Yeah yeah, we know how you feel about your oober doober dragons. The important question in my mind, though, is whether an exceptional number of mundane, say, archers, can kill a powerful dragon. I would certainly hope that 1,000,000 archers could kill a dragon.
A grasshopper can't kill a man. A million grasshoppers still couldn't kill a man.
How would the million archers kill the dragon? It would depend on whether they can penetrate the dragon's armor. If they can't. They can't.
While the battle system in Elemental is still something to be fully fleshed out, I'm of the opinion that when a unit rolls their attack and defense that the minimum should always be say 10% of their max value. I.e. if the dragon's armor is 50 then even if he rolls a 1, he's still going to get 5 and if the max of the archer's attack is say 4, then he will never be able to damage the dragon.
There are creatures in this game that will simply be unbeatable by any number of mundane peasantry armies.
Have you ever been bitten by a grasshopper? I'm a gardener, so I know that when they do bite they can hurt Even a single lucky grasshopper can bite you in the eye. If 1,000,000 spears are thrust at a dragon, are we to assume that not a single one ever hits the dragon in the eye, strikes a molting scale, jabs it in the throat as it rakes soldiers into its jaws, or jabs it where its tallons meet its scales (thus opening up a wound and, hence a larger vulnerability)? But this is beside the point, and like I mentioned earlier, the issue becomes mired in people's personal resolve with how uuber they want dragons to be. I would appreciate it if at least 1 person in this thread would address my point on the grounds of what would make meaningful game mechanics rather than what gratifies their intuition, anyway.
Comparing the strongest unit in the game to the weakest is really beside the issue of my concern. The important thing to consider is the full continuum of unit strengths from weakest to strongest and deciding what part of the spectrum can hurt what. If less trained, less equipped soldiers are trounced too easily, players are forced, in order to be effective, to adopt a linear strategy of Build the Best Units and Only the Best Units as they become available. We have seen this the strategy of the day in many, many strategy games (as is the case in MoM).
By allowing even the weakest unit to have a chance (the key word is chance here, and that chance can be very small) it keeps other strategic options revolving around quantity, rather than quality, much broader. Programming this into the combat scheme wouldn't be hard.
Here's a hypothetical scenario based on a hypothetical combat system. Let's say, for instance, that a mighty Groglock (completely made up monster) has 20 defense rating, and a poorly trained archer has 5. The archer must exceed 20 defense to do any damage. When an archer rolls, they have a 1 in 5 chance of getting a 5. If they succeed, they roll again, adding the second roll to the first. If they score another 5, they roll an additional time (and so forth.) Now, the actual chance of that archer hitting the Groglock would be 1 in 625, and that only makes a dent. An archer one shotting a Groglock might only happen once every 1,000 games. You would need, naturally, many many archers to bring him down it's likely that, during most typical games, it would make more sense for the player to have used the resources needed to make an army of archers to instead train elite knights to bring down the Groglock, but my point here is that the strategic options in the game are broader and more diverse if you allow players who play their cards right to use these kinds of strategies effectively.
To eliminate a meaningful strategy from the game on the grounds that "spears don't kill aircraft carriers in real life" (10 spears jammed into an engine turbine?) can only make the game smaller. If you have any criticism of the idea presented above, please address it on the grounds of meaningful game mechanics and not ancedote.