Defence & the 10% Rule

When a defence surplus neutralizes the troop-triangle counter — the Solidity Equation, the corrected 10% rule, and the whale asymmetry.

The Codex

Four field observations, formalized

This chapter formalizes four observations contributed in alliance discussion by governor “LM Unc”: (1) an opponent whose defence% sits slightly above your attack% “starts to become solid”; (2) archers with 10% more defence than the attacking cavalry’s attack are almost protected from their base weakness; (3) health% is rare and therefore valuable; (4) with attack% alone there will always be a whale with a higher defence%. All four turn out to be provable from the stacking model — with one correction that matters more the older your kingdom gets.

One extra constant enters: the troop-triangle counter bonus, documented at a 5% base and boosted to roughly 10% by troop-tree talent nodes. Call the resulting multiplier κ: 1.05 base, ≈1.10 talented.

The Solidity Equation

[P] Paper model

With equal-tier troops at base parity, per-hit damage from a counter-type attacker (say, cavalry striking your archers) is proportional to the ratio of stacked multipliers times the counter coefficient:

R(a, d) = κ × (1 + a) / (1 + d)
a = attacker’s summed attack% (decimal), d = your summed defence%. You are SOLID when R ≤ 1.
[P] Paper model

R ≤ 1 means the counter-type attacker no longer hits you harder than a same-type one would — the triangle’s edge over you is fully cancelled by your defence surplus. No amount of symmetric stacking removes the raw ×1.10 penalty; only a SURPLUS over the attacker’s stack does.

Check your own numbers in the Solidity calculator

The “10% rule” — and its correction

[P] Paper model

Setting R = 1 and solving for the defence surplus s = d − a that exactly cancels the counter bonus:

s* = (κ − 1) × (1 + a)
Theorem 5 — the required surplus grows linearly with the attack stack
[P] Paper model
Attacker’s stack aRequired surplus s* (κ = 1.10)
0% (day one)10 points — the field rule, exact
50%15 points
100%20 points
150% (endgame)25 points
The 10% rule is exact in the early game and only a first-order approximation thereafter — a fixed 10-point cushion quietly stops protecting you as the meta’s stacks grow.
[P] Paper model

A defence surplus is a reverse shred

[P] Paper model

Substituting d = a + s into the ratio (dropping κ for the general case), the incoming-damage reduction from a surplus is:

1 − (1 + a)/(1 + a + s) = s / (1 + a + s)
Theorem 6
[P] Paper model

This is structurally identical to a defence shred running in reverse: a cross-category multiplier on survivability that scales the ENTIRE incoming pipeline down, rather than adding to any single lane. That is the formal content of “starts to become solid” — a real multiplicative effect, not a threshold you cross.

Why health% is rare, and therefore valuable

[P] Paper model

By the marginal-value rule, a point is worth the most in the category with the smallest total. Health% appears on far fewer gear pieces, tech nodes, and skills than attack%, so its total stays small — and every point keeps near-full value:

CategoryTypical endgame total TReal value of +10 pts
Attack (spender endgame)~150%+4.0%
Defence~100%+5.0%
Health (few sources exist)~30–40%+7.1–7.7%
Durability composes as roughly (1 + d)(1 + h) — health is an empty category in exactly the empty-category-rule sense.
[P] Paper model
“Rare, so valuable” is arithmetic, not scarcity pricing

The value comes from the small denominator, not the rarity itself. An F2P account whose attack saturates slowly should research the Troop Health universal EARLIER than a spender would (Theorem 8).

The whale asymmetry — and the two escapes

[P] Paper model

To restore the damage ratio after an opponent adds s points of defence, you need roughly s points of attack — a 1:1 arms race inside a shared lane, which the deeper wallet always wins. The escape is not more attack but the orthogonal multipliers: skill damage (its own lane) and shred (which attacks the whale’s denominator directly).

A natural objection: “if the opponent has 150% defence, surely MY next attack point is worth more against them?” No — the opponent’s stack cancels out entirely. Moving from a 150% to a 160% stack multiplies your damage by 2.60/2.50 = 1.04 whether the defender sits at 0% or 300%: a constant divisor scales absolute damage but cannot change a percentage change. Diminishing returns are entirely self-referential.

[(1 + 1.60)/(1 + d)] ÷ [(1 + 1.50)/(1 + d)] = 2.60/2.50 = 1.04, for any d
Theorem 3 — the cancellation argument
[P] Paper model

Where the opponent’s 150% DOES enter is the mirror lane: shredding 10 points off their stack is worth 10/(100 + 150) ≈ +4.2% — priced by the same marginal formula pointed at THEIR denominator. Point-for-point, shred is always at least as good as attack, pulls ahead the more stacked the opponent is, and arrives via commander kits (Philip II, Liu Che) rather than competing for your saturated gear budget.

Field claimVerdict
“Slightly more defence than their attack = solid”Proved — a surplus s cuts all incoming damage by s/(1+a+s)
“10% more defence protects from the base weakness”Proved as a first-order rule — exact at zero stacks, ~25 pts at endgame
“Health% is rare and therefore valuable”Proved — small denominator, near-full marginal value
“Attack alone always loses to a bigger wallet”Proved — 1:1 same-lane race; escape via skill damage or shred
The verdict on the four field observations.
[P] Paper model

Related