I'm a physicist and I have to confront musicians and the like who try to argue against well-established physical principles based on gut feelings, prejudices, and the misdirected notion that music 'being mathematical' qualifies them to have a meaningful opinion on the subject matter... 

Anyways, the point is that your system's exponentially decaying probability of a peasant or other lowly unit one-shotting is not acceptable. And one-shotting is not the only concern, it's doing any significant damage at all. But seriously, you really have to stop and think what even very small probabilities mean when there might be 10s of thousands of opportunities for it to occur in a single game, each person playing many many games, and hundreds of thousands, or even millions of people playing it. IMO there should be no mechanism in the game for any unit at all to deal arbitrarily high damage, whatever the probability.

I personally am in favor of creatures like Dragons being impervious to the attacks of the weakest units, but if that idea ever gets nixed, those units should still have very small chances to do damage at all, and their maximum damage potential against such targets should be menial. 

Okay, this is beside the point but...

A tank isn't a solid hunk of metal with no joints, moving parts, or no entries in or out.  A tank doesn't split CO2 back into breathable oxygen from within.  Tank shells come from a turret that can be jammed.  A swivvel machine gun turret can be wrenched or damaged surprisingly easy.  So ultimately, a tank is powerful when supported but actually quite vulnerable without plenty of cover from infantry or other anti-personel vehicles.  So even less than 1000 determined spearmen swarming over a tank could easily clog and damage a turret, destroy it's sensory capacity, and then jam exit and entry so that the crew starves/ suffocates. 

But while going back and forth with these analogies might be fun, it really has no bearing on balanced game mechanics.

Deleted, doublepost.

This is 100 percent what I'm aiming for, and I've made reference this is every post I've written so far.  I'm glad we agree.  My only point in stating that a peasant might one shot a dragon was to illustrate how the negative exponential curve worked, and I stipulated continually that the chance of a single player would ever see it happen in a thousand games was incomprehensibly small.  If this is still the main concern people have... that somewhere, somplace, a dragon might be killed in someone's game by a single peasant... I am perfectly willing to compromise and propose that there should be a damage cap to the damage a low end unit can do to a very high. 

My aim, which has been frustratingly overlooked by people offended by the dragon-one-shot sideshow, is that no unit would ever be 100 percent antiquated.  This leaves the option open to adopting strategies under the right circumstances to produce lower calibur soldiers in outrageous and exceptional numbers.  The vast majority of the time, I would expect that the resources necessary to procure and court a dragon is much better spent getting that dragon late game than using those same resources to build a massive army of peasants by far.

But your swarm of peasants wouldn't be antiquated by the existence of a dragon. They'd be ineffective against the dragon, but they'd still work just fine against pretty much everything else...

I am, of course, making the assumption that this ceiling would only be applicable in the most extreme circumstances, when you try to pit the weakest versus the most ridiculously powerful. Like I said in another thread, no buildable/trainable unit should ever be completely immune to any other buildable/trainable unit in the game, nor even most fantastical creatures.

Of course, a system like this would mean that a player who focused on a small army of elite troops would be better prepared to confront a dragon in combat than a player whose army is comprised largely of an untrained, ill-equipped rabble. This is not necessarily a killing stroke for the latter to be a viable strategy; we must of course consider what advantages a rabble army might have. Anything we say now is obviously hypothetical, but some advantages could be lower costs, able to defend more fronts simultaneously, more expendable, quicker to raise, etc. 

Hm, I think we've reached the point where we've cut out the 97 percent of the stuff we agree with on this topic, and now we're pretty much both quarreling over the scraps in order to claim the title of the rightliest in the discussion.  We've officially moved the front to extreme scenarios that are very unlikely to exist and would most certainly result in a player making bizarre decisions.  Like you said, there will never be only 5000 archers of a specific quality squaring off against a single dragon, and having an argument over whether 1,000,000 peasants should be able to kill a dragon is about as productive as two college students debating into the night on the matter of whether a triangle of perfect symmetry can really exist: regardless of who has a better argument, neither of them are likely to make being right mean anything. 

I think what got me stuck on this topic so adamantly was a broad population demanding that a dragon must be oober, doober, doober, doober, doober powerful: oober, doober, doober, doober just wouldn't be amazing enough.  I think I was just baffled by and unwilling to accept the fact that such a large number of people would value higher a brief moment of awe at witnessing a dragon exhibit that extra increment of dooberness than have the benefits of greater strategic breadth and player flexibility.

Ahaha, this post wins

And I'm sure in the end I'd be happy either way - whether crappy units can do minor damage to a dragon and comparable creatures or not, so long as said damage is menial and there is no probability for arbitrarily high damage, the results would be plenty fun to play with. Which is optimal can only really be determined by trying them out.

This has been a fun debate, though - and not in least part because it is actually relevant to discuss whether or not 5000 crappy archers can do some minor hurt to a dragon! Whether the answer is yes or no is exciting

I like it.

