Warrior leaders - which skills/stats to focus on?

[Bogdanov89]

I got kinda bored of the typical Leader build who focuses on spells or on "aura/army" buffs.
I would like to make leaders who are good for fighting in the battles.

I see that the typical choice of such skills is either offense or defense, along with some unique choices like mounts and character-specific quests.
However i am not sure are Leaders more useful as tanks (who just absorb damage while your army deals damage) - or can leaders be built as useful damage dealers who can kill fast?

Also which of the stats offered are more valuable and should be obtained first (charge, weapon strenght, melee attack, armor, melee defense, leadership)?
I suppose it is a good idea to put leaders on mounts for fighting, even against pikes/halberdiers?

[General Sultan V]

for Empire generals and lords they are the obviously top two trees although all trees have something related directly and/or indirectly to battles, there is a skill in the middle tree that I think is very strong it gives spearmen and swordsmen in your army alot of melee defense. It's very OP and over-bearing I think (overbearing as in I must unlock the middle tree and max that skill before putting points in anything else because of how good it is)

[econ21]

It's a good question and I confess my knowledge about the maths behind TWW combat is sufficiently murky that I can't give a definitive answer.

It seemed to me looking at the numbers that lots of the stat boosts (to attack, defence, armor and charge) were small relative to the total - a few points. However, 30% more health seems a big chunk and 30% more damage seems a big chunk to be taking out of health, so I went for those two. With those talents, my Karl Franz could whip Archaon[1]. Without such talents, my Empire captains generally are (slightly) outfought by AI heroes.

EDIT: Just checked in game and it's 15% HP and 15% weapon strength, not 30%. It got nerfed. Sad.

In terms of mounts, someone said that re-charging, a mounted Lord will beat a non-mounted one. Makes sense to me, given the way charge bonuses work. But I don't have time to micro in that way, so generally make my characters walk. Karl Franz on Deathclaw is an exception - the mobility is just awesome. Horses for squishy heroes like mages also make sense. Once I put a second captain on a mount to join my cavalry force, but to be honest, cavalry hits hard enough they don't need a hero to bolster them. Typically, your warrior leader's primary job is to tie down and then kill the enemy leader, while not dying. That doesn't require much mobility - the enemy Lord will usually be in the centre of their line; it does require surviving in a sea of enemy infantry. Spears and halberds are sufficiently common in the enemy's central line, that I'd rather keep them on foot.



[1] I tend to go for a hybrid build for Karl Franz. I think the bottom row may be best - getting replenishment bonuses is fantastic for keeping the main army up between gruelling battles, lightning strike can be incredible when facing a multi-stack invasion and the +XP to recruits helps get 9XP recruits once you have teched up. I do go for some on the middle row - bonuses for state troops, as the bonuses are big and help during the early/mid game, but they may not be needed. The top, warrior, row I go in the end game to be able to stand up to Chaos leaders, usually putting points in after unlocking Deathclaw. But it takes a lot of planning to get everything you want, as the points and prequisites make it very tight (you have to get to the second half of both the top and bottom rows).

[jahjeremy]

A rough order of importance (let's say for a more offensive build) could be weapon strength, melee attack, armor, melee defense, charge, and leadership.

But it depends on the build you are going for with the hero/lord. Are they a straight tank? Are they more of a glass cannon? Are they hybrid damage/tank? Are they melee/mage? All these should have different builds.

My general favorite is weapon strength, because I really do seem to notice when my units are doing more damage.

But for some builds you might go more tank so get armor and melee defense, whereas you would go weapon strength and melee attack for an offensive build.

I don't tend to notice charge bonus so I rarely get that but I could see it being useful.

It seems like +armor is really helpful as well as melee defense especially for a tank build though you can get spells that buff your melee defense considerably instead, and any "melee" lord should have 100 base armor (not saying more armor can't help but sometimes it is overkill).

I will place stats where needed for certain characters (let's say if they have a low melee defense I might buff it so they're not too glassy).

You want to make sure the characters have the right armor and weapon items (+melee attack, +melee defense is nice on items). Also, if you can get ward save that makes your characters far more tanky. Items (like healing pot!) can be very useful as well as physical resistance, etc.

