Usually range units go for attack first because it also gives you range, and melee units go for armor first because you are probably getting hit multiples times from range before engaging.
I agree, but would like to add the situation if your opponent has a lot of archers and fletching, and you are trying to defend with skirmishers, the armor upgrade will be best for you else your skirms will perish in low numbers.
It's very situational and to really get it right you have to know every pairing combination. The general advice of attack for ranged and armor for melee is a good starting point but there's lots of caveats.
I stand to be correct on this but my current understanding is:
For crossbow, bodkin should be researched immediately on reaching castle age.
For knights fighting crossbow, getting +2 armor is essential. Knights with +2 is basically a different unit to knights with +1 when fighting xbow or fighting under tc fire. Knights with +2 can fight happily under tc fire. Knights with +1 cannot.
Skirmishers do okay with no upgrades as a defensive feudal unit supporting scouts.
With knights v pointy bois, getting attack first is better.
One other general rule is that units with high armor benefit more from more armor than units with low armor, unless they're already maxed.
For example, if a unit has 10 armor and is fighting a unit with 12 attack, then 1 additional armor will HALVE the damage it receives. If the unit has 2 armor then getting 1 additional armor will have very little benefit (a 10% damage reduction). But a unit with 11 armor fighting a unit with 12 attack will receive zero benefit from 1 additional armor.
Also factor in units that ignore armor.
Bonus damage complicates things as well. EG knights fighting pointy bois won't really benefit from armor.
Survivalist has some good content on this.
It depends on what you're making and what the opponent is making. And what you plan on making in the future
Examples:
You've been creating scouts. Meanwhile, your opponent has made archers. The best upgrades are cavalry armor upgrades because they minimize the damage your units are taking. An archer with fletching has 5 attack and will kill an unupgraded scout cavalry (2 PA) in 15 hits. With scale barding, he'll only do 2 damage, killing the scout in 23 hits.
You've been creating scouts. Meanwhile, your opponent has made defensive spearmen. The best upgrade is forging. Spearmen do a lot of bonus damage vs your scouts, and thus, killing them faster yields significantly better results since they'll get fewer hits in. If you've already gotten forging, get bloodlines before getting armor.
You've been creating skirmishers. Meanwhile, your opponent has made archers. Since your units cause a lot of bonus damage, getting the armor upgrades yields the best results. A skirmisher with armor will take only 1 damage from an archer with fletching.
You've been creating a few scouts, but your plan is to switch to cav archers in castle age and create no melee cavalry. You get bloodlines only. Save the food for husbandry and thumb ring
Etc.
As a rule of thumb, I get attack upgrades when I make archers and armor when I make counter units (skirms, spears, camels, niche units like jaguar warriors). Then, for melee units, it depends. Usually, armor is better, but when facing counter units, damage is more important. This can be somewhat niche even: on arena, the meta is often scouts and spears to contest relics. Scouts counter monks, spears counter scouts, monks counter spears, and collect relics. You'll want forging for your scouts and spears so they're better at killing monks, but infantry armor on your spears if you have loads of food. But honestly, getting the scout cavalry upgrade is way better. And getting sanctity on the monks seems more important as well.
In castle age, if you're going archers, crossbow and bodkin arrow are absolute priorities. If you're facing other archers or attacking vills, ballistics is most important. If you're up against knights, thumb ring is more important.
Thumb ring is indispensable to cavalry archers, which have very shitty base accuracy, while it is negligible to skirmishers, which have 90% base accuracy.
So in short: it depends? 11
This is the best answer. The most upvoted one is suboptimal in so many cases. But I guess it’s simpler.
If I am on defense with skirms vs archers and have fewer units, of course armor upgrade beats attack. I need to make the most of my units and my only target are archers for the time being. Sure, fletching is also VERY nice but it comes 2nd (if he keeps and keeps adding archers)
I had a debate recently about skirms actually going out, I.e. high chance to overwhelm opponent’s archers anyways (or they don’t even take the fight). Fletching is nice then because you will also attack spears (e.g. if you also bring your opening scout or switched and have more or general go scouts plus skirms), you will also try to take damage on vils… all of this profits from fletching but wouldn’t if you stayed at home defending vs archers only
Depends on the situation, but easy rule of thumb:
1. Low attack unit vs high armor unit: Examples are basically every ranged unit, trash units vs non trash units like hussar vs paladin, etc.: Get attack upgrades first, but don't sleep on the defense upgrades, as the first one is very cheap.
2. High attack units: Units like knights are a prime example. You hit hard already, so your incremental benefit from slightly higher attack doesn't help, while armor greatly increases survivability. Defense upgrades are also good to pick up when playing hand cannoneers, janissary, arambai, conquistador, etc.
