PDA

View Full Version : Casualty ratios



RisingSun
05-20-2003, 21:27
This has always bugged me a little bit. The Death ratios in both STW and MTW are far too high. 15% casualties is considered a bloodbath, yet most of th medieval battles in SP end up with 50 or more percent casalties for the loser That is simply too much. I hope hey brin down the casualty to men ratio in RTW, considering how awesome its gonna be, iwoulnt be surprised if they fixed this. Even if they dot, ill still be happy, because this is really a minor issue. I just thought id bring it up.

Hakonarson
05-20-2003, 22:03
50% casualties for the losing side is not unrealistic. At Cannae the Romans got away with 10,000 men from about 60-70,000, or 85% casualties - another 10,000 were captured, and that leave 40-50,000 DEAD.

They were surrounded or course, but that's not unusual. Roman opponents in Gaul such as the Nervii and Helvetti are often recorded by Caeser as losing 95% of their fighting forces - even with some alowance for hyperbole it's clear casualties could be horrendous.

The blood baths occured in the pursuit and the slaughter of men desperately trying to run for their lives and not defending themselves.

Lack of cavalry on the wining side would prevent massacres in some cases - particularly Greek City states fighting each other, otherwise the losing side could usually expect to be utterly annihilated.

RisingSun
05-21-2003, 21:11
Yes, but those were only a couple battles out of hundreds o maybe tousands in the Roman Era. And Cannae, they were not just surrounded, but stuck in a ravine as well. Really, i cannot imagine a worse situation for an army. And the losing sie wuld usually get off with maybe 12% casualties, but nowhere near the 50% we see now. A similar post was made in the gamespy preview thread recently by Rosacrux reiterating my statement.

Knight_Yellow
05-21-2003, 21:15
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ May 21 2003,21:11)]Yes, but those were only a couple battles out of hundreds o maybe tousands in the Roman Era.
ahemm i would bet there wasnt even 150 "battles"


besides if u dont want so many casualties then dont run down the enemy.

medieval lets u play the game they way YOU want to.


its not up to medieval how many die.

RisingSun
05-21-2003, 21:23
Its not that Its not that you run them down, its the battle engine. It allows for too many kills.

Doug-Thompson
05-21-2003, 21:36
Those high casualty rates for the losers are solidly based in fact.

One of the best books on warfare ever written, or so say the experts, is "Battle Studies" by Ardant Du Picq. Du Picq began his research because he wanted to know why the casualty rates were so terribly high for losers in man-to-man battles of antiquity and so low for the victors.

Modern warfare has a command and control system that makes an organized withdrawl possible -- still dangerous, but possible.

Also, war from the late 1600's forward grew to be dominated by ranged weapons. Escape or withdrawl is more of an option on a smoke-filled battlefield with 200 yards of more between the contenders.

When one poorly organized army meets another poorly organized army on a battlefield and comes into actual physical contact, deciding you've had enough and leaving is not a option. The armies fought until one side or the other "broke."

When the other army "broke," the army that held together chased the fleeing individuals and hunted them down like dogs.

As Du Picq concluded, the battle is won by the side that holds together in the face of terror and death for longer than the other side.

===========

Keep in mind that not all those casualties are dead. Many are wounded. Armies were terrible in the Middle Ages and medical care was far worse. Other soldiers would just go home after a major battle. And so forth.

RisingSun
05-21-2003, 22:22
Yes, casualty rates for the losers were much higher, bt no 50% and it evenm stands that often, in MTW, the victors casualties are near 20-30 percent.

Nowake
05-21-2003, 22:35
Well, the matter changes when we reach the modern era, as guns tend to inflict major casualties for both sides untill man-to-man fight was engaged.

But I agree with Rising Sun, you can have due to some tactical maneuvres or because of an overwhelming cavalry some battles that end with horible loses, but not all of them ...


In MTW, when I know that my enemy has a big castle "that will not fall without a direct assault" I try to capture all his men (often it is impossible to let too many alive, as to get a quick castle fall), and even if numbers of 600-800 from his side are engaged, I often manage to obtain the desired result ... It's hilarious ...

Hakonarson
05-21-2003, 22:40
Cannae may be only 1 batle, but the casualty rates are by no means unique and being surrounded seems to have had little total effect.

the 12% casualties you mention may be appropriate for modern battles but are nonsense for ancient times.

Bagradas - 255BC in the 1st Punic war. roman army of 20,000 invades Africa. 500 are captured, 3-4000 escape, the rest die.

2nd Punic War:
Trebia vs Hannibal - 15-20,000 casualties from 36,000 Romans
Lake Trasimene - an ambush - pretty much all of the 25,000 man Roman army killed
Castulo (Spain, 211BC) - 23,00 Romans are wiped out with few survivors
Ilorca (spain 211BC) - 10,000 romans wiped out
Herdona (Italy 210BC) Hannibal kills 16,000 Romans from an army he outnumbered so it can't have been much larger than 30,000 men if that.
Metaurus river (Italy 207BC) - Hasdrubal and 20,000 carthaginian soldiers from an army of 30,000 are killed.