I really think Beastmen has the best melee armies. You can make builds that give you auras of +armor, +melee attack, etc. I played an epic Beastmen campaign where by the end I could literally defeat an entire stack of Empire with my 3 melee lords/heroes plus spells and a few auxiliary units.

Chaos is also really fun. Archaon can be built as a hybrid melee/sorcerer with fire spells. Some of his fire spells buff your stats considerably and give surrounding units the same buff so you don't even really need to give him many stat points. You can unlock all 5 of Archaon's items to get some nice stat boosts. Some of his other fire spells are AOE attacks which is really useful because you can attack units that are surrounding you in melee. I like to unlock Archaon's horse because then he's fast and can chase down units.

Ideally, I like to have a lot of buff/debuff available for an army focusing on melee heroes, as well as AOE spells if available. You can get a bunch of units surrounding your melee heroes, then buff them (esp with melee defense buffs so they don't take a lot of damage), and then hit the enemy with AOE spells right around your heroes. So a leveled up mage hero can be nice support.

I also really like the Lore of Death magic with a melee army, because it can help route the enemy much quicker (there is one spell that places a -16 Leadership debuff on them!). This worked well with my Beastmen army.

Manfred Von Carstein is also a fun one because he can get health regen. He can also get the Lord of Death and that is something I would experiment with (that type of magic being strong for melee armies imho because of the nice -leadership debuffs to get the enemy to route much quicker).

The most fun is accompanying your melee gods with some beasts like minotaurs, dragon ogres, and/or cavalry. Most of the lords/heroes can get mounts so I usually unlock those just because they are fun to play with a melee build and good for chasing down fleeing armies.

Orc also has lots of possibilities I didn't even mention!

I would just experiment and see what you think is fun to play rather than min/max it too much. Melee builds on heroes/lords seem quite good in this game, so you can't go too wrong.

[Ichon]

1. Melee attack
2. Melee defense
3. Special Skills if available, hunger etc
4. Legendary Quest gear
5. other gear
6. Weapon strength
7. Charge (somewhat controversial and situational as some Lords with large flying mounts the Charge bonus can be substantial and even vs other Lords provide edge needed to win 1 v 1.
8. Armor (armor is a bit difficult because not all Lords start with 60+ armor and sometimes it should have higher priority but +melee defense > armor always

[General Sultan V]

Yes I agree with Econ that bonus HP seemed like the best way to go, melee defense brings only defense to melee, Armor only to physical damage, Bonus HP sort of brings resistance and toughness against all kinds of damage. It seems very strong and efficient and maybe too optimized compared to the rest in that tree. Also combined with a mount of any sort the character will have lots of HP

[Ichon]

Yes I agree with Econ that bonus HP seemed like the best way to go, melee defense brings only defense to melee, Armor only to physical damage, Bonus HP sort of brings resistance and toughness against all kinds of damage. It seems very strong and efficient and maybe too optimized compared to the rest in that tree. Also combined with a mount of any sort the character will have lots of HP

I actually think HP is the least valuable of the Lord skills since most of the time you will find healing potions and the HP bonus is the difference of maybe 1 at most 2 hits vs other Lords and while it adds a bit more durability vs lower tier units melee defense adds far more as HP lets you absorb a few more hits and melee defense causes many more attempted hits to miss. I put melee attack slightly ahead of melee defense only due to fights vs Lords, Heroes, and higher tier units where a good offense is worth slightly more than a good defense IF you use your Lord carefully (supported in fights).

[M2TWRocks]

I am biased since I prefer traditional mmo "tank" style characters. But you can make a nigh indestructible front line fighter by focusing on hit points, armor, and melee defense. It's also great if you can get that regen potion as an item. You will feel truly epic. Lead from the front! You can do some interesting things with positioning enemy units by having them clump together trying to attack you. I love hero units and LL's in this game.

I almost never create the army buff generals - tanks all the way.

[Goumindong]

Short Answer:

1) Melee Defense or Special Skills
2) Melee Defense or Melee Attack
3) Melee Attack or Special skills
4) HP/Armor
5) Weapon Damage
6) Charge bonus

Basic reasoning: Lords will field many more attacks than they will give out. Melee defense is magnified because even normal units can animation stun lords. And this will massively reduce their effectiveness. Otherwise attack and defense are roughly "equal" when fighting a single unit.

After that special skills make the most difference. Sometimes, depending on the skill, this leapfrogs attack/defense. Many times the special skill advantage is disproportionate in terms of point investiture because the combat skills are back loaded in effect.

After that HP/Armor will have the most effect in keeping you alive. Which is better depends on how much HP you have and how much armor you have and whether or not you have regen abilities.

After that its damage. This is low because largely you're going to be fighting units with HP far under your weapon damage. If you're fighting monsters or other lords, this shoots up, potentially to just under melee attack.

After that its charge bonus. This is the least important because charge bonus applies a flat bonus to attack and damage. Most lords have a high enough charge bonus that increasing their bonus attack on the charge isn't that valuable. Similarly they have enough base weapon damage that increasing their bonus to damage is not very consequential.

Consider the converse where you have a unit with a high unit count. There you've got melee attack/defense highly rated again. But its harder to animation stun the entire unit, so attack is more valuable unless you're specifically attempting to hold a line. Similarly because your charge bonuses are lower in total and because you have a much lower damage, the charge bonus becomes much more important.

For a more in depth examination you can see my guide on Steam.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=719168880


Edit: For non-warrior typed lords/hero's this usually means that mounts (despite making them better targets for arrows and receive more attacks in melee) are the ideal spending route. This is because the barded mounts will boost the armor of the unit to the armor of the mount. Which can give upwards of 60 armor for 2 or so points. While also increasing hit points.

It is also worth noting which stats are modified by mounts. As they will modify the entire units base stats and can have significant effects on melee attack/defense etc.

Special mention to the arrow defense skill. Hero's already receive blanket DR for ranged attacks and this appears to stack linearly with other types of DR. This makes its effectiveness much higher than you might think otherwise especially for a large flyer like a griffon.

[econ21]

...my knowledge of the maths behind TWW combat is sufficiently murky that I can't give a definitive answer.

The following post clarifies a lot of the mechanics:

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...or_and_damage/

For example, the chance to hit is "40% + Attack - Defence", capping out at 10% and 90%. Armour reduces 75% of its value from non-AP damage, on average.

Knowing this, we have a maths basis for comparing +9 attack vs +15% weapon strength. In battle with another leader, WS should be better because 15% is more than 9%. However, against rank and file with low HP, extra WS may be wasted as overkill.

Similarly, 15% more hitpoints is a bigger boost to time before death than -9% chance to be hit (although Guomingdong makes an interesting point about stunlocking animations). Both seem better than 15 points of armor in a duel with another warrior leader, which reduces 6% of non-AP damage if, for example, Karl Franz on foot was fighting his mirror. More armour would also be a poor choice for a well armored lord fighting rank and file: Karl Franz would already be negating all the non-AP damage.

Having read this thread and reflecting more, I think I'd change my preferred build and go defense heavy, choosing 15% extra health from the first part of the tree and 9 melee defence from the second. (My earlier preference for WS was based on its pre-nerf 30% bonus). Your Lord fleeing or dying is a disaster, so I think that would normally trump offensive boosts. Note that for Karl Franz, at least, points in HP and melee defence are not competing within the same part of the skill tree.

There's enough good non-warrior traits that I would put the minimum in the yellow tree to unlock it's final talent, deadly onslaught (18% AP damage plus more charge bonus for 36 seconds). Perhaps one point in attack (+2% to hit) and one in weapon strength (+ 3% damage), but due to increasing returns to talents, a solitary point in any of them is not very exciting.

[Ichon]

The following post clarifies a lot of the mechanics:

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...or_and_damage/

For example, the chance to hit is "40% + Attack - Defence", capping out at 10% and 90%. Armour reduces 75% of its value from non-AP damage, on average.

Knowing this, we have a maths basis for comparing +9 attack vs +15% weapon strength. In battle with another leader, WS should be better because 15% is more than 9%. However, against rank and file with low HP, extra WS may be wasted as overkill.

