assuming that fatigue still works as in WH2, you lose 10% of your armor at the second lowest and 25% at the lowest level of vigor. Generally speaking units with low armor and some phys resist are good against AP damage and high armor no resist units are good against high damage, low AP. But in prolonged combat physical resist is more effective since it's not affected by vigor. This is more important in single player than multiplayer, since cheese tactics often involve a single entity unit standing inside blob for prolonged period in order to kill hordes of enemies with mortis engine, missiles or magic.
@@UnproductiveSunbeam I've never heard of vigour affecting armour before, but low vigour certainly reduces stats like melee attack/defence and reload skill as well as speed. I think it caps out at a -30% to melee stats when exhausted, so it's something to consider when fighting. Basically tired troops fight worse than fresh troops, so what might be a relatively close match-up (Orc Big 'Uns vs Empire Greatswords) can become a stomp for the Empire if the Orcs are exhausted from a lot of running and fighting. Edit: Checked the wiki, and yes, when units are very tired or exhausted they suffer a -25%/30% armour penalty respectively. Seems weird, but thems the stats
Nah, damage negation from armor is capped at 95% or 97% i dont remember. You can have like 300 armor and you would have the same effectiveness as if it was 130.
The minimum amount of non-ap damage an attack can do is one. So if Peasant Bowmen are shooting at a really buffed up Beastman Doombull with 200 armour, their arrows will do a guaranteed of (3 AP + 1 non-AP) = 4 damage per shot.
You could almost say say it's the equivalent to 40 armor since it covers both the AP side and non ap vs most units, but yes, they're a lot better vs high ap. That's partially why bloodletters are so effective against equivalent elite infantry.
This math all works except for the last bit. Handgunners are 20% more expensive, but versus saursu, they are better by 20 percentage points, not 20%. They're roughly 34% higher damage (say, 10 damage as a round number, 11% resist means 8.9 damage and 34% resist means 6.6 damage. 8.9 is 34.8% higher than 6.6) so handgunners are meaningfully better vs saurus when it comes to ap, since they are 20% more expensive, but 35% more damaging.
If you want to be that detailed, did you factor in Saurus with shields shield block, amount of ammo each of these units has and their cost per volley because of that? Not saying you are wrong, but how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?
Oh, In first case, damage is 100% "possible to reduce", 75% of 100% is 75%. Next, Only 75% is "possible to reduce", and 75% of 75% is 56%, and the last case, where only 25% is "possible to reduce", 75% of 25% is 19%. Thanks 😆
So is AP weaponry just the best in general? As basically everyone has armour to some degree, is it better to always go for armour piercing when possible?
Pretty much yes. Of course, sometimes non AP units have higher base weapon damage, making them more effective than AP units against low armor, and AP units usually pay for their damage stats with other low stats or being more expensive
it depends. For example if you're playing nurgle and want AP damage then you'll have to take units with great weapons which means they won't have a shield and can be targeted by ranged units. Enticity did mention that armor can be more important than having shields in this video but that doesnt mean shields aren't useful. Having armor AND a shield can be great :D if im going against empire as nurgle, the empire being usually comprised of lots of infantry with not too much armor, then i would rather have shield units with no AP rather then a bunch of dudes with great axes that are going to get shot up
@@zacharyjackson1829 That's more due to Empire having lots of ranged, making shields pretty damn important. Vampire Counts also have lots of low armour infantry, but since they have no missiles to speak of, you're probably not going to take shields against them.
You also have to consider value (since I assume this video is from a multi-player perspective). Against an army of low armor targets, like norsca, you won't get as much value from your AP so the extra funds you spend on getting that AP are "wasted". A good comparison I think would be empire swordsmen vs greatswords.
I was going to make a comment about being a Slaanesh main, and how armor is irrelevant to me but happily I can say that we finally have a proper anvil. Glad to say that I have a proper front line that can take enemy fire (not literal fire) now.
Hey uhh, love your vids, but I'm pretty sure the table in your video is wrong at 0:54. 75% of 60 would give 45% reduction right? Also, the 5% more effectiveness for each 10 armor over 100 is incorrect I think, 150 armor should give 87.5% reduction, not 100% if you do it the way you say in your video. Maybe I'm wrong but this is how it used to work.
For the calculation at the end I would like to point out that, if we adjust cost for 100 handgunner models and assume same base dps per model, we have 100 handgunners dealing 89% of their max dps and 120 crossbows dealing 66% of their max dps so 80% of the dps of 100 models, meaning that if handgunners and crossbows actually have the same dps (which I am not sure right now, don't have the numbers in my head) so disregarding stuff like firing arcs etc handgunners would be always more cost effective for 60+ armour targets. The actual breakpoint probably is somewhere between 40 and 60 armour of course. And again, I did not consider possible differences in base dps, as well as stuff like model overkills, firing lines etc. Now I am really curious which ranged unit of the empire is the best counter to the heavy single entity units of the lizardmen - hunters with their anti large or handgunners with their high ap
Still handgunners. Cos anti-smthng bonus give u always only a normal weapon damage, not AP at all. So, when hunters shoot targets with high armour - their bonus didn't work well, they just lack of AP damage. But they shred some shit like manticore, furries and other unarmored large units))
Isn't there now also the 100% armor piecing class from etherals units? Not that there are too many spooky ghosts around but still worth mentioning when it comes to armor.
