Should units always do a minimum of 1 damage?

I think the percentage rule might make sense. If you do less than one damage, take the fraction of damage that would be inflicted and make it a percentage chance of doing one damage. So if your attack would only do .1 damage, you have a 10% chance of inflicting damage. Perhaps, as a compromise, you can cap this fraction damage so you always have at least a 10% chance of causing damage (or maybe 25%). 10 units won't kill an enemy automatically, but it'll at least damage it.

This.

l8r)
 
Why is this thread still alive!

Minimal damage is necessary I had immortal units. Seriously. Park a mech infantry in citadel and watch hordes fall victim to it.

They decided my heavily trenched main line isn't worth the pain so they elected to march their units one by one through a thin mountain valley with a huge tribary in middle while still surrounded by mountains and hills with a small river through it.

A single citadel and a mech infantry fortified in one of its entrance sealed it impassable.

I watched streams of riflemen to infantry to mech infantry to attack copters trying to dislodge the mechinfantry mocking them out of their citadel and failing like Harry Larry and Moe.

That was before the minimal damage got patched in. At least now I have to actually pay attention to a front instead of park unit and forget.
 
It's the Barbarians, Callonia. They're just so hard to deal with, being Brutes and Archers and all. I mean, seriously, have you tried dealing with Barbarians using modern units? crossmr just couldn't get any headway. Clearly, there's a problem with the game, since it's nearly impossible to get Brandenburg Gate in any game, and we all know how hard it is to additionally build more buildings in the same city. It's not like you can just queue those up or anything.
 
callonia that is not the 1 minimum damage rules fault, that is because bonuses stack way too fast.
multiply Hp and damage with 10, and half % military bonuses, and set max level 5 on units.
 
Top Bottom