Zama - 20,000 Carthaginian dead and 15-20,000 prisoners compared to 1500 Roman dead and 4,000 wounded in what was gconsidered a hard fight.

Have a look at Alexander the Great's battles -

Granicus: Persians lost 1000-2500 of 15-20,000 cavalry, but only 2000 of their Greek mercenary infantry were captured from maybe 6,000 (20,000 according to Arrian).

Issus - we're told that 100,000 Perisan infantry and 10,000 cavalry died, and that the army was 600,000 men - mostly useless peasant levies who did no fighting. Of the 20-30,000 Greek mercenaries fightign for the Persians 10,000 marched off the battlefield in good order - the rest were killed or captured.

Guagamela - 40,000 Persians killed from anotehr huge army that was bulked out by large numbers of peasant conscripts - Arrian gives a total of 40 000 horse, and 1 000 000 foot (3.8.6); other foot totals are also incredibly huge: Didoros gives 800 000 (17.53.3), Justin 400 000 (11.12.5) and Curtius 200 000 (4.12.13). Curtius gives a possible 45 000 horse, but Didoros (200 000) and Justin (100 000) figures.

It seems likely that hte larger numbers are somewhat exagerated - or if true are mostly the levy that sat at the back of the battle and did nothing.

I'm inclined to think that 40,000 horse and 100,000 foot would make the Persian army "big enough".

Hydaspes - Indian casualties are estimated as 13-23000 from an army of about 30,000.

Knight_Yellow
05-21-2003, 22:43
rising sun wheres ur proof?


u need sources to back up sutch

"ur all wrong im right" statements.

My proof is history.

Nowake
05-21-2003, 22:53
as for Gaugamela, Hakonarson, I think you know as well as I do that most of the people you qouted gave hilarious numbers for the persian army in the first place, so the kill ratio couldn't be very low http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

CBR
05-21-2003, 22:56
You could say that units takes too many losses before they rout. Some victorious armies didnt have that high casualty rates compared to what we see in MTW. Thats a matter of morale I guess or maybe because of one sided battles in history compared to the equal florins in MTW (speaking of MP)

CBR

Hakonarson
05-21-2003, 23:05
I think ther are a few reasons why casualties in TW dont' match historical ones - I think you're right CBR in that the winner takes more than they should but then the whole battle thing is an accelerated simulation rather than super accurate.

Another thing is that routing troops are all captured - none are ever killed unless you put them to death, and that's patent nonsense.

Captures were known, but normally fleeing troops would be hacked down - it's mainly formed units that are able to surrender because they are too much of a risk to attack - the battle is won and no-one from teh winning side wants to die - they all want to get rich http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

A famous exception tho is Alexander's refusal to accept the surrender of the Grek mercenaries at Granicus apparently because he felt that Greeks fighting for the Persians against him were traitors to the Greek cuase he espoused.

CBR
05-21-2003, 23:23
Yes of course. You could say that some of the casualties are wounded, missing in actions, stragglers or helping wounded. Thats just cosmetics of course...a casualty is a casualty in MTW.

We are just having several heated debates in Jousting fields. Some people wants to be able to defeat an army without taking many casualties.

CBR

Hakonarson
05-21-2003, 23:57
I think the problem is that there are't enough enemy to kill when you defeat them http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

A few hundred casualties on hte winning side should be OK - but yuo don't have 30,000 enemy to kill in the pursuit, and the pursuit gets cut short - historically it might be a whole day or 2.

IMO within the limitations of the TW system the casualties are more or less OK with the proviso that there should be fewer captured and more killed when pursuing units.

CBR
05-22-2003, 00:44
If you mean not enough because we dont count say camp followers then yes. But if we just look at troops on the field then it can be difficult to get extreme results as we see in history. 1:2 would be considered very good in a MP battle between reasonable good players. Think I have had...hmm 1:6 IIRC as some of the best and that is really against newbies in chaotic 3v3 and 4v4.

Even if we consider the loser's armies as being totally killed the winners will normally have pretty high losses compared to history.

You can expect to lose at least 30% of your army winning a battle.

CBR

Hakonarson
05-22-2003, 01:03
Yes - as I said that's probably because of eth limitation in army size - if you had 30,000 men each instead of 1000 then you don't get 30 times the number fightign - the armies tend to get deeper and have more non-fighting men.

So they break when the front ranks collapse - with a smaller % of casualties from the fighting, but then the pursuit allows the victor to pick up thousands more "kills" for no loss.

Looking at Zama for example - the Romans suffered 5500 casualties winning the battle - over 10% of their army.

Also as I understand MP battles troosp tend to be up-valoured which makes them more lethal and less likely to break - effectively you'er playign with armies solely of elite troops.

and lastly the skill of modern game players at controlling their armies is much better than ancient generals normally were So even defeated generals can be considered to have given a good fight much of the time http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Shahed
05-22-2003, 01:14
I would not say all the troops in MP battles are elite. Though most players do not take the peasant class troops (fanatics, spearmen etc.), they are restricted in the valor they can carry by a florin limit.

