casualties

[Ibrahim]

I like MTW2's prisoner taking abilities; I find it fun and amusing listenin to the prisoners begging for mercy.

that said-what are you going to do about casualties (killed, wounded); the battles tend to degenerate into senseless, overly violent carnage (c'mon, you know the average battle doesn't have 50+ casualties for the winner); does this have to do with lethality, or is it simply a different engine, or, most feared, is it hardcoaded?:embarassed: :help: :help:; I'm not sure...
just out of curiosity.:beam:
and is it possible for you to make differinlethlities for different misslie(jaelin, etc) types? or is that hardcoaded too?

[General Appo]

Actually, in ancient warfare the winner rarely took more then 5% casualties, and most men were killed when they tried to flee. After all, why do you think so many men from so many cultures where eager to go to war and gain plunder if half of the winning army´s men always died?
I for one is truly looking forward to taking prisoners and giving them the proper treatment (being nailed to a cross that is).

[antisocialmunky]

It would be fun if EB was implemented like that. I don't like replacing half my men and having to run back to Italy to do it.

[stupac]

Seems to me M2:TW got it reversed, I thought it was typically only the nobles who were kept alive so they could be ransomed, sort of a unspoken courtesy between rulers. If that was correct, FM's would be captured and ransomed rather than the army. How I wish they had implemented that. Maybe some historians can comment on the classical period, but I think that for the most part enemies that surrendered would most likely be disbanded and returned to the now subjugated population, I don't think they had POW camps. Those who ran would be killed. Maybe if the general felt the enemy had committed some especially heinous act, he might offer no quarter. I don't think M2:TW system of releasing and ransoming is especially realistic.

[Maeran]

Maybe take the less politically useful prisoners as slaves?

Prisoners were definitely taken by both sides during the 1st Punic war. Otherwise there could not have been prisoner exchanges.

[Ibrahim]

Actually, in ancient warfare the winner rarely took more then 5% casualties, and most men were killed when they tried to flee. After all, why do you think so many men from so many cultures where eager to go to war and gain plunder if half of the winning army´s men always died?
I for one is truly looking forward to taking prisoners and giving them the proper treatment (being nailed to a cross that is).

that was what I said in my opening post (when I said winners don't take 50+% casualties); my question had nothing much to do with prisoners either: I was asking if EB team can find a way to cut down on exessive carnage to the average 5% winner casualties..:laugh4: :laugh4:

[dom385]

the only trouble with having 5% casualties is that you would constantly be fighting the same army. and how is looking out across a field of your dead enemies with baners sticking up out of them not a realy cool sight it wouldnt have quite the same affect wiht about 50 bodies.

[Ibrahim]

true, but still:

if you can kill more than the 5-15% of the enemy, then it shows true genius(or madness); it also more realistic, since most defeated armies in antiquity could still remain fighting (e.g Scipio the elder's (not Africanus-that was his son) defeat & death did not destroy the roman army in spain-just badly mauled it), or Antiochos II after thermopylae 190-ish BC.

it's also more challenging, now that you won't be unopposed once you've badly defeated an enemy (i.e wars last longer)
besides, if you read carefully, I was referring to the winner, not loser

[General Aetius]

I don't think 5-15% will work in a game where the armies are already undersized and cant be made as big as they were historically. Ancient armies where anything from 10,000's too 100,000's.

and casualties weren't always so low:

1. Issus- the Persians lost about 50% of their army
2. Trebia- Romans lost 30,000 of their 40,000
3. lake Trasimene- Romans again lost around 30,000 of their approximate 40,000
4. Cannae- Romans lost 50,000 out of around 86,000
5. Carrhae- 24,000 Romans killed and 10,000 captured from an army of 39,000
6. Aquae Sextae- 100,000 of 150,000 Germans (Teutones) killed
7. Adrianople- 40,000 of 60,000 Romans killed

General Aetius

[Ibrahim]

I don't think 5-15% will work in a game where the armies are already undersized and cant be made as big as they were historically. Ancient armies where anything from 10,000's too 100,000's.

and casualties weren't always so low:

1. Issus- the Persians lost about 50% of their army
2. Trebia- Romans lost 30,000 of their 40,000
3. lake Trasimene- Romans again lost around 30,000 of their approximate 40,000
4. Cannae- Romans lost 50,000 out of around 86,000
5. Carrhae- 24,000 Romans killed and 10,000 captured from an army of 39,000
6. Aquae Sextae- 100,000 of 150,000 Germans (Teutones) killed
7. Adrianople- 40,000 of 60,000 Romans killed

General Aetius

I know that-I'm referring to averages-not cases like these:laugh4:

[dom385]

"besides, if you read carefully, I was referring to the winner, not loser"

oh ye sorry but still out of like 2500 soldiers that barley anything.

