View Full Version : 70-90% casualty rates realistic?
BeeSting
03-13-2009, 09:30
I find the average casualty rates per engagement, land and sea battles alike, a bit too high. The AI does not seem to understand that sometimes it is better to fight another day and retreat than go kamikaze. I would think if it saw that the fight was hopeless it would pullout of the battleground, hopefully in good order. But no, it throws everything at you till all its units are killed or shattered.
When generals saw no hope of winning they withdrew. Armies are rarely wiped out at such high casualty rates as you see in ETW. If ETW reflects realism, then American revolution would not have succeeded. Save the army, save the country.... It is not just a matter of realism but also better tactics. I would think the AI would be more challenging if it knew when to tactically retreat. And avoid fights until it is sure to win. I have not seen the kind of realism CA promised pre-release that the AI is suppose to behave with goal oriented objectives than simply react to what you do. I'm confused as to what the AI is doing with its armies on campaign map half the time.
In RTW and MTW2, when you click on an enemy army half your size to attack, it would avoid fight and retreat--not so with ETW; 10 against 1 it would hold ground and you are sucked into the battle ground, unless you decide to auto resolve. And in battlegrounds, it does not withdraw; it fights outnumbered 10 to 1.
Something is wrong here.
The AI is a balls out fight to the death kinda guy. deep down, you have to respect that. I always thought my computer was ballsy, this game has shown me just how ballsy she really is!
PROTECT THE FLAG!! :surrender2::charge:
I seldom see any AI panic even when flanked. I have been in three battles where an enemy unit charge a group of troups, and I then flanked them. In many cases, this should start a route, especially when being charged by the flanking army. By the time the enemy ever does anything, they are cut to 70% losses.
But what the heck, if it were any other way, you could never get your own units to advance under fire.
Sir Beane
03-13-2009, 11:46
Total War games have always had rediculously high casuality rates. This is an age where armies lost more men to disease and sesertion than to the enemy. At this point it's unlikely to change, its just a design decision that we more or less have to live with.
The A.I should know when to retreat however.
Maleficus
03-13-2009, 12:00
When generals saw no hope of winning they withdrew. Armies are rarely wiped out at such high casualty rates as you see in ETW. If ETW reflects realism, then American revolution would not have succeeded. Save the army, save the country.... It is not just a matter of realism but also better tactics. I would think the AI would be more challenging if it knew when to tactically retreat. And avoid fights until it is sure to win. I have not seen the kind of realism CA promised pre-release that the AI is suppose to behave with goal oriented objectives than simply react to what you do. I'm confused as to what the AI is doing with its armies on campaign map half the time.
Something is wrong here.
Dude, it's called Total War for a reason.
It's about fighting.
Seriously, this game would be incredibly boring if the AI never wanted to fight.
I would quite like it if the AI pulled out more and limited itself to as few casulties as possible, would make the game so much more realistic and intriguing. You would still have big fights, but there would be a lot more tactics to every battle - it wouldn't just be about beating the opponent for the AI, it would be about so much more. Think Quatre Bras before Waterloo.
I would quite like it if the AI pulled out more and limited itself to as few casulties as possible, would make the game so much more realistic and intriguing. You would still have big fights, but there would be a lot more tactics to every battle - it wouldn't just be about beating the opponent for the AI, it would be about so much more. Think Quatre Bras before Waterloo.
Go William, go William :2thumbsup:
70%-90% casualties in Land Battles?? No way.
I play on VH as british, i do some volleys, soften the fellas up and charge with bayonets (and cavalry if I happen to have any). They run away. Even more so if you had some artillery shooting at them beforehand.
BeeSting
03-13-2009, 21:56
The AI is a balls out fight to the death kinda guy. deep down, you have to respect that. I always thought my computer was ballsy, this game has shown me just how ballsy she really is!
PROTECT THE FLAG!! :surrender2::charge:
LOL
To be honest, chasing an AI army around the map and having to have about 5 battles with the same stack just to make sure they are no longer a threat would be pretty damn boring if not repetitive.
I don't see the high casualty rates. The losing army routs before that. It's just that Empire destroys the rest of the army instead of forcing us to chase after their small, depleted remains all the time. Sure, it's realistic, but it's also extremely tedious. I hated beating a full stack, then having to beat the half a stack remains the next turn to fight the quarter a stack remains the next turn and so on and on.
Wars in real life aren't fun. I don't see why we'd want all the realism that goes into it.
NimitsTexan
03-13-2009, 22:55
I find the average casualty rates per engagement, land and sea battles alike, a bit too high. The AI does not seem to understand that sometimes it is better to fight another day and retreat than go kamikaze. I would think if it saw that the fight was hopeless it would pullout of the battleground, hopefully in good order. But no, it throws everything at you till all its units are killed or shattered.