A (standard western) dragon should'nt be beaten by swordsmen. And why are you making him artificaly stupid by negating his breath attack? Also, one tail sweep through the ranks of those soldiers should kill many and knockdown the most. A dragon should be able to to crush the morale of soldiers in an instant, if he puts attention to it.

In short: Dragons aren't to be melee'd.

unless you're St.George

Spearman beating Tank came up because its an actual example of broken game mechanics. In earlier Civ games (Civ 3 in particular IIRC) it was something that occured with alarming frequency. It infuriates a lot of players and shows just how RNG based the combat system is. (Civ 4 is generally speaking better behaved, the Spearman can damage Modern Armor but unless the unit was already weakened will not be able to kill it outside of a one in a billion moment.)

So when you say it has no bearing on balanced game mechanics, you're wrong. But your other posts clarified things, and I think where you're at is a pretty good proposal.

LOL, well I'm glad I skipped from Civ 2 to Civ 4 then.  I remember playing an online game in Civ 4 where a new player attacked my tank with 25 swordsmen (and didn't turn the animations off!) and only barely won.  By my calculations, he lost around 10 times more resources than I did, so I wasn't particularly irate about the mechanic or the exchange ;-)

Alright, I'll let you win out of sportsmanship

In Elemental, the tank would win 100% of the time against the spearmen because they wouldn't be able to penetrate the tank's armor.

Let's use a hypothetical value here:

Tank:

50 Attack

25 Defense

20 HP

--------

Minimum Defense roll: 2.5

Spearman:

1 attack

1 defense

1 HP

100 Spearmen would be 1 attack, 1 defense 100 HP (due to 100 of them).

All 100 spearmen die.

Of course, this is an extreme example.

Let's do Sauron vs. Elven Army:

Sauron:

10 attack

5 defense

1000 HP (because he's a freaking Maiar)

vs.

Elves:

1 attack

1 defense

1 HP each

In a battle let's get 1000 elves up against Sauron.

Now it's 1000 HP of 1 attack, 1 defense.  But Sauron's minimum defense roll is 0.50.  So he can be worn down.

That's because in Elemental, training and such affect HP, not attack and defense. 

...

Now, your late game uber-Channeler:

Attack: 10

Defense: 5

HP: 1000

vs.

Elder Dragon

Attack: 20

Defense: 10

HP: 100

Who wins?

Ouch, so am I correct in assuming that this means a spearman--- having seen 1000 victorious battles and slain 1000 other spearmen--- would gain tons of hitpoints but still only have 1 attack and 1 defense unless he is upgraded with better weapons?  It seems a bit counter to one's intuition to the point of being outright bizarre, even as a game mechanic function.  With this mechanic, a high level unit with elite experience plays pretty much the exact same strategic role as a pimple-face greenhorn of the same unit class that doesn't know what to do with the pointy end of his sword.  Being a wiser fighter means you are more fluent with technique and tactics, meaning you can act better against a sword being swung against you as well as swing your sword better against your opponent (which is represented by attack and defense scores.  No matter how wise you become, getting stabbed in the gut with a sword isn't going to hurt you any less, so giving lot's of extra hitpoints but no increase in technique upon gaining levels makes little sense.  Sure, an elite soldier might gain a hitpoint here and there because he knows how to move after being wounded so that he doesn't wrench the wound and make it worse, but such gains would be marginal.

I know this was the case in Gal Civ, which was just fine because the combat was very simplistic.  But in Elemental, I was somewhat expecting something more along the lines of Master of Magic, where your non-hero units gained marginal attack and defense advancements as they grew in experience.  Granted that a spearman would never even get close to being stronger than even a mid-range summoned magical creature, it was still a very fun element and strategic consideration to have units gain combat and defense strength as they become wiser combatants.  Your units gaining only hitpoints from leveling and experience seems tragically bland, unless I'm missing something.

Yay!  I love frogboy posts!!

In case of the uber Channeler vs Elder Dragon, assuming both still do not use magic, the Channeler will never lose because the Dragon will take forever to deal 1000HP damage. While DEF 10 theoretically deflect all damages of ATT 10, it does not because of dice roll difference.   The dragon's 100HP will be depleted soon before the Channeler, the dragon lost.

I'll like to have DAM as stat, on top of using ATT as the only stat to determine how much damage the Dragon can inflict.  If the EDragon has DAM of 200, it has great chance of winning.

I am happy that spearmen cannot beat a tank, however, I expect this feature will aggravate the problem of a drawn-out battle.

Using the same battle but this time the Elder Dragon has 1000HP instead of 100HP.  The dragon will win after many many combat turns, when even when turn in continuous in EWOM it is still too long a time for gamer to get the final result.

In other games, this should not be a problem as even your lowly spearmen can damage the Channeler ending the battle quicker.   In EWOM you probably will see more drawn-out battle when only low ATT & high DEF/HP units are left.  What is the best way to handle a draw, or disallow a draw?  

Just food for thought.  I don't have suggestion about drawn-out battles yet.

I've recently suggested a battle system, hopefully Frogboy  will take a look at it.

Or any other of those legendary heroes. But those are heroes and backed by god, magic, fate, luck or Chuck Norris. I meant my post in context of the OP and i understood the OP meant just simple soldiers. 

I don't see any problem that the veteran spearmen still having 1 ATT & 1 DEF.  In Frogboy's system, it is a means to control Unit tiers, or whether the spearmen has the ability to pierce dragon armor.   A 1000HP veteran spearmen can probably killed a 150HP Dragon slaying highest tier knight, but still no chance against a dragon.  I don't see a probem.

I find it quite sad here that Sauron has weaker attack than a tank... Furthermore I can't imagine the army consisting of many thousand year old elves being so weak.

Can we please stop trying to make a game that revolves around ensuring that a dragon rules supreme?  It's the very first thing everyone mentions when they are addressing the legitimacy of a feature, and it's getting absurd.

I thought the whole point of having better soldiers was so that they could fight on even terms with units that would otherwise be better equipped.

And why is it a bad thing that a unit that has fought bravely and survived many battles is able to perform more competently other than to protect the dogma of the o-mighty-dragon cult?  If units don't get some kind of distinguishing characteristic beyond HP which makes them different than greenhorns, then experience becomes a passive feature that you don't even bother paying attention to.

Let me illustrate...

Let's say you have a regiment of 60 swordsmen.  They have +2 attack, +2 defense and 1 hitpoint each.  They fight hard and gain a wopping 9 levels (arbitrary number) over a lengthy period of time, giving them +3 attack, +3 defense, and +2 hitpoints.  If this makes them about as strong as a unit that is 1 to 2 generations in tech ahead of them, what's the big deal?  Let's not forget that it is almost always the well trained and seasoned warriors like Beowulf that are able to inflict damage on the biggest beasts in fantasy settings--- not the incompetent farm boy that has had better crafted gear thrown into his hands.  

I can understand a hero or sovereign's inflated gain of HP over attack and defense (after all, their survival means more) but I don't see how marginal increases in attack and defense throws the game off balances or shatters tiers that will be broken anyway by tech advance.

I want to be able to take my elite, experienced units and use them in unique tactical fashions.  If I want to break an army's left flank or kill that caster who is belching fireballs faster, I want my elite units to be a viable option for the job.  If all you are increasing is hitpoints with level gains, that elite unit is going to kill the left flank or caster just as fast as a neophyte.  A spearman with 3 times more hitpoints than a new trainee spearman has the same function as just lining up 3 of those trainees in a row.  What does that force me to do?  That forces me to only use my newer generation, (and most likely less experienced) units for the job.  

I am not sure how the world's best spearmen are taking out a tank.

Being really good at a spear doesn't change the fact that it's a spear. 

Let's look at Robin Hood, great archer. Does his greatness mean that his arrow is going to damage the tank?

Robin Hood is going to be much more likely to hit someone in the forehead (or anywhere on the body) with his arrow than I am.  What's more, he is more likely to hit someone between the joints of their armor than I am.  Why is that?  Because Robin hood has a bow of uuberness and Demian slaying?  Or is it because he's spent years training and honing his bowmanship and seen a thousand battles?  How should that be represented in a game mechanic??  By being able to get hit in the head an extra 20 times or by increasing his chance to hit?  Clearly, by increasing his chance to hit via an increased attack score.

If arguments about dragons and tanks are going to rule the day, we can always just come up with creative reasons why robin hood could hit a dragon or tank.  He might be able to fire an arrow down a turret barrel of a tank for fire it into the one weak scale or eye of a dragon.  Likewise, a trained spearman knows to jam the tank tread or barrel with his spear rather than jab the tank directly on its armor.  Regardless, these kind of arguments don't make a game.  I know we all want uuber monsters that are indestructable in the face of wimpy units.  But leaving the rest of the game in tatters is not a worthy trade off.

Yes... He will shoot his arror so accurately it catches in the turning mechanism for the turret and prevent it from turning.

That's so wrong in so many levels that I don't know how to properly express it. For me the difference between a rookie fighter and a veterean one is not about who stands more punishement (i.e. in theory the vet could stand less due to old injuries) but on how many different tactics/attacks/defenses they know and how efficient they are in combat (or something like that, not a good day for examples).

Overstating it a bit, aren't we? Its kind of funny how you made so many posts about unfounded anecodtes vs concreate game mechanics, and now you're here saying the uber dragon example is going to ruin the game.

The issue isn't Robin Hood hitting the tank. The issue is Robin Hood damaging the tank.

Robin Hood vs. Tank means dead Robin Hood IMO.

In Elemental, if their defense is 10X your attack, you're going to die. Period.  But that's going to be a very very rare case.

If you have soldiers who have gone up in level due to lots of battles and such, it is probably worth taking the time to give them better weapons. Because, no matter how great they are, their clubs are not going to hurt an elder dragon or a demon or a dread iron golem.