Not sure I follow your maths on the last point, but maybe I missed something - crossbows are getting 66% effective dmg, so you would expect something costing 1.2 times that amount to do 1.2*66%=79% effective damage, but handgunners are doing 89% effective damage, so they should be more cost effective right?
edit: after factoring in exact costs and damage profiles I get the breakpoint of cost effectiveness between those two units as shooting a target of about 63 armour (ignoring the range difference between the two), so I assume you had already done this maths and heavily rounded for the video
I had a quick play trial with N’kari in a custom battle around launch time. Around that time, hellscourge units did 0 AP damage. However, later on that evening, I ran a quick ROC campaign with a Azazel to get a feel for how he plays and see what his initial start in ROC campaign was like. I didn’t get far, only to about turn 7 as I needed to go to bed. I did notice there is a tech that adds AP damage to hellscourge units. I didn’t check the stat cards to see if they had any added in without the tech during that quick run since I wasn’t able to recruit any yet.
armor reduction or armor pricing which is better? I imagine armor percing is better if it's 1 unit vs 1 unit and stripping armor is better if it's a 2+ vs 1 scenario
Basically the higher the AP, the less effective armour is for defence. The calculations shown are only really valuable in the early-midgame when transitioning from non-AP to AP, as the cost-effectiveness of non-AP and AP units can be quite similar, as was shown in the case of the Saurus Warriors (guns cost 20% more, but are 23% more effective against Saurus compared to crossbowmen). Just prioritise getting AP units as you face more armoured targets so long as you can afford it, more or less.
So, if you ever played with dice, especially the tabletop version of this game, you'll be wary of the word "average". "Average" doesn't mean shit never goes south, it only defines a statistical mainstream, which in turn defines outliers. Or in XCOM terms: a Rookie with 80% chance to hit will miss 80% of the time. Storytime below if you're interested. In the local game store I played 40K tabletop back during 5th edition, there was a guy who loved Terminators but after a while never brought them. Why? They died to a sneeze almost every time. So the tabletop uses 6-sided dice; a "4+" means that you need to roll 4 or above to pass. Armor penetration was also simple: AP6 meant that if you had a 6+ armor save, you couldn't roll. Terminators were tough largely because of their 2+ armour save, which meant that unless you were shooting them with some of the best anti-tank weapons, chances were they wouldn't give a shit. What this friend of mine couldn't do to save his life was to pass those 2+ armour saves. I'm not saying you shouldn't trust your numbers, you absolutely should. I'm just saying that we humans often interpret the numbers with wishful thinking.
yeah im just gonna pull out my calculator in the middle of a match while the other person is flanking me, but at least i got that perfected ap strategy done.
I feel armour, and ap/non ap dmg should get reworked because how it's done is a bit polarizing I think and certain weapon types like clubs are blunt sure but blunt dmg is quite effective against armour but that isn't taken into account because of how the system works,idk I'm prob not making sense I just don't like how it's done rn
"Blunt" damage isn't more effective on armor, why would it be? Either the armor protects, or it doesn't. If the armor protects you, then only high impact velocity can hurt you. The whole "blunt" against armor is a videogame trope and has no base in reality. A lot of blunt weapons deliver more force in reality, than sharp weapons, thus they can hurt the thing below the armor potentially better. But you really need something very big for this to take effect, like with polearms, or you need sufficient force, like the momentum from horseback.
@@Lancor84 I guess what I meant by blunt is something like a Warhammer or a mace or the big spiked clubs ogre bulls have would be a lot more effective against armour than a greatsword
Armor continues working the same at all values, it rolls a random value between half the armor value and the armor value and reduces damage by that percentage. Because this percentage has to be capped at 100, average reduction for armor values over 100 no longer increases linearly. Edit: because of how percentages work, putting more armor on already high armor units is more valuable, even with the "worse" scaling over 100
I really enjoyed those insights but there are some faults to this way of calculation since the average gets calculated. So 150 armor averagely blocks 100% of the damage but in fact does not do so. Average 100% block chance cant exist. It would be more like half of the time it gets a damage reduction between 75%-100%. So it takes half of the time on average 82,5% damage, so in average it takes 91.25% damage. To truly reach 100% dmg-reduction (vs non ap), one would need 200 armor. In turn that means, there are sweetpoints. Every point of armor up until 100 is more important than after that point.
There were some faults in my calculation. First of 75% + 12,5 is 87,5% not 82,5%. Also they got a 100% damage reduction in 50 of the 75 cases, meaning they get no damage 2/3 of the times and 1/3 of the time they have an average damage reduction of 87,5% which averages in a total average damage reduction of 95,83%.
It's more that it doesn't matter if they're hitting Slayers or Ironbreakers, as both will take full damage from being hit. AP units usually aren't JUST AP, they usually have high MA and high overall damage as well (unless we're talking stuff like Empire Halberds). So while Slayers aren't the perfect matchup, they can still do poorly if it's something like normal Slayers vs Black Orcs.
@@kubaGR8 my most difficult fight so far is my army (ungrim,runesmith,ror grudge thrower and the rest slayers) against 2 armies of necromancers on a corpse cart with a full stack of zombies. I lost 4 slayers and the rest half health. I had an easier time against a 2 full stacks of orc boys and orc boy archers. I from my experience my slayers are having an easier time against armoured units than non armoured ones. The unbreakable trait the zombies have might have played a big role in it .
@@banjokazooie370 Zombies are unbreakable, but they crumble instead, which isn't quite equal as it makes them die faster. Do you actually know the casualties you and the enemy took during the battle? Because I honestly believe you're just misremembering things. Zombies are worse than Orc Boys in every way except total health, even ingoring the Waaaagh.
@@kubaGR8 AP units are inneffective against low armor units do to having lower hit reactions, attack rotations and lower damage than non ap units. Now bloodletters will equally dick on empire swordsmen and greatswords but khorne dual axe is more efficient against the swordsman due to having more armor and a higher WS stat against the low armor low damage ES
@@Byzantine_Orthodox_Christian AP units are inefficient against low armor units, but not necessarily ineffective. You say it yourself. Bloodletters will equally dick on both small swords and big swords, but Khorne dual axe is more EFFICIENT. It's about efficiency. Though it depends on the unit in question. Empire Halberds are AP, but not really damage dealers, so you want to get Swordsmen to do damage against low armour. But Great Weapon variants of units with 1h + shield? Yeah they're going to be doing more damage even agianst low armour targets, due to higher melee attack and overall weapon strength, as well as the fact that even 30 Armour Empire Swordsmen get about 22% damage reduction from that armour.
