Armor and Damage Question

Anyone know what the formula is for determining how many Hit Points of damage a given Attack will do to a unit with a given Armor? Not factoring in the Armor Types and Damage Types, that is.

It's variable. Look in game play constants, you can choose the % and stuff.

Sorry, I'm still unclear...

I see "Armor Damage Reduction Multiplier" - does that mean that the formula is like this:

H = A - (R * M)

where H is the resulting damage, A is the attack strength, R is the target's armor, and M is the Damage Reduction Multiplier?

If it is... that's pretty simplistic, ain't it?

(Edit) Of course, it also sounds like it could mean:
H = A * ((1 - M) ^ R)
Which is more interesting...

well...if u put it that way, A would be the damage die (e.g. 17 damage if the attack is 13-19)......
the best way to calculate the reduction is to point at the armor in game (it clearly says the damage reduction) :)

Well, a quick test, and here's the formula, if anyone's interested:

H = Resulting damage in Hit Points
A = Attack roll
R = Armor of target
M = Damage Reduction Multiplier

H = A (1 - [RM/(RM + 1)])

Test it out for yerself. It's most obvious when M = 1.

Woah, crazy... I've always wondered about that. But the equation you've come up with- That's trippy... That equation has some really interesting implications. I would have thought it was just a percentage reduction of the total damage once it's calculated without it, not something that complex... Cool. I wonder where they came up with that from. *hmmmmmmms*

Well, that formula is in fact just applying the damage reduction to the attack roll - but what the game calls the "Damage Reduction" of a given armor type is given by: RM/(RM+1)

(EDITED after realizing my utterly foolish mistake)

Ah, I see... my initial reaction to that was that it was a serious case of rapidly diminishing returns, but seeing as the multiplier defaults to .06, it actually isn't, or at least not enough of one to matter. And here I thought I had mathematical evidence that a point of attack is better than a point of defense. Natch.

On an aside, I apologize for some brief confusion in my last post, my brain did a mental flip-flop and swapped Damage Reduction Multiplier and Damage Bonus Table while I was reading the equation, hence my somewhat confusing expectation of how I used to think they did it. I was expecting something else entirely.