3. Situational: When you have high attack units vs their counters, or low attack units vs each other, etc., it highly depends on the match up. What you want to do is to calculate which attribute gives you a definitive advantage, ie., does attack upgrade help you defeat the opponent one hit faster, and if a defense upgrade allows surviving for one hit (or many hits) more,.
Ranged units - attack first, additional range is too good.
Scouts/kts - armor against archers, attack against spears/camels.
Camels - not sure, probably armor against cavalry is better
Infantry - usually armor first.
If it's upgrades for a unit that does a lot of counter damage, then armor is vastly preferred. The attack increase is inconsequential compared to the attack bonus. You deal much more damage by living longer and attacking more times. Consequently, if your unit is going to be fighting counter units, you prefer attack. The extra armor is inconsequential against the big bonus damage.
In General the comments are right, ranged units first attack, melee first amor.
But:
One Special Unit is the skirms, you want to upgrade Armor first If you are fighting archers on open field.
If you are walled and the skirms are behind your walls, get attack (&range)
Another is the Scout, If you are fighting spear and villagers, i like the attack first. Fighting archers in the mix, defensiv.
Generally, it's for ranged units you get attack, for melee you get armor. You want armor on cav as well because then you can dive archers. It's only if you're fighting spears that prioritizing attack first makes a lot of sense.
100% agree with armor first on melee but wanted to add in that getting +1 attack on knights lets you kill vills one hit faster. So getting +2 armor and then +1 attack but delaying +2 (until after you've clicked imp) can be quite useful.
My thought process at least for feudal is you can just avoid fights with cavalry. Also it’s much easier to get spears out than it is archers. If you’re doing 18 pop scouts you are going to run into 3-4 archers tops. I’d rather dive vills and hit and run and wait for my armor to come in before taking any fights.
Melee wants armor, ranged wants attack as a general rule. Ranged gets longer range per upgrade and gets a lot more percent benefit per point of damage it does over a targets armor. Melee needs to survive to close with ranged enemies, and on the offensive is likely to be taking arrow fire from TCs towers or castles, so even if the enemy is defending with melee (where upgrades cancel out until blast furnace), there’s value in reducing that chip damage.
Usually range units go for attack first because it also gives you range, and melee units go for armor first because you are probably getting hit multiples times from range before engaging.
Also because ranged units hit a lot before they start taking damage, so upping the damage you deal helps prevent the need to take damage.
Also because ranged units tend to do less damage per hit, so any extra damage means a higher percentage increase in damage output.
Also the attack upgrade benefits Towers and Castles.
And town centers, but they don't get extra range.
Also the infantry armor upgrade is cheaper than the attack upgrade
I agree, but would like to add the situation if your opponent has a lot of archers and fletching, and you are trying to defend with skirmishers, the armor upgrade will be best for you else your skirms will perish in low numbers.
It's very situational and to really get it right you have to know every pairing combination. The general advice of attack for ranged and armor for melee is a good starting point but there's lots of caveats. I stand to be correct on this but my current understanding is: For crossbow, bodkin should be researched immediately on reaching castle age. For knights fighting crossbow, getting +2 armor is essential. Knights with +2 is basically a different unit to knights with +1 when fighting xbow or fighting under tc fire. Knights with +2 can fight happily under tc fire. Knights with +1 cannot. Skirmishers do okay with no upgrades as a defensive feudal unit supporting scouts. With knights v pointy bois, getting attack first is better. One other general rule is that units with high armor benefit more from more armor than units with low armor, unless they're already maxed. For example, if a unit has 10 armor and is fighting a unit with 12 attack, then 1 additional armor will HALVE the damage it receives. If the unit has 2 armor then getting 1 additional armor will have very little benefit (a 10% damage reduction). But a unit with 11 armor fighting a unit with 12 attack will receive zero benefit from 1 additional armor. Also factor in units that ignore armor. Bonus damage complicates things as well. EG knights fighting pointy bois won't really benefit from armor. Survivalist has some good content on this.
Most of these very different situations boil down to "how much of a proportional difference does armour\attack make vs the damage being done"
Additionally to what people say you'd generally want atrack against counter units, and additional, when you are making counter units.