Mostly in 10-13k games the armies fielded tend to be Valor 2-3, some take valor 1 with upgrades (and generally lose). In 15k you tend to see some valor 3, some valor 4 troops, some valor 0 troops.

There are more elite troops in an avg MP battle than historically I guess. If playing Turks I generally have about 8-10 Elite troops. If the Italians or catholic faction I may have only 4-5 Elite units.

Shahed
05-22-2003, 01:18
In MP against a player of roughly equal or similar skill, you can expect to lose 50% of your forces. As CBR stated, against a good player a kill ratio of 2:1 in your favor, is very good, usually it can be 1:1. The best I ever had in MP was around 5:1 IIRC.

In SP I think the casualty rate is more realistic becuase the enemy or yourself, usually have hundreds of lower end troops like peasants and spearmen. In SP IIRC my best score was around 4,000 killed for the loss of 56-57 men.

CBR
05-22-2003, 01:58
Yes so maybe we shouldnt think of it that much. MP is different and much more equal than most historical battles and SP.

CBR

shingenmitch2
05-22-2003, 14:09
Well if we are considering casulaty rates in terms of the GAME -- then they are right where they need to be.

Play an all peasant battle at 0 Valor and you will get some idea of the morale effect that would be more "accurate" in terms of when your lines would flee.

In game terms -- Total war would suck if every time I lost 8 or 16 men out of my 80 man unit, the entire sucker ran.

Michael the Great
05-22-2003, 14:24
Quote[/b] (Doug-Thompson @ May 21 2003,15:36)]Other soldiers would just go home after a major battle. And so forth.
At least warfare was a chance for them to get VERY rich,by ransoming prisoners and stuff like that,even 4 the simple peasant I believe.

RisingSun
05-22-2003, 21:57
I was indeed referring to SP... And i am considering captured in casualty rates, because casualty does not mean simply killed. It basically refers to anybody rendered unable to fight, whether they be dead, wounded, or traumatized.

And yes it would suck if your unit ran after 20% casualties, but thats why it should take a long time to get there with even units head-on. Then it would be a matter of morale as in history. And several people have reiterated that even if you win you lose too many troops, which therefore debunks the "ridden down" idea, as the victorious troops werent.

Doug-Thompson
05-23-2003, 17:49
I agree with a previous post:

Cite a source.

You keep talking about a "realistic" rate of 20 percent. Where do you get that number from?

I've cited Du Picq. Others have cited specific battles. If you want me to look up Trevor Dupuy's extensive research on casualty rates, I will.

What can you show?

RisingSun
05-23-2003, 21:46
Its easy enough for you to tell me to get a source, simply because sources that would serve your cause are far moe abundant. Think about it, you guys keep mentioning the huge battles that were mostly upsets and are noted because o their spectacularly high casualty rates.Nobody wants to record an ordinary batle that was nothing special. the want to record the decisive battles, the ones that really mattered and were surprising. But it does not matter that i dont have a source, because we all agree that 30% casualties s too much for the winner, so the casualties at 50% or igher cannot be attibuted to running people down. Lets just let the thred die peacefully, it has served its purpose, and we all have agreed the games casualty rats are off. (even if some only think its a little bit)

But, Rosacrux seems very authoriutive on the mattr and he agrees with me. Im sure he has a source.


Quote[/b] ]Interesting facts from 21st century military history experts about hoplite and phalanx armies casualty rates:

- In hoplite warfare an acceptable casualty rate for the winning side would be 3-5% (dead and wounded). The loser would suffer losses from 5-12%. 90% of those losses would occur during the pursuit phase (after the one of the two hoplite phalanxes had broken). There is only one major battle in the hellenic world which does not comply with those rates, a post-pelloponesian war battle in which Athens and allies fought against Pelloponesian and allies: The winners (pelloponesian) have lost (dead and wounded) about 7% of their strength and the loosing side more than 22%. But that's the only noticable exception in a large-scale hoplite battle.

- In macedonian phalanx warfare (combined arms and such, Alexander and succesors alike) the acceptable casualty rates for the winner wouldn't exceed 5% but in rare occasions, even though the looser (if another phalanx) could suffer relatively higher casualty rates - 10-25% - due to the aboundance of light infantry and cavalry. That meaning the pursuit phase could be extremely lethal and bloody.

Knight_Yellow
05-23-2003, 21:52
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ May 23 2003,21:46)]Its easy enough for you to tell me to get a source, simply because sources that would serve your cause are far moe abundant.
Ok i know im leaving but i couldnt resist this......


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

AvramL
05-23-2003, 23:31
OK I'll just say this succintly:
The casualty rates in MTW in combat are way too high while the casualties inflicted in rout are way too low. Sometimes armies would be annhilated in a single battle but this would always happen when the army broke not during combat itself, in MTW you can often keep units fighting despite massive casualties and have most of your army destroyed this way rather than when they flee, now that is unrealistic.