I'm confused, does the math change once you get over 100 armor? The chart shows 130 armor has 90% resist but 75% of 120 armor is 90% resist not 130 armor. Also shouldn't it be 45% resist at 60 armor?
Yes and he says so above his chart, each 10 armor above 100 adds 5% damage reduction rather than 7.5 like you would expect, my math would suggest 2.5 though?
@@CrazyMegaOmega yeah I didn't think about this closely enough. You can't resist any more than 100% of damage so after hitting 100 armor every additional point is only raising the damage floor not the damage ceiling. If non ap damage is reduced anywhere from half your armor value to full armor value then you'd only block 100% of it at 200 armor. At 120 armor you should be blocking 80%, 140 85%, 160 90%, 180 95%, 200 100%. So yes I think it should be 2.5 per 10 armor but 🤷♂️. Maybe something changes in the calculation to make it so that any armor value over 150 is pointless
@@jetsrule07748 the only other factor i can think of is the claim ive heard from legend that all damage mitigation caps at 90%. Which could come in in a lot of different ways. Like does that mean after all armor and resistances are added up? Or does it factor in earlier like if the armor calc rolls a 95 between 50 and 100 does it change it to 90? Is the claim even true?
Because crossbows deal a little more dmg than handguns, so it would require higher armor to make handguns outperform + because bullets hit mostly the front there is more overkill than arching fire spreading over the unit better
You should change your channel name to the quantum mechanics professor of total war Yes I still didn’t understand Need to rewatch it about 4 more times
Can we have a video about: is it possible to max out atk/def in melee so that your character wont miss/get hit, and can we max out armour to not fill any damage? Basically is it possible to make stats so big, you will be undefitable? (also for ward/missile/physical/magic ressist pls)
All resistances (physical, spell, ward, missile, and fire) caps at 90%, no matter how high the number actually is, ex. 97%, the damage calculation will never exceed 90%. As for melee attack and defense there is a min and max value for both which cannot go above or below. You can never go below a 10% chance to hit, or above a 90% chance to hit. Even if something has 200 melee defense vs something with 10 melee attack, it’ll still have a 10% chance to hit. Also even if you have enough armor to always block 100% non AP damage, this also caps at 90% damage reduction for non AP
It makes no sense as 150 armor will negate 100% dmg. It doesnt happen. also i think 60 armor will negate 45% of non AP damage, while your chart says 40%
I love short form content that you make! It manages to be exceedingly in depth, while leaving out anything superfluous.; just absolutely *chef kiss* beautiful
Same, informative and straight to the point. I also enjoy the lack of 5 minutes of shameless self pluck to pad out view time that most youtubers do nowadays.
My Valkia campaign has ended with my chosen at rank 7+ having 162 armor during battles,,, And 4 chosen DW and 4 chosen with shield practically ignore everything that has come against them,,, Alith Anar had some fun with when my chosen DW caught a few archer units. Khorne was happy with them that turn.
This is Warhammer II, but I had one campaign where my Doombull (not Taurox, just a regular Doombul) ended up with 200 armour.
It was awesome
Smiles in infernal gateway.
@@kubaGR8 Dwarfs can easily get 200 armor aswel trough runes and armor crafting.
grombindal with a regen, 200 armor and a ton of wardsave. 🥰
They would still lose to ghorst zombie exploit
@@ColonelMetus Or to a lord of change doomstack..
Armor is so insane that not having an AP units in a matchup against armored units is incredibly hard to win
Khorne warriors are insanely effective soley because of their low cost and high armor
Dwarves are the same but dont do damage
I wish lance cavalry got to have AP.
> Dwarves are the same but dont do damage
tell that to my Hammerers
Idk why khorne didnt get his Chosen or Chaos Warriors with great weapons, if u want AP with Khorne ur forced to take Bloodletters
It's one of the dilemmas I haven't yet solved playing the Vlad campaign. Usually, I'm conquering elsewhere, which results in a giant Dawi empire that's difficult to dismantle. I have no clue on how to fight the Dawi earlier though, because those stunties are fully decked out and armored from the get go and VC doesn't seem to get any unit that's early and effective enough against the Dwarfs. :/
@@Kraykz Tell that to my dearly departed clan rats. I thought for sure they would win that brawl after they trounced orc boys so handily.
OMG I never knew those AP damage percentages were so consistent! It annoyed me SO much to have to look in the damage popup to figure out the proportions!
I was very surprised too! The only unit I've found so far that really breaks the mold is feral bears at 50% ap.
And the new ethereal units with 100% ap! But they are at least super easy to classify all on their own.
@@Enticity there are a few exceptions here n there like glade guard starfire shaft 89% ap but yea mostly consistent
You still have to to learn all the exceptions. Wild riders also have a nice ap to non-ap damage ratio
I really wish the UI exposed the % ratio like it does for spells now.
Finally! Tournaments players know all of this but most people could not see their discussions/thought process and noraml players actually can only guess what unit is cost effective by eye test. Hopefully everyone can now understand how much preparation is needed for all matchups to master a race.
The Virgin Armor Denier vs The Chad Armor Enjoyer
armour enjoyers when a ap fan walks in
@@darkomihajlovski3135 No, not the infinite ammo Ratling guns!
*Laughs in Druchii ranged*
Ent casually assuming we can multiply percentages in our head. Love the optimism there, but I'm still bringing the dread saurian so clearly I can't do math.
You forgot to mention that now Ghost units are 100% AP, but great video nonetheless!
Maybe we need magical armor traits that provide defense against magical attacks
@@drifterodysseus6237 Ward save
maybe its a bug, but i've learned from my first campaign being Vlad that in campaign the skill tree points and technologies that buff weapon damage for ethereal units gives them base weapon damage increase as well as an armor piercing damage increase, meaning that they go from 0 base weapon damage to... some, lol. It could also be intentional... but if it was intentional i don't understand why it would be XD
@@wesjanson6979 nah it's likely not intentional, they just forgot to change those buffs to 100% AP and those use their old split between AP and non-AP.
Bruh i read Ghorst units and got a little confused
I enjoy these in depth tours of the mechanics. Please bring us the numbers behind the final boss of all TWW calculations: AUTO RESOLVE. Sigmar commands it!
Exactly why I adore Frontline infantry with 100 armor. Low armor 20% physical resist troops always feel terribly squishy when that 20% becomes 27 armor against zombies and whatnot.
I knew about the armor calculation being ~75% of the armor stat, but I never actally thought about comparing it to the effectiveness of shields.
Also I had no idea about the standard 10% / 25% / 75% ap to base damage ratio, I thought they'd be much more diverse so I never bothered thinking about it much more.
I enjoy your streams and memes a lot, but your informational videos have always been my favourite. They're the reason I subscribed, and the reason I stay!
It is not straight forward, many exceptions out there across 200+ units in the game. There are quite a few 33%/66% ones as well.
@@mcmarkmarkson7115true there definitely are. I noticed for example that Brettonia Realm knights are 25% ap, and Grail knights are ~33%
@@RoronoaZoroSensei Wild riders also on top of my head
So basically steam tanks and bastilodons only take armor piercing damage most of the time, and additional armor value past 200 becomes redundant.
There's also the fact that damage resistance stacks with armor, reducing the armor piercing damage that would make it through, making your units that much tougher.
armour beyond 180 is redundant as damage restistance is capped at 90%
@@a0point0of0view1 damage resistance and armor damage reduction is not the same.
Unless they changed it for Warhammer 3, having 200 armor and 90 % damage resistance will stack and in most cases reduce your damage taken to 0. It's not too difficult to do with the dwarves thanks to their runes and rune magic, and lotw has a couple of videos where this is the case too.
@@SleepyFen Armor can reduce the base damage completely, but then there's alway some ap damage. Both are then reduced/increased based on resistance, up to 90% reduced (or 100% increased) though. And damage can never go lower than 1. If you hit, you always deal at least 1 damage
@@Kraykz If i remember correctly - capped armor and capped resistances can result in taking 0 damage from low-tier archers, it was showcased by Legend in some single-man doomstack videos.
@@Kraykz If the damage taken is reduced bellow one by a combination of wardsave and armour then you can take 0 damage, i'm not sure if any value under 1 is enough or if it has to reach a certain point for rounding reasons but you can take 0 damage from attacks.
I am so glad I came across this video. I'm a casual player, but having this information now easily accessible now is going to super helpful in my games.
Great Video! There's a few incorrect values at 0:55 but it's pretty minor.
The most important thing that is not mentioned though is that the value of adding more armor goes up with higher and higher armor values due to how percentages work.
For example:
Adding 10 armor to a 0 armor unit increases percent reduction from 0%->7.5%, in turn cutting damage taken from 100%->92.5%, a 7.5% reduction.
Adding 10 armor to a 90 armor unit increases percent reduction from 67.5%->75%, cutting damage taken from 32.5%->25%, a whopping 23% reduction in damage taken!
yes. also i dont think that 150 armor will give 100% protection. it becomes less and less effective at those levels. it wont reduce damage taken by that much.
maybe if u talk % based but its not really that significant anyway.
You're correct that 150 armor does not give 100% reduction (on average that is, it CAN give it for any particular hit), 200 armor does.
Armor doesn't lose its value because of the down scaling of percentage points when above 100, ignoring armor piercing, this effect is outweighed by the ever increasing value of armor as you approach 100% reduction.
But when you add ap to the mix, it does start to make higher values less efficient, as it essentially caps the percent reduction at the percentage of normal damage.
@@NitrosBG
I do think that it makes the chance of taking no normal dmg much higher as the chance a random number selected would be lower than 100, very low.
Still, the value of reducing normal damage a bit more, is really low. So stacking a bit more armor to heavily armored units, wont have any major difference.
Above 100 armor, the value of extra armor becomes smaller.
@@cobrazax focus on the averages and changes in damage taken.
An intuitive way to look at it is that 100% damage reduction is infinitely better than 99% damage reduction.
@@NitrosBG
Sure but is it worth investing in it? To reduce base damage taken by a tiny amount? I really dont think its worth it. At least not on extreme armor levels. I put armor as the last trait to increase on my heavily armored characters like wight kings, when they got way more than 100 armor. Sure its useful but its effect is tiny overall.
Thanks for this Enticity. There's been some real misinformation on armor lately! People took an opinion to a hyperbolic extreme and decided armor was crap.
It can do a lot for you!
Yes it can do a lot...just not against AP
That misinformation comes from Legend
Do a video on charge bonus. So much misinformation about it! After a successful charge, does it add to weapon strength? Melee attack? Both? For how long? What even is a “successful charge?” I’ve gotten so many conflicting answers!
The charge bonus will apply to both melee attack and weapon damage during a charge attack. In order for the charge bonus to apply that unit needs to actually have an attack order on the unit they are charging into otherwise there will be no bonus. Meaning you can technically intercept a charging unit before the charge occurs. not sure for how long the bonus applies but it is not for very long after the initial collision.
bouth for like 4 - 8 seconds, if the unit have charge defence - the charging unit will receive some amount of damage back.
Will add your charge bonus to MA and WS decaying over 10 seconds exactly, double for slannesh
I started doubting armor when I had to hide the hammerers Throgrimm starts with from some goblin archers from the first battle back in WH1.
But I came to think that the notorious paper armor effect of the hammerers is due to formation.
Dwarves are simply super tightly packed which will make less shots miss compared to loosely positioned Saurus for example.
I can't tell you how INFORMATIVE and HELPFUL this video is. About time someone explained this!
my brain has still trouble with the state value from anti infintry and anti-large, some units get bonus in that from lord traits or researches or have them in general. can you make everything you need to know about that. this one help me understand armor very well :D
Anti-infantry gives its value in additional attack when hitting an infantry target as well as increases the damage with the same split between base damage and AP damage as the base weapon strength.
Anti-large does the same, but against anything that isn't infantry.
Anti Infantry Weapons give Melee Attack and Weapon Damage Bonus against Infantry, one example is Black Ark Corsairs who have
36 Attack, 21 Base Damage, 7 AP Damage, 8 Anti Infantry.
When attacking Infantry unit it became
36 + 8 Attack, Base damage is 75% of the Weapon damage which makes the 8 Weapon damage turn into 21+6 Base Damage, while the AP become 7 + 2 due to being 25% of the weapon damage.
Against high armored Infantry like Chaos Warriors the +2 AP won't do much but the 44 Attack will allow the BAC to get more hit with 9 Damage.
Although I still think it should be fully AP, so BAC fighting Chaos Warriors will have 36+8 Attack, but having 21 Base Damage and 7+8 AP damage, due to the 50-100% of the Armor Roll the 100 Armor Chaos Warriors have, at a bad roll it will be 50 Armor which no base damage could get.
Quite simple: You add the bonus as both melee attack and weapon damage when fighting the right unit.
So for instance, if you have a unit with 30 melee attack, 30 weapon strength (10 of which is armour-piercing) and a bonus vs large of 15 then this unit will have 45 melee attack and 45 weapon strength (15 of which would be armour-piercing) when attacking a large target.
You just add the anti-large or anti-infantry level on top of melee attack and weapon strength whilst keeping the ratio of armour-piercing to non armour-piercing the same.
Its like a constant charge bonus against those units. more to melee attack (hit chance) and more weapon strength (damage).
This makes these units able to be extremely strong against the correct unit type, as they do massive damage and hit way more times. Usually with most attacks.
The trait is especially useful for many entities units as the damage boost is more significant for them. Each entity gets that damage boost.
A single entity can enjoy the melee attack boost, but the damage boost is usually minor.
This still makes it very useful, but not that much in the damage done in each attack.
Also, infantry basically means anything that isnt large. That includes dog units, as well as even a lord like the strigoi ghoul king.
I had a lot of my lords and heros in my last Dwarf campaign get to 200 armor. It was a bit overkill honestly, but they held a line far better than any infantry could ever hope to. AP infantry don't usually have enough melee attack to pose a threat, only lords and monsters/cav on a charge were a threat. Really opened up the firing lanes for thunderers and irondrakes.
One category of AP you neglected to mention: 100% AP which is found on all ethereal units (such as Syreens, Cairn Wraiths and dwarfen ancestral heroes) and certain spells (such as lash of slaanesh).
Your calculation of average armor is incorrect. 130 armor rolls between 130 and 65, so there's a 30/65 chance it rolls for 100+ and a uniform distribution between 65 and 100 with a mean of 82.5%. That gives (65+17.5)*35/65+100*30/65 = 90.5%. It might not sound like a big difference compared to your calculation, but it becomes a bigger difference for higher armor values.
With your calculation, armor would cap at 150 armor and 100% average reduction, but there is still a chance of rolling between 75 and 100, so it's obviously wrong. Armor only caps at 200 armor when there is no chance whatsoever of rolling less than 100.
Not only that but in most cases high armour means lower speed as was the deal with Empire Cav in WH2. Speed is in most cases more important than armour because armour counts for little if you can't catch the thing you're chasing.
But the armor vcaps at 90% so the real maximum would be 180, isn't it?
@@myballsgetlikt1313 There are more exceptions to this, then things that follow it. Enough to say there isn't really any correlation to armor = slower.
Exactly
@@antonioussykas4140 Outside of single entities It's somewhat consistent that high armour infantry are slow, especially the shielded ones.
If you guys want the numbers, Chaos Warriors (GW) take about 10.5 dmg/hit from Jade Crossbows, while Marauders take about 14.7 dmg/hit. For a unit with bronze shields to be as effective or more at absorbing missiles as Chaos Warriors (GW), they would need 59 armor or greater.
Now to be fair, shields are obviously far better versus armor piercing missiles. Chaos Warriors (GW) take MORE damage than Marauders from Celestial Crossbowmen, with Chaos Warriors (GW) receiving about 13.3 dmg/hit and Marauders only receiving 10.8 dmg/hit.
One thing that wasn't taken into consideration is the fact that vigor affects armor. Assuming that fatigue still works as in WH2, you lose 10% of your armor at the second lowest and 25% at the lowest level of vigor. Generally speaking units with low armor and some phys resist are good against AP damage and high armor no resist units are good against high damage, low AP. But in prolonged combat physical resist is more effective since it's not affected by vigor. This is more important in single player than multiplayer, since cheese tactics often involve a single entity unit standing inside blob for prolonged period in order to kill hordes of enemies with mortis engine, missiles or magic.
Wait really? I didn't realise this. I thought vigour just affected speed
@@UnproductiveSunbeam I've never heard of vigour affecting armour before, but low vigour certainly reduces stats like melee attack/defence and reload skill as well as speed. I think it caps out at a -30% to melee stats when exhausted, so it's something to consider when fighting.
Basically tired troops fight worse than fresh troops, so what might be a relatively close match-up (Orc Big 'Uns vs Empire Greatswords) can become a stomp for the Empire if the Orcs are exhausted from a lot of running and fighting.
Edit: Checked the wiki, and yes, when units are very tired or exhausted they suffer a -25%/30% armour penalty respectively. Seems weird, but thems the stats
Another absolute banger from ya boy Enticity
You didn't answer the important question: does 200 armor mean 100% blocking of all non-ap damage?
Nah, damage negation from armor is capped at 95% or 97% i dont remember. You can have like 300 armor and you would have the same effectiveness as if it was 130.