Similarly, 15% more hitpoints is a bigger boost to time before death than -9% chance to be hit (although Guomingdong makes an interesting point about stunlocking animations). Both seem better than 15 points of armor in a duel with another warrior leader, which reduces 6% of non-AP damage if, for example, Karl Franz on foot was fighting his mirror. More armour would also be a poor choice for a well armored lord fighting rank and file: Karl Franz would already be negating all the non-AP damage.

Having read this thread and reflecting more, I think I'd change my preferred build and go defense heavy, choosing 15% extra health from the first part of the tree and 9 melee defence from the second. (My earlier preference for WS was based on its pre-nerf 30% bonus). Your Lord fleeing or dying is a disaster, so I think that would normally trump offensive boosts. Note that for Karl Franz, at least, points in HP and melee defence are not competing within the same part of the skill tree.

There's enough good non-warrior traits that I would put the minimum in the yellow tree to unlock it's final talent, deadly onslaught (18% AP damage plus more charge bonus for 36 seconds). Perhaps one point in attack (+2% to hit) and one in weapon strength (+ 3% damage), but due to increasing returns to talents, a solitary point in any of them is not very exciting.

The thing to remember is that +9% attack avoidance is not actually 9% but +9% to the existing melee defense. For a character that has 50 melee defense +9% = 59% vs lets say average 35 melee attack (mid-upper tier only starts to get above 40 melee attack) so 75%-59%=16% chance to hit vs 25% without the extra 9% from skill tree. In other words vs most mid tier and lower units getting hit 36% less often.

Now compared to 100 armor which is randomly rolled damage % reduction if we say 50% is the average then armor protects from different amounts of weapon damage but lets say 40 (somewhere in mid tier of weapon damage) that means 20 damage is still applied (not counting what portion of a weapon is AP and is always applied separate from armor roll).

Now a Lord in the middle of enemy could be attacked from lets say 8 opponents to keep it small- at 50% melee defense vs average 35 attack 25% or 2 hits occur which each do 20 damage for total of 40 after an average armor roll for both hits. If attacking vs 59 melee defense on average 1.3 hits occur. TW usually rounds down so 1 hit at 50% damage = 20 damage taken. Now add the +15 armor roll which is makes 100 armor into 115 but the average roll 58% reduction so rounded 38 damage instead of 40.

The more chances to hit the more the hit avoidance stacks up on low/mid tier attack skill. It starts to change the higher the attack skill so another Lord or high tier monster with melee attack of 80 has 70% chance to hit vs 61% which still favors melee defense but armor starts to become more valuable when majority of hits are landing difference at 450 damage 50% or 225 vs 189 or 36 damage difference. In 1 minute of battle using 4 second attack intervals that is time for 15 attacks or about 2,079 damage at 70% and 2,025 at 61% so at this point armor and melee defense are basically equal.

My contention is that when even vs most lords and higher tier units especially considering how much AP such units also have taking the melee defense over the armor is almost equal result AND benefits much more vs lower tier units AND AP units... melee defense is clearly superior to armor in the skill tree.

[Gavani]

Personally, I tend to focus in on the upgrades that improve the army in general such as melee attack and defence for your basic units.

My logic is that even a tank can be taken down if surrounded and securing greater strength across the battlefield as a whole is more beneficial allowing you to make whatever manoeuvre secures you victory. Not having your line crumble early on is very useful. Also taking less casualties means you can press your advantage more quickly after a victory.

That being said, if a general has a particular weakness such as low melee defence I do appreciate that this needs addressing immediately as losing your general usually loses you the battle.

Am I missing a trick here then? I use quite a lot of basic units in my army make ups so have always taken this approach.

[econ21]

The thing to remember is that +9% attack avoidance is not actually 9% ..

Good point. I was comparing absolute percentage point changes, but what matters is the relative effects and these vary. Trying to do the maths more systematically, I'm finding +9 att for Karl Franz is better than +15% WS in a duel with Archaon (KF has only a 45% chance to hit, so +9 points is a 20% increase in chance to hit). Given that +WS is overkill against ordinary troops, this implies +attack is way better than +WS. Something like the pre-nerf +30% WS would be needed to make it competitive.