RisingSun
05-24-2003, 02:29
THANK YOU AVRAML

Hakonarson
05-24-2003, 03:14
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ May 23 2003,15:46)]Think about it, you guys keep mentioning the huge battles that were mostly upsets and are noted because o their spectacularly high casualty rates.Nobody wants to record an ordinary batle that was nothing special. the want to record the decisive battles, the ones that really mattered and were surprising.
That would probably be because accurate casualty figures are quite rare. "little" battles are rarely recorded at all beyond a casual mention let alone having that level of detail recorded.

Oh and of course because battles were never "ordinary", nor were they usually "upsets" because AFAIK no-one was betting on favourites.

You seem to have this idea of a "typical" battle, whereas there was never any such thing - in the contest for life and death at 6 inches range where losing meant having your guts spread over the bloodied earth there were no rules, no normality, no "averages" - it was pretty much a binary existance - win or be annihilated.

IMO this whole thread is a great example of the inabiliy of modern minds to realise the brutal, bloody and vicious realities of ancient warfare.

Consider what it meant that 50,000 Romans were killed at cannae - every one of them by muscle power at a maximum of maybe 20 metres range (for a javelin or pila) - most of htem within 1 metre........it's somethign that we simply never encounter any more and have no existing frame of reference to compare it to.

I try to imagine what it might've been like being on one or other side in such a clash and ebven with lots of re-enactment experience, lots of reading, and having seen the opening battle in Gladiator (:)) it really defies imagination.

RisingSun
05-24-2003, 17:37
Quote[/b] ]That would probably be because accurate casualty figures are quite rare. "little" battles are rarely recorded at all beyond a casual mention let alone having that level of detail recorded.

Exactly, therefore, it would be much much harde for me t quote a source as to the figures.


Quote[/b] ]Oh and of course because battles were never "ordinary", nor were they usually "upsets" because AFAIK no-one was betting on favourites.

Ok, so let me get this straight, if there was a battle, where one general had 65,000 highly trained, crack fighters, ad the oher had 10,000 poorly trained peasants, if the peasants won, it would not be considered a upset? And by ordinary, I mean with average casualty figures and not a lot of aborrance from what was expected.


Quote[/b] ]You seem to have this idea of a "typical" battle, whereas there was never any such thing - in the contest for life and death at 6 inches range where losing meant having your guts spread over the bloodied earth there were no rules, no normality, no "averages" - it was pretty much a binary existance - win or be annihilated.

Maybe not to the people fighting, but there were averages. Simple math. There is an average amount of people being killed in each battle, per unit/cohort. And im sure it was nowhere near 50%.

Hakonarson
05-24-2003, 23:14
OK - so you're sure it was nowhere near 50% - is that for the winner, the loser, or both combined?

And what is your reasoning for that?

I get lambasted occasionally by people for not quoting sources enough - so perhaps you should tell us what information you DO have to support your stand?

As for upsets - you miss the point - upsets are a modern concept - they only occur when someone is calculating odds and that normally means taking bets.

All ancients fought when they had to and tried to win - they always took their best shot.

So is it an upset if you think you're going to win and you lose? Who decides who the "favourites" are at the time? The whole concept is meaningless, a situation not helped by using fictional scenarios.

stick to history - tell us a historical upset according to your modern sensibilities and I'm pretty sure I'll be able to contradict yuor perception without too much bother.

Knight_Yellow
05-25-2003, 00:47
i can think of only 1 "upset" in medieval times.


Agincourt

(still massive casualties)

Hakonarson
05-25-2003, 01:57
Was Agincourt really an "upset" give the past history of Crecy and Poitiers and numerous smaller actions where the English had generally defeated the French?

I've got some casualty figures from medieval times from "Armies of the Middle Ages" volume 1 by Ian Heath - many are approximate as you'd expect......

Courtrai, 1302: French lost 700-1000 knights from 2500 mounted. Most of the 12500 French infantry were not engaged and/or fled without fighting.

Mons-en-Pevele, 1304 - and interesting battle mainly because it is one of the few where medieval-pre-gunpowder artillery is noted as being used. 3000 French Cavalry and a "large force" of foot assaulted 12-15000 lowlanders (Flemings, etc) - basically a draw although the French retained the battlefield. The French lost 300 cavalry and 1500-2000 infantry, the lowlanders only slightly less.

Loudon Hill, 1307. 3000 English infantry and cavalry assaulted 600 scots under Robert the Bruce holding a road between 2 marshes and protected by 3 lines of ditches. After losing more than 100 men in 2 mounted frontal assaults the English withdrew.

Bannockburn, 1314. 18-20,000 English including 2000-3100 cavalry lost 950 cavalry and an unknown number of infantry - the infantry mostly lost by drowning while fleeing the battlefield.

Mortgarten 1315 - 2000 Austrian knights and perhaps 7000 infantry suffered 1500-2000 casualties - all from the all-mounted vanguard. The Austrian infantry fled rather than fight.

Faughart, 1318: maybe 40,000 Scots, rebel Anglo-Irish and Irish fought 1100-1300 (probably 3-4000) English. The Scots/Irish suffered 1500, 2000, 8224, 5800 or 12000 casualties, depending upon the source you read, vis 50 for the English.

Cassel, 1328: 16000 (or possibly 6500-8000) lowlanders were defeated by an unknown number of French and allies. The lowlanders surprised and over-ran the camps of several French allies before being themselves surrounded by the French apart from a deliberately left escape route so they could be killed more easily as they fled. The lowlanders lost at least 3185 - Froissart says "not one survived" in one place, and that 1000 did in another.

Dupplin Muir, 1332. An army of "disinherited" scots comprising 3-500 mounted and 1000-2800 infantry mostly archers defeated the Scots Regent who had 2000 men at arms and 20,000 foot. only 14 of the Regent's knights survived, losses among the mounted being the High Chamberlain, 3 other Earls, 12-18 Bannerets, 58-100 knights and 700 esquires - the total elsewhere being given as "1200 men at arms", and a large number of infantry. Disinherited losses amounted to 33 men at arms and no archers at all.

Halidon Hill, 1333. A scots army of maybe 1174 men at arms and 13,500 infantry spearmen (or maybe only 900 and 6600)suffered the loss of 70 Barons and Bannerets, 500 men at arms and several thousand infantry. They inflicted losses of 1 knight and 6 foot soldiers on the English.

Cadsand 1337: 2500 English (500 men at arms & 2000 archers) killed 3000 of 5000 Flemish, plus captured many more.

Sluys - a naval battle in 1340, where 16000 English in 147 ships (largely Cogs) defeated 20-40,000 French (according to Froissart, or 35,000 according to King Edwards dispatches) inflicting 25-30,000 deaths, mostly by drowning.

Blanchetaque 1346. A defended River crossing - According to the French defenders numbered 1000 men at arms, 6000 infantry including Genoese crossbowmen, and 5000 local levies. According to Michael of Northburgh they had 500 men at arms and 3000 "armed common people". They suffered 2000 casualties and failed to prevent the English crossing.

Crecy 1346: Froissart gives the French army as 30-40,000 and casualties as 1200 men at arms and 15-16000 commoners. Northburgh was an eye witness and reported 1542 lords and knights killed.

Nevilles Cross, 1346. 900 English men at arms and 9000 archers inflicted 9000 casualties on about 18000 Scots who including 2000 men at arms.

And that's enough for now - my fingers are getting sore http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

RisingSun
05-25-2003, 02:37
You don't seem to understand the concet of an upst, my friend. An upset is a contest in which, bylooking at all factors, you would suppose a single side would win, yet it does not. That Dupplin Muir battle seems an awful lot like an upset to me. And you don't think ancient generals thought about their odds before they fought? If they didn't think there was any chance of winning, tey would tr no to fight, but if they were forced to, and won, it would be an upset.

Hakonarson
05-25-2003, 02:50
Of course I understand what an upset is - but who's to say it's an upset? Who would be upset on the winning side??

Who on a losing side would not be upset by losing, even if "the odds" were against htem? The notion of "upset" is a sporting one, hardly suited to the life and bloody painful death of thousands of men.

Duplin Muir was an example of a small well led force defeting a very ordinarily led larger one. It happened a lot in ancient times and could certainly be expected - if that's your idea of an "upset" then no wonder I find your argument without merit

RisingSun
05-25-2003, 05:15
The term 'upset', is not a sporting one. It is a term to express suprise at a conflicts oucome, whether it be sports or a medieval battle. An upset is when, most things being equal, one force is supposed to have prevailed, but doesnt. If there was an MP battle, and one side had less florins to spend, and bought cheap, ineffective units, hile the other bought eite units, would not the eite force be thought to wn by anybody looking onwards? If te said force did not win, thenthe batle could,and should, be considrd an upset. In other words, an upset is when a TECHNICALLY "inferior" force defeats a TECHNICALLY "superior" force, thereby defying the notion that the "superor" sidewould generally win. Do you understand the concept now?

As to Duplin Muir, yes i do find it to be an upset when 600 men can defeat ch a larger force, no matter he quality of leadership on either side.

Hakonarson
05-25-2003, 23:14
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ May 24 2003,23:15)]As to Duplin Muir, yes i do find it to be an upset when 600 men can defeat ch a larger force, no matter he quality of leadership on either side.
well I hate to say it, but that shows the limits of your knowledge IMO (and I'm not trying to be nasty) - your whole argument seems to be based upon what you think "should" ahve happened, rather than looking for the reasons for why it happeend as it did.

RisingSun
05-26-2003, 06:54
Are you attempting to say that the English commander did not go into that battle knowing he would win, and the scotsman did not think himself overwhelmed by a huge nemy force???? Because that is what you seem to be implying.

starkhorn
05-26-2003, 08:56
Going back to the discussion on kill ratio's in Roman times.....

I remember reading in my youth (many, many years ago) about differences between Celts/Gauls civilisations and Roman civilisation. One of the things that I remembered was the different views that eacn civilisation viewed cruel or barbaric acts.

For example, the Romans found the celtic custom of taking enemy heads as trophies as barbaric, whilst the celts found the Roman custom of killing wounded troops after a battle on the battfield (including their own troops).

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone with more historical expertise than myself was aware of the romans mass-killing wounded troops after a battle....literally whilst still on the battlefield. I guess they must of thought of it as mercy killings or something, although I am dubious as to it's historically accuracy.

If this is actually accurate then perhaps it could be one possible reason for a high kill ratio in RTW battles ?

Cheers
Starkhorn

RisingSun
05-26-2003, 16:29
Actually, a casualty is by definition, any condition rendering a soldier or unit unable to fight, whether it be death, injury or whatever else. I am including the wounded in my calculations, as there are no wounded in MTW, they most likely count as killed.

Hakonarson
05-26-2003, 22:20
Quote[/b] (RisingSun @ May 26 2003,00:54)]Are you attempting to say that the English commander did not go into that battle knowing he would win, and the scotsman did not think himself overwhelmed by a huge nemy force???? Because that is what you seem to be implying.
Of course not - both sides thought they were going to win - the English commander was probably over confident because of the numbers, while the Scots commander made a sensible decision to fight on a restricted battlefield because of the numbers.

so who was upset by the win?? Certainly not the Scots So their victory was an upset for the English, but not for the Scots - what means do you use to determine which side was right about whether it was an "upset" or not? Why is one attitude more important than the other?


Invariably the losers are "upset" becease they thought they were going to win, while the victors see the win as confirmation of their innate superiority in all things.

Hakonarson
05-26-2003, 22:33
Quote[/b] (starkhorn @ May 26 2003,02:56)]One of the things that I remembered was the different views that eacn civilisation viewed cruel or barbaric acts.

For example, the Romans found the celtic custom of taking enemy heads as trophies as barbaric, whilst the celts found the Roman custom of killing wounded troops after a battle on the battfield (including their own troops).
They did?

IIRC there were 2 ex-slave legions in the 2nd Punic War that were promised their freedom if they took an enemy head during battle.

The Roman commander found that they were stopping fighting to hack off heads and this was not a good thing, so he proclaimed them all free and the get on with winning the battle. I don't recall the battle but I can lok it uptonight if anyone wants more details.

RisingSun
05-27-2003, 21:55
I determine by looking at it from an objective point of view, as to who would be better equipped to handle an armed conflict. You seem to be saying that all armies are equal, which they certainly are not, or else there would be no winners You also seem to be saying that all commanders go into a battle believing they are going to win, wich is also untrue, or else commanders would neve retreat, and no comander would dee any situation "unwinnable".

Hakonarson
05-28-2003, 00:16
Why would they never retreat? Just 'cos you go into a battle expectign to win doesn't mean your men won't run away

An ancient general who didn't expect to win would retreat before the battle if he could - if he couldn't then perhaps he'll hole up in a fortification or somethign like that.

Brining the enmy to battle when they were not ready for it or expecting it was a great advantage - it generally takes the form of an ambush such as Lake Trasimene, or the Peloponesian naval victory at Aegespotomai that effectively ended the Peloponesian war.

Such actions are rarely battles - they're usually massacres.

Whereas a field battle pretty much requires both sides to want to fight.

RisingSun
05-28-2003, 00:28
Quote[/b] ]Whereas a field battle pretty much requires both sides to want to fight.

Exactly, but that doesnt mean they expect to win Take for example, the Spartan stand outside Thermopylae, they knew they wuld not win. It was a delaying action. Just because you want to fight, does not mean you think you will win. Many battles were fought for a strategic pupose, such as to buy time, or wear down an army and then retreat. This brings me to my next point, a retreat is not alay a route. There is such a thing as a rearguard action and an orderly retreat. Suyre, it might turn into a route, but if done right, the army could withdraw.

Hakonarson
05-28-2003, 01:22
The initial Greek presence at Thermopylae was not a holding action - it was to defeat the Persians. the Persian outflanking of het Greek position meant the Greeks had to retreat.

Thermopylae was not a battle - it was a rear guard.

RisingSun
05-28-2003, 03:28
I might've sai the wrong battle. I'm talking about the stand of the 300 Spartans against the thousands of Persians. Might not have been Thermopylae....

Hakonarson
05-28-2003, 03:37
That's Thermopylae - the Spartans stayed to cover the retreat of the rest of hte Greeks - actually 1100 thespians stayed too IIRC, and 500 (?) Thebans defected to the Persians.

Originally over 10,000 Greeks had assembled to block the progress of the Persian army at a narrow beach between mountains and the sea along which they had to march.

However the Persians found a path through the mountains. The Greeks had posted a guard, but when the Persians arrived at the guarded point the guards retreated up the mountain to a more defensible position, and the Persians jsut marched on by.

the Greeks were therefore forced to withdraw, the Spartans and Thespians staying behind as a rear guard.

Of course although the Spartans were killed to a man that doesn't necessarily mean they lost the battle - it was a rear guard after all, and the rest of the Greks did get away.

Nikitas
05-28-2003, 07:03
I'd like to take this argument in another direction because it seems likes its getting repetitive. I don't have any historical evidence or arguments to make, I tend to agree with Hakonarson but because of my limited knowledge in medieval and ancient history I will try not to make any more comments on that subject.

My argument is that the high casuality rates in melee[1] are caused by a necessary game mecahnism. I think the patch for MTW and the VI expansion have increased the rate of casualities for units involved in melee for longer periods of time. This seems to be realistic, though I won't comment more on that because I don't know for sure, but more importantly it prevents the "jedi" general phenomena. Although I'm sure this still occurs in some instances, in my experience I rarely have a single man(either king, prince, or general) hold of a large number of troops.

It seems far more rational to have high rates of casualities rather than a Royal Guard Prince holding of 100 spearmen and winning for a good portion of a battle.



Footnote:
[1] I ignore routing casaulities because they can be prevented to a certain extent and ranged never causes serious casualities in my experience.

Hakonarson
05-28-2003, 11:04
I agree - the high casualty rates are a necessary game mechanism - who would want a battle to go on forever with long periods of soldiers standing looking at each other while they work up the courage to charge.

While I applaud historical accuracy I also want a game that I can enjoy playing - it's only a simulation after all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Rosacrux
05-28-2003, 11:43
Since we are talking about ancient warfare and casualty rates in it. we should stick to ancient warfare and the relative casualty rates.

But, as Hak said, using the actual standards of let's say hoplite warfare, what we'd have would be two wide and relatively deep (8-16 men, in rare occassions 32) phalanxes, trying for a prolonged period of time to find weak spots in the enemy formation with their spears and after a rather generous amount of time, one of the two phalanxes breaks and starts either to retreat in order, or flee like having the devil behind them.

If after a period of time none of the phalanxes has broken, the commanders order a little retreat, and then agree to pick up their (extremely few) dead and wounded, bury them and get to sleep, to continue fighting the next day, or call it a draw and go back home.

Could you imagine this implemented in the game mechanics? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif

I mean, albeit historically accurate, it would not be fun to play. Would it?

Divine Wind
05-28-2003, 13:06
Lets also remember that history was written by the winners. How can there archives on casulties be completely accurate or even truthful.

RisingSun
05-28-2003, 22:36
If they changed overall casualty rates to be lower, the prince wouldnt hold off the spearmen- the spearmen ould take less casualties as well-. And the Spartans were killed to a man, but they accomplished their objective, but i really wouldnt consider that a victory. 100% casualties don't seem reasonable to warrant a victory, even if the objective was achieved...

Nikitas
05-29-2003, 06:03
Another thought on this subject has crossed my mind and I figured I may as well throw it out there to see what everyone thinks.

In games like MTW and RTW the player fights potential battles, not battles that happened but battles that could have happened[1]. According to some of Hakonarson's examples some battles had very high casualty rates and others did not.

Therefore the game shouldn't try to restrict casaulity rates to a certain range, instead it should leave it up to the condition of the troops and the tactics employed to command them. If troops of both sides are well equiped and are brave (high valor) and thus refuse to retreat then why not let them slaughter each other?

Footnote:
[1] That would be any potential battles within reason, I don't believe Greek Hoplites ever marched into Rome but they could have and by the time next year they will http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.

Rosacrux
05-29-2003, 07:10
Quote[/b] (Nikitas @ May 29 2003,00:03)]I don't believe Greek Hoplites ever marched into Rome but they could have and by the time next year they will http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif.
you can bet your (or, even better, J.Lo's) sweet arse (err... ok, dunno if it is actually sweet) that they will. Not only march to Rome, but also eradicate Rome from the face of the earth and establish the supreme Greek civilization worldwide.

Oh, we gonna make some civilized people of you savages... or we shall kill you trying http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

SgtAndrew
05-30-2003, 07:54
Yeah, Mitch makes a good point. If the casualty ratios really were realistic by your standards, RisingSun (I don't know enough to agree or disagree with you about your percentages), the game would not be very much fun if your men ran after such a small ratio of losses.

Oh, and Rosacrux, I think I like Britney's ass a bit better. I mean, just watch the first ten minutes of Crossroads when she's dancing around in the cute little panties. Goddamn that is a sweet ass. I dunno, the big Puerto Rican gludes are just a bit excessive for my tastes.

Rosacrux
05-30-2003, 08:57
SgtAndrew, Britney's arse is quite alright (even though I don't fancy much hers or even J'Lo's - I like my arses more uptight and gentle, something like C.Z. Jones before being pregnant, if you know what I mean) it's the rest of Brittney that bothers me...