The minimum amount of non-ap damage an attack can do is one. So if Peasant Bowmen are shooting at a really buffed up Beastman Doombull with 200 armour, their arrows will do a guaranteed of (3 AP + 1 non-AP) = 4 damage per shot.
Check the total war Warhammer wiki, armor and combat pages will answer you
Unfortunately not. Armour, just like all other resistances caps at 90%
@@Nerazmus i had a big discussion about that and no one could agree
So Daemons having 20% physical resist is about 30 more armor? Not including AP. And that means physical resist it a lot better against High AP units.
You could almost say say it's the equivalent to 40 armor since it covers both the AP side and non ap vs most units, but yes, they're a lot better vs high ap. That's partially why bloodletters are so effective against equivalent elite infantry.
what's the point of having a compass pfp if you're literally dead center?
@@nmmeswey3584 Asserting Centrist Supremacy.
I've referenced this like 5 times since my last comment. this is so valuable.
But do handgunners or crossbowmen look cooler? Which attack produces a more pleasing sound? So much left uncovered.
This math all works except for the last bit. Handgunners are 20% more expensive, but versus saursu, they are better by 20 percentage points, not 20%. They're roughly 34% higher damage (say, 10 damage as a round number, 11% resist means 8.9 damage and 34% resist means 6.6 damage. 8.9 is 34.8% higher than 6.6) so handgunners are meaningfully better vs saurus when it comes to ap, since they are 20% more expensive, but 35% more damaging.
If you want to be that detailed, did you factor in Saurus with shields shield block, amount of ammo each of these units has and their cost per volley because of that? Not saying you are wrong, but how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go?
@@Mithguar I was basically calculating all things being equal just looking at effect of armor and cost.
Do you understand, how does he calculated values at 1:35 ? Because I have no idea, how did he get 56% and 19% effectivnes vs AP
Oh, In first case, damage is 100% "possible to reduce", 75% of 100% is 75%. Next, Only 75% is "possible to reduce", and 75% of 75% is 56%, and the last case, where only 25% is "possible to reduce", 75% of 25% is 19%. Thanks 😆
theres a 4th group of ap, 100% ap, the ghsots from vc and vc
Godsend of a video, never understood the armor maths fully
Pretty good rules of thumb to keep the video short and useable, the exact details get messy
What a weird formula - thanks for revealing!
i think i got a dwarf lord to 280 armor or something, slapped rune of spite and regen and healing pot on him and sent him in to solo armies
After 1 battle you have grown yourselves a Dwarven beard
So is AP weaponry just the best in general? As basically everyone has armour to some degree, is it better to always go for armour piercing when possible?
Pretty much yes. Of course, sometimes non AP units have higher base weapon damage, making them more effective than AP units against low armor, and AP units usually pay for their damage stats with other low stats or being more expensive
it depends. For example if you're playing nurgle and want AP damage then you'll have to take units with great weapons which means they won't have a shield and can be targeted by ranged units. Enticity did mention that armor can be more important than having shields in this video but that doesnt mean shields aren't useful. Having armor AND a shield can be great :D
if im going against empire as nurgle, the empire being usually comprised of lots of infantry with not too much armor, then i would rather have shield units with no AP rather then a bunch of dudes with great axes that are going to get shot up
@@zacharyjackson1829 That's more due to Empire having lots of ranged, making shields pretty damn important.
Vampire Counts also have lots of low armour infantry, but since they have no missiles to speak of, you're probably not going to take shields against them.
You also have to consider value (since I assume this video is from a multi-player perspective). Against an army of low armor targets, like norsca, you won't get as much value from your AP so the extra funds you spend on getting that AP are "wasted".
A good comparison I think would be empire swordsmen vs greatswords.
the last part of the video takes this into consideration when he mentions the value per cost of the units.
So, if you pick Gelt, and buff Steam tanks with every Armor available, they will literally be unkillable by Slaanesh's Chaos Warriors...
PERFECT.
I was going to make a comment about being a Slaanesh main, and how armor is irrelevant to me but happily I can say that we finally have a proper anvil. Glad to say that I have a proper front line that can take enemy fire (not literal fire) now.
You should also mention all the ways armor is reduced/ignored/sundered to show that purely relying on armor is not enough.
Awesome vid! This has never been well explained to me. So really appreciate it!
Hey uhh, love your vids, but I'm pretty sure the table in your video is wrong at 0:54. 75% of 60 would give 45% reduction right? Also, the 5% more effectiveness for each 10 armor over 100 is incorrect I think, 150 armor should give 87.5% reduction, not 100% if you do it the way you say in your video. Maybe I'm wrong but this is how it used to work.
Over a decade of playing Total War games, I never learned this. Cheers!
For the calculation at the end I would like to point out that, if we adjust cost for 100 handgunner models and assume same base dps per model, we have 100 handgunners dealing 89% of their max dps and 120 crossbows dealing 66% of their max dps so 80% of the dps of 100 models, meaning that if handgunners and crossbows actually have the same dps (which I am not sure right now, don't have the numbers in my head) so disregarding stuff like firing arcs etc handgunners would be always more cost effective for 60+ armour targets. The actual breakpoint probably is somewhere between 40 and 60 armour of course. And again, I did not consider possible differences in base dps, as well as stuff like model overkills, firing lines etc.
Now I am really curious which ranged unit of the empire is the best counter to the heavy single entity units of the lizardmen - hunters with their anti large or handgunners with their high ap
Still handgunners. Cos anti-smthng bonus give u always only a normal weapon damage, not AP at all. So, when hunters shoot targets with high armour - their bonus didn't work well, they just lack of AP damage.
But they shred some shit like manticore, furries and other unarmored large units))
Anti-something bonus gives you base and ap damage at the same ratio the unit already has
Isn't there now also the 100% armor piecing class from etherals units? Not that there are too many spooky ghosts around but still worth mentioning when it comes to armor.
Wham, bam, thanks for the concise info man.
Not sure I follow your maths on the last point, but maybe I missed something - crossbows are getting 66% effective dmg, so you would expect something costing 1.2 times that amount to do 1.2*66%=79% effective damage, but handgunners are doing 89% effective damage, so they should be more cost effective right?
edit: after factoring in exact costs and damage profiles I get the breakpoint of cost effectiveness between those two units as shooting a target of about 63 armour (ignoring the range difference between the two), so I assume you had already done this maths and heavily rounded for the video
"I hate Saurus, that's why i bring a lot of guns to lustria" -Karl Franz
Seems they've actually already fixed hellscourges. Was playing with my mate who was Azazel, the Hellscourges had 18 or 24 AP, I forget which.
I had a quick play trial with N’kari in a custom battle around launch time. Around that time, hellscourge units did 0 AP damage. However, later on that evening, I ran a quick ROC campaign with a Azazel to get a feel for how he plays and see what his initial start in ROC campaign was like. I didn’t get far, only to about turn 7 as I needed to go to bed. I did notice there is a tech that adds AP damage to hellscourge units. I didn’t check the stat cards to see if they had any added in without the tech during that quick run since I wasn’t able to recruit any yet.
armor reduction or armor pricing which is better? I imagine armor percing is better if it's 1 unit vs 1 unit and stripping armor is better if it's a 2+ vs 1 scenario
while the base armor explanation is clear, the armor pen one just left me more confused
Basically the higher the AP, the less effective armour is for defence. The calculations shown are only really valuable in the early-midgame when transitioning from non-AP to AP, as the cost-effectiveness of non-AP and AP units can be quite similar, as was shown in the case of the Saurus Warriors (guns cost 20% more, but are 23% more effective against Saurus compared to crossbowmen). Just prioritise getting AP units as you face more armoured targets so long as you can afford it, more or less.
A certain chad would like you to know that: "Armor is for maidens".
But Total War players, however, are maidenless.
That armored maiden is the most popular character on the let's play votes all over TH-cam, so you're right
So, if you ever played with dice, especially the tabletop version of this game, you'll be wary of the word "average". "Average" doesn't mean shit never goes south, it only defines a statistical mainstream, which in turn defines outliers. Or in XCOM terms: a Rookie with 80% chance to hit will miss 80% of the time. Storytime below if you're interested.
In the local game store I played 40K tabletop back during 5th edition, there was a guy who loved Terminators but after a while never brought them. Why? They died to a sneeze almost every time. So the tabletop uses 6-sided dice; a "4+" means that you need to roll 4 or above to pass. Armor penetration was also simple: AP6 meant that if you had a 6+ armor save, you couldn't roll. Terminators were tough largely because of their 2+ armour save, which meant that unless you were shooting them with some of the best anti-tank weapons, chances were they wouldn't give a shit. What this friend of mine couldn't do to save his life was to pass those 2+ armour saves.
I'm not saying you shouldn't trust your numbers, you absolutely should. I'm just saying that we humans often interpret the numbers with wishful thinking.
It mostly rounds off to average in this game because there’s way more unit models unlike table top
yeah im just gonna pull out my calculator in the middle of a match while the other person is flanking me, but at least i got that perfected ap strategy done.
I was just wondering about this the other day 😃
does missile resistance reduce damage from both physical as well as magical missiles or only from physical?
That's actually a really good question!
Physcial only, all magical attacks are reduced by ward save or spell/magic resistance only depending on which game.
Both, iirc it will even effect a few spells that are magic missiles (such as blue fire of tzeentch).
Slaanesh Hellscourge Cav is 33% AP which is nice
Can it be ? There is someone who knows how armor works ?!
Wait, so having shield, which negates 35 %, is better against ap missile units than having 100armor.
this is a great series
So Slaaneshi Hellscourges could not damage a 200 armor target at all? Or is there a pity dmg minimum?
Damn you really are the Spirit of the Law for Wh TW
So helpful thank you.
what about magic, and fire damage?
What about the armor that you can choose to equip on your lord?
The one you gain from quests... trying to equip that on a dwarf lord in Warhammer 1 but no luck.
My nemesis...
Math
I feel armour, and ap/non ap dmg should get reworked because how it's done is a bit polarizing I think and certain weapon types like clubs are blunt sure but blunt dmg is quite effective against armour but that isn't taken into account because of how the system works,idk I'm prob not making sense I just don't like how it's done rn
"Blunt" damage isn't more effective on armor, why would it be? Either the armor protects, or it doesn't. If the armor protects you, then only high impact velocity can hurt you.
The whole "blunt" against armor is a videogame trope and has no base in reality. A lot of blunt weapons deliver more force in reality, than sharp weapons, thus they can hurt the thing below the armor potentially better. But you really need something very big for this to take effect, like with polearms, or you need sufficient force, like the momentum from horseback.
@@Lancor84 I guess what I meant by blunt is something like a Warhammer or a mace or the big spiked clubs ogre bulls have would be a lot more effective against armour than a greatsword
Why does the armor formula work that way after 100 armor? I would like to understand the math.
Armor continues working the same at all values, it rolls a random value between half the armor value and the armor value and reduces damage by that percentage. Because this percentage has to be capped at 100, average reduction for armor values over 100 no longer increases linearly.
Edit: because of how percentages work, putting more armor on already high armor units is more valuable, even with the "worse" scaling over 100
How does it work with Phys Resist?
Sad to see you go! 😭😭😭
I really enjoyed those insights but there are some faults to this way of calculation since the average gets calculated. So 150 armor averagely blocks 100% of the damage but in fact does not do so. Average 100% block chance cant exist. It would be more like half of the time it gets a damage reduction between 75%-100%. So it takes half of the time on average 82,5% damage, so in average it takes 91.25% damage. To truly reach 100% dmg-reduction (vs non ap), one would need 200 armor. In turn that means, there are sweetpoints. Every point of armor up until 100 is more important than after that point.
There were some faults in my calculation. First of 75% + 12,5 is 87,5% not 82,5%.