[antisocialmunky]

5% casualties for the winner. Most casualties happen when people break rank and run like hell.

[Watchman]

Close pursuit also did wonders to the ratio, especially if it involved light cavalry.

[antisocialmunky]

Or swamps.

[Ibrahim]

swamps... the romans got it from the swamps in AD 9 and AD 250 (how Emp. Decius died):skull:
@ dom: thanks for the extra!:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
@antisocial monkey: seconded-my point.
@watchman: seconded

[Patriote]

And don't forget the casualties healed for the winners at the end of the battle although sometimes it's almost look buggy.
What I mean by that is that some badly mauled units get no casualties healed and some units who were wiped out got all of them healed back!! :inquisitive:

The only thing I could see, to achieve your idea, would be to make men more difficult to kill but units easier to rout. That way, generals would have to be careful when engaging the enemy because of fear of mass routing.
But yet I can see that the AI will probably not care as usual and get routed all the time quickly:dizzy2:

Anyways, just my :2cents:

[General Appo]

It would be rather boring if units routed just because your army looked big and strong and they don´t really feel like fighting it.

[antisocialmunky]

^-- That's the most unintentionally damning statement of vanilla RTW I've seen in recent memory.

It would be nice if EB really buffed heal rates so you get most of your casualties back so the gameplay is the same except the winner has a bigger advantage when all is said and done. Itd also make the AI less silly looking when it runs around smacking rebels and ends up with a stack comprised of 25% strength silver chevron veterans.

[Ibrahim]

@ anti social: Indeed! that would be good-though I believe it might be hardcoded..
Patriot: you know, lowereing attack and morale probably won't work all that boring as you say(e.g chivary total war).. but perhaps editing AI so that it knows when to sound retreat..I don't know, unless that too is hardcoded (they need to cut down on hardcoding)
and plese bear in mind that I'm refering to winner, not loser: he could be as blooded as you want.

[Patriote]

lol... I never wanted a game where units would look at each others, thrown some javelins then suddenly one side would break, that would indeed be boring :laugh4:

Also, I'm not quite sure what you been trying to tell me Ibrahim(that part: Patriot: you know, lowereing attack and morale probably won't work all that boring as you say) but about that part where the AI should know when to sound the retreat, there's always the possibility to have the AI do something when the 50% casualties is reached (there's even an advisor telling you when either side has reached that level of casualties)

so maybe something could be scripted or wathever.. :smash:

[antisocialmunky]

I think there are ways of increasing your ability to heal units through ancillaries. This means that there has to be a way to create the effect through invisible trait. That is assuming that the effect stacks with itself or is modifiable.

[aberax22]

i think physician/apothocary and something else does this

[Ibrahim]

lol... I never wanted a game where units would look at each others, thrown some javelins then suddenly one side would break, that would indeed be boring :laugh4:

Also, I'm not quite sure what you been trying to tell me Ibrahim(that part: Patriot: you know, lowereing attack and morale probably won't work all that boring as you say) but about that part where the AI should know when to sound the retreat, there's always the possibility to have the AI do something when the 50% casualties is reached (there's even an advisor telling you when either side has reached that level of casualties)

so maybe something could be scripted or wathever.. :smash:

down load the chiv. mod, the losers route ate well under 50% if you hit em really hard (refering to the peasants); my average casualty rate is around 5-12% from the years 1072-1080, and 2-7% from 1080-1090.
in NTW2 the morale is also pathetically (but realisticly) low; I rarely kill more than 68% of the enemy, unless they are russian (they love the bayonet)

[Ludens]

Also, I'm not quite sure what you been trying to tell me Ibrahim(that part: Patriot: you know, lowereing attack and morale probably won't work all that boring as you say) but about that part where the AI should know when to sound the retreat, there's always the possibility to have the AI do something when the 50% casualties is reached (there's even an advisor telling you when either side has reached that level of casualties)

so maybe something could be scripted or wathever.. :smash:
I don't think battle A.I. can be scripted, except in historical battles.


I think there are ways of increasing your ability to heal units through ancillaries. This means that there has to be a way to create the effect through invisible trait. That is assuming that the effect stacks with itself or is modifiable.
It can work, but only for family members, and only for the winning side.

[antisocialmunky]

Well, one can assume that a small group of soldiers might not have the ability to heal casualties as effectively. And the only ones that should have it are the winning side.

[Fraekae]

I usually have between 5-10% casualties in EB when I win, which is 99% of the time, even if badly outnumbered, so I really do not think that anything has to be done to reduce the winners casualties. Of course, if I lose to the AI, the AI usually has high casualties. Maybe the AI could have higher healing ratios in that case. Although I would not like if the AI got most of the soldiers I killed back after a really close defeat. Now, if we are talking AI vs AI, that is an entirely different story.

[Ibrahim]

I'm referring to MTW2: go play and see the horror...:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: