saadht that's still just a construct in your mind. If we do ranged at 75% we can do short range at 75% too, and melee at 75%. It makes no difference to realism, it's just skewing the rules to tip the balance of gameplay.
It's not 2 arrows getting shot, like it's not a guy with a sword swinging and hitting every time. It's what damage they can do in a given battle. That's really all there is to it, it's simple, neat, easy, and makes sense. As much sense as any game. Some games would call it damage per minute, some would do damage per hit, whatever, it's just a number that shows what it can do in a battle.
If we say a sword man can do 5 damage, and a archer can do 5 damage, that's all there is to it. There isn't the archer shooting 1 arrow and hitting 100% of the time, there doesn't need to be entropy of some kind, there's randomness elsewhere to create some realism. The damage is just what a unit can do in a battle.
So what we're really talking about is saying "we don't like that the archer gets to shoot the sword man before the sword man can make a hit". That's the whole point to having the archer in the first place. So we're to say "ok, now the archer can only do 2.5 damage now, so we can give the sword man a chance to kill the archer". And that's all the convo is really about, giving the sword man a handicap so he can kill the archer - whether it makes sense or whether we know if it's fair or not.
I wonder what the numbers would look like if we figured out the cost of 1 attack point for each phase of battle for each race. I bet it would get extra interesting to see the costs after removing half the attack points from ranged units only.