...imagine if she gets into mood to sing for you during intercourse... instant incompetence http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

ELITEofGAZOZ
05-30-2003, 14:21
before u mention the "too high killratio" u should mention that riders dont die if their horses get killed and vice versa...but in TW?

its just a game

Doug-Thompson
06-02-2003, 16:40
There are more than enough ancient battles to produce statistically valid casualty rates. Claiming that there is a vast mass of unrecorded data out there is an obvious act of desperation.

Historians have to use the evidence they have. People who argue with them have to have something better than "that doesn't sound right to me." The non-collected data would, in all probability, confirm what's shown in hundreds -- or thousands -- of recorded battles.

Anybody who says there are only accounts of a "few" atypical battles should read the Peloponessian War by Thucydides, Arrian's Campains of Alexander, the March Up Country by Xenophon or any one of dozens of other accounts and stop getting their history out of Time-Life books.

Professional historians have accounted for the bias of "glorious" accounts of the victors. One of the most important "debunkings" of ancient exagerrations was by Gernman historian Hans Delbruck beginning at the turn of the century. Historians have never let up.

Somebody almost made a good point about the high causalties coming during the rout. I'd like to point out, though, that if the people are killed in battle or immediately after it, the practical result is the same. If somebody wants to suggest that Creative Assembly change the game model so that the same number of people are killed in the chase, that's fine with me. As long at the death rate remains high.

For the record, "everybody" does not, repeat, not agree that the casualty rates are too high.

Hakonarson
06-03-2003, 01:53
Doug I'd have to disagree - there are almost no accurate casualty counts at all from ancient times - at best we get estimates that has ben passed down to people writing hundreds of years later.

I'd say we have ideas ROUGHLY of whether losses were extreme, high, moderate, low or very low, but yuo can't take a sample from those http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Balamir
06-03-2003, 09:47
To tell the truth I never thought about this before, probably because I didnt think it was a problem. I still dont. I mean come on rising sun, this is one of the last things you should be arguing about I think. I'd say we all need to take a break and try to imagine how much work we're trying to load on RTW, there is so much to be done before CA could move on to the perfection points such as this. Im not saying this was a bad topic, I only dont want my RTW to be delayed because of such minor things that most of us didnt even notice..

cheers

Longasc
06-03-2003, 14:36
MTW has its limitations. To what would more realistical combat losses of around 20% lead? You would just fight over the same Territory 4x times more.

One thing that should be adressed is that high quality troops with high quality weapon and armor simply crush enemies that have 20x more men.

I once routed 200 enemy soldiers with my king alone, that's GREAT to some extent, but I think it would be better if such uber-units would not be thus good... how often have you seen your King kill hundreds of enemy soldiers before he goes down? Some generals and high quality troops come very close to that wonder, too.

Doug-Thompson
06-03-2003, 17:39
Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ June 02 2003,19:53)]Doug I'd have to disagree - there are almost no accurate casualty counts at all from ancient times - at best we get estimates that has ben passed down to people writing hundreds of years later.

I'd say we have ideas ROUGHLY of whether losses were extreme, high, moderate, low or very low, but yuo can't take a sample from those http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yes, I did state that poorly.

I agree that the data is not acurrate enough to say if, for example, 50 percent casualties are more accurate than 55. However, there is certainly more than enough data to show that a practical limit of 20 percent losses for the losing side is absurd.

Once again, the point is that there is no basis for arguing that casualty rates should be lower. All the evidence -- however flawed -- is that casualty rates for losers was very high.

Grifman
06-06-2003, 02:35
Quote[/b] (Divine Wind @ May 28 2003,07:06)]Lets also remember that history was written by the winners. How can there archives on casulties be completely accurate or even truthful.
Because "bias" does not logically nor necessarily entail "falsehood".

Grifman

Portuguese Rebel
06-08-2003, 01:57
I think the problem is that we are taliking about sprites here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

A wining sprite runs down a losing/routing sprite real easy and without fear for his own safety. In real life a winner would take a lot more care about chasing down the losers. Even a loser can fight hard if without reatreat. It was preferably for the victors not to push the loosers to much, or they migh decide to make a stand and fight it of, so many times the routers would manage to flee (at least a lot more than in MTW).

But think of this, you have a battle and there is that "politically correct 12% casualties". The next turn what happens? yeah you're back fighting the remaining 88%. Do you see the game issue here? Unless the losers also lose more people through desertion after the defeat, you gonna have to fight several battles just to wipe out one army. And while you are at it, the enemy will have produced another army. It will be the centuries before you get anything done...

Hakonarson
06-08-2003, 09:25
PR a man fleeign from you can be struck down easily - but you are right that defeated troops could make a stand and fight if they had no way out - good geenrals often left a gap to ensure that the enemy would run rather than fight, while several ancient military texts make the same point.

But once you have them running it is very difficult for them to rally sufficiently to be effective - so the "trick" is to get them running, then kep them running.

The TW series does this quite well - if you attack the front of a running unit hte fleeing troops WILL fight you, and WILL inflict casualties. It can be very annoying http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Better to let them run, then strike at their backs.