Also they got a 100% damage reduction in 50 of the 75 cases, meaning they get no damage 2/3 of the times and 1/3 of the time they have an average damage reduction of 87,5% which averages in a total average damage reduction of 95,83%.
"easily" you underestimate how bad I am at math
So these high armour piercing units are useless against my slayers then.
It's more that it doesn't matter if they're hitting Slayers or Ironbreakers, as both will take full damage from being hit. AP units usually aren't JUST AP, they usually have high MA and high overall damage as well (unless we're talking stuff like Empire Halberds). So while Slayers aren't the perfect matchup, they can still do poorly if it's something like normal Slayers vs Black Orcs.
@@kubaGR8 my most difficult fight so far is my army (ungrim,runesmith,ror grudge thrower and the rest slayers) against 2 armies of necromancers on a corpse cart with a full stack of zombies.
I lost 4 slayers and the rest half health.
I had an easier time against a 2 full stacks of orc boys and orc boy archers.
I from my experience my slayers are having an easier time against armoured units than non armoured ones. The unbreakable trait the zombies have might have played a big role in it .
@@banjokazooie370 Zombies are unbreakable, but they crumble instead, which isn't quite equal as it makes them die faster.
Do you actually know the casualties you and the enemy took during the battle? Because I honestly believe you're just misremembering things. Zombies are worse than Orc Boys in every way except total health, even ingoring the Waaaagh.
@@kubaGR8 AP units are inneffective against low armor units do to having lower hit reactions, attack rotations and lower damage than non ap units. Now bloodletters will equally dick on empire swordsmen and greatswords but khorne dual axe is more efficient against the swordsman due to having more armor and a higher WS stat against the low armor low damage ES
@@Byzantine_Orthodox_Christian AP units are inefficient against low armor units, but not necessarily ineffective.
You say it yourself. Bloodletters will equally dick on both small swords and big swords, but Khorne dual axe is more EFFICIENT. It's about efficiency.
Though it depends on the unit in question. Empire Halberds are AP, but not really damage dealers, so you want to get Swordsmen to do damage against low armour. But Great Weapon variants of units with 1h + shield? Yeah they're going to be doing more damage even agianst low armour targets, due to higher melee attack and overall weapon strength, as well as the fact that even 30 Armour Empire Swordsmen get about 22% damage reduction from that armour.
I'm confused, does the math change once you get over 100 armor? The chart shows 130 armor has 90% resist but 75% of 120 armor is 90% resist not 130 armor. Also shouldn't it be 45% resist at 60 armor?
Yes and he says so above his chart, each 10 armor above 100 adds 5% damage reduction rather than 7.5 like you would expect, my math would suggest 2.5 though?
@@CrazyMegaOmega yeah I didn't think about this closely enough. You can't resist any more than 100% of damage so after hitting 100 armor every additional point is only raising the damage floor not the damage ceiling. If non ap damage is reduced anywhere from half your armor value to full armor value then you'd only block 100% of it at 200 armor. At 120 armor you should be blocking 80%, 140 85%, 160 90%, 180 95%, 200 100%. So yes I think it should be 2.5 per 10 armor but 🤷♂️. Maybe something changes in the calculation to make it so that any armor value over 150 is pointless
@@jetsrule07748 the only other factor i can think of is the claim ive heard from legend that all damage mitigation caps at 90%. Which could come in in a lot of different ways. Like does that mean after all armor and resistances are added up? Or does it factor in earlier like if the armor calc rolls a 95 between 50 and 100 does it change it to 90? Is the claim even true?
That’s insane to me that 60 armor of saurus warriors makes these crossbows and handguns equal
Because crossbows deal a little more dmg than handguns, so it would require higher armor to make handguns outperform + because bullets hit mostly the front there is more overkill than arching fire spreading over the unit better
I always thought shield especially with stance > armor 😳
Very informative!
Brilliant info.
But does armor affect barrier?
You should change your channel name to the quantum mechanics professor of total war
Yes I still didn’t understand
Need to rewatch it about 4 more times
love these videos
Those poor saurus
Can we have a video about: is it possible to max out atk/def in melee so that your character wont miss/get hit, and can we max out armour to not fill any damage? Basically is it possible to make stats so big, you will be undefitable? (also for ward/missile/physical/magic ressist pls)
All resistances (physical, spell, ward, missile, and fire) caps at 90%, no matter how high the number actually is, ex. 97%, the damage calculation will never exceed 90%. As for melee attack and defense there is a min and max value for both which cannot go above or below. You can never go below a 10% chance to hit, or above a 90% chance to hit. Even if something has 200 melee defense vs something with 10 melee attack, it’ll still have a 10% chance to hit. Also even if you have enough armor to always block 100% non AP damage, this also caps at 90% damage reduction for non AP
@@pillguzzler4238 Curse balance, thats boring -_- Well, i guess expected
1:35 How do you do that?
The move thing? It's alt to drag, and if you also press control you can turn the selected units as well
Control+Alt, when you're maneuvering units around.
Super useful.
@@freekvanderheijden6356 Thanks.
Damn my taurox is at 150 armour
This is useful to have spelled out, but I don't play video games to do math, sorry.
Legend does not care about that stat however lol
Y u got to shot my boiz the lizards :(
It's so simple he says (brain melts from the simple math)
Cool!
great video, sub'd
your voice sounds a little funny at 0:00 you ok ?
I hate math so gd much
So important, yet they never mention this stuff in-game! This is a video you need to watch a couple times to really let it digest in the ol'noggin.
It's literally in the tool-tips of the game. There is a lot not mentioned in hidden stats but that video doesn't even talk about it.
When he talks it sounds like he's clenching his teeth so hard
Your content is so digestible
2muchmath4me
It makes no sense as 150 armor will negate 100% dmg. It doesnt happen.
also i think 60 armor will negate 45% of non AP damage, while your chart says 40%
Math :(
Play a good total war game
Fuck so complicated