Now compared to 100 armor which is randomly rolled damage % reduction if we say 50% is the average .

Yes, another correction to what I wrote. I misunderstood how armor works. Reading the reddit post more carefully, it may be that a point of armour is 0.5% damage reduction.

Doing the math, it seems like +9 defence would help Karl Franz more against Archaon than +15 armour. +15% hitpoints helps the most. Archaon has a 80% chance to hit Karl Franz, cutting it by 9 points is an 11% reduction, worth less in time to live than 15% hit points. (But anyway you cut it, Archaon wins - my Karl Franz must have had a ton of fat loot or I was misrecalling him squatting Archaon).

Am I missing a trick here then? I use quite a lot of basic units in my army make ups so have always taken this approach.

Yeah, with Karl Franz, I tend to grab +12 attack and defence for state troops early. That seems a massive buff[1]. It's pretty useless in the end game, as Great Swords and other goodies have replaced state troops in my top tier army. But for the majority of the game, it's a good investment. I'm not sure what troop buffs further down the tree are worth it - a 30% ward save for steam tanks and demi-gryph knights sounds nice, I guess.

Personally, for the me the best talents are the bottom row: lightning strike and buffs to healing troops transform strategy in the late game - you can take Chaos apart army by army, and almost instantly recover your losses.

[1]Fighting an unbuffed swordsman, the 3 talent points raise the chance to hit by 30% and lower the chance to be hit by 30%.

[Ichon]

Yeah the +12% melee defense/attack army buffs are definitely the best skills in the skill tree followed by lightning strike in campaign then it depends quite a bit on the individual lords. I feel Azhag benefits more for spell casting but Balthasar Gelt might as well get as many melee and campaign buffs as possible ignoring his Lore of Metal skill tree.

Usually I do the red tree first to get the +melee def/att then buff the Lord melee defense then depends on the specific Lord. Sometimes go for mounts, sometimes more red tree, sometimes full melee though I skip the charge 99% of the time and usually the weapon strength as well unless very unlucky with finding good gear.

Most of the time I try to get 1 of each type of Lord- Red/Yellow, Red/Blue, Blue/Yellow. I find putting spells on most Lords is much less useful than bringing a separate dedicated caster but a few Lords are just so good with Lore. Azhag, Durthu, Mannfred, Archaon, maybe Kemmler and Wurzag though dedicated casters do well for them they both have some special skills.

For KF its a tough call- I play Empire on Leg and without the state troop red buffs the early battles can be tough. However I rarely put 3 points into them, just 1 or 2 and the other 2 or 3 into handgunners to unlock the next tier where the buffs to Greatswords are very useful. That extra 1-2 points means can get some replenish on the blue tree and some combat skils, KF usually ends up one of my most diversely skilled Lords.

[econ21]

For KF its a tough call-... unlock the next tier where the buffs to Greatswords are very useful. .

Um, sounds like I'll have to inspect that middle tree more carefully and have even more choices to make when levelling Karl Franz. Still more choices is good.

To further correct my earlier post, I've found the second part of the reddit threads unpacking the TWW combat system and it seems that armor averages at 0.75% damage reduction (minimum 50%*Armour stat reduction, maximum 100%*Armour):

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/co...actually_work/

Not sure if that will change the earlier conclusions[1], but it is good to know how things work.

BTW, the first Reddit thread mentioned some interesting stuff about "impact damage" from non-infantry charges: it's AP and it is NOT the charge bonus. I guess that implies mounts are better than they look.

[1]It doesn't seem to: extra armour for Karl Franz is still the weakest survival choice, compared to HP or defence.

[Chlodwig I.]

I normally go for Army bonuses first like +Defense + Melee Damage for basic units if the General is a warrior
If the General is a Caster I go for the Magic abilities

[the_mango55]

Some lords are better at fighting than others keep in mind. Kholek Suneater, Grimgor, Ungrim, and Dirthu are all beasts at fighting up close and personal, while others are more focused on army buffing.

Full disclosure though I always use a double skill points for generals mod, almost can't play without it. Life's too short to grind your generals to get the good abilities. The AI gets it too so it's not really cheating (although the AI doesn't always make great picks so it's still an advantage to the human player).