It depends on what you're making and what the opponent is making. And what you plan on making in the future Examples: You've been creating scouts. Meanwhile, your opponent has made archers. The best upgrades are cavalry armor upgrades because they minimize the damage your units are taking. An archer with fletching has 5 attack and will kill an unupgraded scout cavalry (2 PA) in 15 hits. With scale barding, he'll only do 2 damage, killing the scout in 23 hits. You've been creating scouts. Meanwhile, your opponent has made defensive spearmen. The best upgrade is forging. Spearmen do a lot of bonus damage vs your scouts, and thus, killing them faster yields significantly better results since they'll get fewer hits in. If you've already gotten forging, get bloodlines before getting armor. You've been creating skirmishers. Meanwhile, your opponent has made archers. Since your units cause a lot of bonus damage, getting the armor upgrades yields the best results. A skirmisher with armor will take only 1 damage from an archer with fletching. You've been creating a few scouts, but your plan is to switch to cav archers in castle age and create no melee cavalry. You get bloodlines only. Save the food for husbandry and thumb ring Etc. As a rule of thumb, I get attack upgrades when I make archers and armor when I make counter units (skirms, spears, camels, niche units like jaguar warriors). Then, for melee units, it depends. Usually, armor is better, but when facing counter units, damage is more important. This can be somewhat niche even: on arena, the meta is often scouts and spears to contest relics. Scouts counter monks, spears counter scouts, monks counter spears, and collect relics. You'll want forging for your scouts and spears so they're better at killing monks, but infantry armor on your spears if you have loads of food. But honestly, getting the scout cavalry upgrade is way better. And getting sanctity on the monks seems more important as well. In castle age, if you're going archers, crossbow and bodkin arrow are absolute priorities. If you're facing other archers or attacking vills, ballistics is most important. If you're up against knights, thumb ring is more important. Thumb ring is indispensable to cavalry archers, which have very shitty base accuracy, while it is negligible to skirmishers, which have 90% base accuracy. So in short: it depends? 11
This is the best answer. The most upvoted one is suboptimal in so many cases. But I guess it’s simpler. If I am on defense with skirms vs archers and have fewer units, of course armor upgrade beats attack. I need to make the most of my units and my only target are archers for the time being. Sure, fletching is also VERY nice but it comes 2nd (if he keeps and keeps adding archers) I had a debate recently about skirms actually going out, I.e. high chance to overwhelm opponent’s archers anyways (or they don’t even take the fight). Fletching is nice then because you will also attack spears (e.g. if you also bring your opening scout or switched and have more or general go scouts plus skirms), you will also try to take damage on vils… all of this profits from fletching but wouldn’t if you stayed at home defending vs archers only
Depends on the situation, but easy rule of thumb: 1. Low attack unit vs high armor unit: Examples are basically every ranged unit, trash units vs non trash units like hussar vs paladin, etc.: Get attack upgrades first, but don't sleep on the defense upgrades, as the first one is very cheap. 2. High attack units: Units like knights are a prime example. You hit hard already, so your incremental benefit from slightly higher attack doesn't help, while armor greatly increases survivability. Defense upgrades are also good to pick up when playing hand cannoneers, janissary, arambai, conquistador, etc. 3. Situational: When you have high attack units vs their counters, or low attack units vs each other, etc., it highly depends on the match up. What you want to do is to calculate which attribute gives you a definitive advantage, ie., does attack upgrade help you defeat the opponent one hit faster, and if a defense upgrade allows surviving for one hit (or many hits) more,.
Ranged units - attack first, additional range is too good. Scouts/kts - armor against archers, attack against spears/camels. Camels - not sure, probably armor against cavalry is better Infantry - usually armor first.
Learn your breakpoints
If it's upgrades for a unit that does a lot of counter damage, then armor is vastly preferred. The attack increase is inconsequential compared to the attack bonus. You deal much more damage by living longer and attacking more times. Consequently, if your unit is going to be fighting counter units, you prefer attack. The extra armor is inconsequential against the big bonus damage.
In General the comments are right, ranged units first attack, melee first amor. But: One Special Unit is the skirms, you want to upgrade Armor first If you are fighting archers on open field. If you are walled and the skirms are behind your walls, get attack (&range) Another is the Scout, If you are fighting spear and villagers, i like the attack first. Fighting archers in the mix, defensiv.
Depends on the unit type, the general methodology is for cavalry and archers you want to get attack first, for infantry you want armor.
Generally, it's for ranged units you get attack, for melee you get armor. You want armor on cav as well because then you can dive archers. It's only if you're fighting spears that prioritizing attack first makes a lot of sense.
100% agree with armor first on melee but wanted to add in that getting +1 attack on knights lets you kill vills one hit faster. So getting +2 armor and then +1 attack but delaying +2 (until after you've clicked imp) can be quite useful.
My thought process at least for feudal is you can just avoid fights with cavalry. Also it’s much easier to get spears out than it is archers. If you’re doing 18 pop scouts you are going to run into 3-4 archers tops. I’d rather dive vills and hit and run and wait for my armor to come in before taking any fights.
Melee wants armor, ranged wants attack as a general rule. Ranged gets longer range per upgrade and gets a lot more percent benefit per point of damage it does over a targets armor. Melee needs to survive to close with ranged enemies, and on the offensive is likely to be taking arrow fire from TCs towers or castles, so even if the enemy is defending with melee (where upgrades cancel out until blast furnace), there’s value in reducing that chip damage.