Strong unit first or weak units first?

[TeraHammer]

Say 2 Axes of mine are at the doorstep of a city with just 1 archer in it.
But one of my axes is wounded.
Which one should I send into battle first in order to get the highest win odds? (assuming I dont really care which one dies, as long as they don't die both)?

Should I attack with the stronger unit first in the hope that he will damage the archer enough in order for the weaker unit to finish it off? Or the other way around?

Do first strikes matter?

I'm quite puzzled.

 

[Schben]

I tend to attack with weak units first, unless they are veterans.

 

[colony]

I'd probably attack with the uninjured one first, then the injured one. First strikes will be likely to take off a higher percentage of the injured units remaining health than for the uninjured one. The more first strikes the Archer has the more likely I'd want to attack with the uninjured unit first, because of the increased chance for first strikes to kill the injured unit without it doing much or any damage.

It would also depend on the actual odds each unit had of winning in the first place though, I don't think there's a way of giving a definate answer, as long as I haven't missed something obvious that is.

 

[slobberinbear]

I posted a similar thread on the subject of using "cannon fodder" about a month ago. The consensus opinion was to generally attack with your best percentage of victory, using cannon fodder only when your best percentage is low. Also remember that sometimes using weak/underpowered troops does very little (if any) damage to the defenders.

The best "cannon fodder" troops, ironically, are cannons and other siege units; even if you have a poor chance of victory, 10% or more collateral damage to multiple units is significant.

 

[LuckyAC]

I base it more on how promoted the units are - I want to keep my more highly promoted units alive, whether they happen to be the injured ones or not.

 

[axident]

If it's in your territory and especially if you have Great Wall, go with low-odds cannon fodder. More GGs.

 

[JackOfClubs]

Arathorn has a very detailed analysis of this question in his Combat Explained article. (See especially about halfway down the second post: How to Handle Jump Points.)

Unfortunately, as he points out, it is rather difficult to calculate in any given situation.

I generally attack with my less experienced units, giving them a chance to prove themselves while saving the veterans for easy wins. That has historical precedent as well since the Roman century usually had the "awkward johnies" up front and the veterans in the rear. But that doesn't answer your question about wounded units. I think I would go with colony's rule of thumb, for pretty much the reasons he gives.

 

[6K Man]

Really depends on percentages. If my healthy unit has a 95+% chance of winning, I'll attack with that one. If it has less than a 60% chance, I might not attack with either, because there's a fair chance both would lose.

If I have a large stack of units that will eventually capture the city anyway, I tend to use obsolete units to suicide attack until such time where my best units have a 85+% chance of winning.

 

[Tennyson]

The best cannon fodder are definately cannons. Ironically enough.

In the case of two axemen, if there is only one defender I would attack with the weakest one first. With more than one defender I doubt attacking is the wise thing.