When generals saw no hope of winning they withdrew. Armies are rarely wiped out at such high casualty rates as you see in ETW. If ETW reflects realism, then American revolution would not have succeeded. Save the army, save the country.... It is not just a matter of realism but also better tactics. I would think the AI would be more challenging if it knew when to tactically retreat. And avoid fights until it is sure to win. I have not seen the kind of realism CA promised pre-release that the AI is suppose to behave with goal oriented objectives than simply react to what you do. I'm confused as to what the AI is doing with its armies on campaign map half the time.
In RTW and MTW2, when you click on an enemy army half your size to attack, it would avoid fight and retreat--not so with ETW; 10 against 1 it would hold ground and you are sucked into the battle ground, unless you decide to auto resolve. And in battlegrounds, it does not withdraw; it fights outnumbered 10 to 1.
Something is wrong here.
I totally agree (and have posted similar thoughts myself). Battles of annihilation did not challenge suspension of disbelief as much in RTW and M2TW (though battles were still too bloody), as in the days of melee combat, the army that lost was quite likely to suffer horrendous casualties as it disengaged. However, by the Age of Muskets, 50% was about the highest casuatly rate you would ever see (on an army-wide basis), and 10%-40% much more likely, even in a so called "bloody" battle.
I suppose an easy fix would just be to reduce the base morale of all units (say by half); which should in theory make them more brittle and less willing to stand and die; and, in theory, it should reduce casualty rates and make armies more survivable.
antisocialmunky
03-13-2009, 23:22
To be honest, chasing an AI army around the map and having to have about 5 battles with the same stack just to make sure they are no longer a threat would be pretty damn boring if not repetitive.
If it was led by the same general each time? That's be pretty sweet. I'd love to see that. :2thumbsup:
NimitsTexan
03-13-2009, 23:41
If it was led by the same general each time? That's be pretty sweet. I'd love to see that. :2thumbsup:
Same here.
If I surround an army and kill/capture all his units, or if a lay seige to or take a settlement an army is holed up in, then yes, they should be destroyed. But if they have a line of retreat open, and manage to get off the field, units should be able to rally and recover and rebuild for another battle. It would definately make the campaign game tougher (without requiring you to give the AI huge stat bonuses or otherwise handicap yourself in battle).
BeeSting
03-14-2009, 00:29
To be honest, chasing an AI army around the map and having to have about 5 battles with the same stack just to make sure they are no longer a threat would be pretty damn boring if not repetitive.
The trick then would be is to force it to fight, by out witting, if you know what I mean.
Or would you constantly be fed, by piecemeal, smaller, less affective armies to guarantee you wins every fight?
Has anyone seen an AI army retreat when you click on it on the campaign map to fight it? It looks like they took this from the AI in ETW, although you are given the option. It seems AI will never retreat although it's hopeless out numbered and out classed.
BeeSting
03-14-2009, 00:31
Same here.
If I surround an army and kill/capture all his units, or if a lay seige to or take a settlement an army is holed up in, then yes, they should be destroyed. But if they have a line of retreat open, and manage to get off the field, units should be able to rally and recover and rebuild for another battle. It would definately make the campaign game tougher (without requiring you to give the AI huge stat bonuses or otherwise handicap yourself in battle).
We are of one mind here. Well said...
NimitsTexan
03-14-2009, 00:33
The trick then would be is to force it to fight, by out witting, if you know what I mean.
Or would you constantly be fed, by piecemeal, smaller, less affective armies to guarantee you wins every fight?
Has anyone seen an AI army retreat when you click on it on the campaign map to fight it? It looks like they took this from the AI in ETW, although you are given the option. It seems AI will never retreat although it's hopeless out numbered and out classed.
Yep. AI in Rome and M2 definately could and did retreat. Not so here. Again, considering that AI is generally disadvantaged, creativity-wise, vs a human, it boggles my mind that they went so far to make it easier to destroy AI armies. I really hope some patches adjust AI behavier (Tactical, Strategic, and Diplomatic) to give it a sense of self-preservation.
Total War games have always had rediculously high casuality rates. This is an age where armies lost more men to disease and sesertion than to the enemy. At this point it's unlikely to change, its just a design decision that we more or less have to live with.
this is spot on beanie. casualty rates have never been accurate in any TW game to date. its a game they wanna sell as many copies as possible. there biggest selling point over other risk/turn based strategy games is their big bloody battles. they aint going to drop casualty rates any time soon because its TOTAL WAR, they want armies being annihilated and big hectic battles with huge casualties.
its there selling point and it wont change any time soon.
Cheers Knoddy
p.s. having played EU Rome i can guarantee u chasing half stacks around the place is freaking annoying especially when they retreat into your lands and start besieging your stuff :S
Marquis of Roland
03-14-2009, 00:41
Yea, I'm with the shoot-a-few-volleys-and-charge school of thought, so my casualties, while still high compared to M2TW and RTW, is not so bad, usually 20-30%, 40-50% if its a real grind 'em out, beat down 3 stacks at a time type battle.
I found out playing RTI having a shootout wasn't the way to go (did you know in RTI the French have fire by rank and you don't? lol); I do agree they should make teh routing threshold a little lower (not that much lower though), sometimes I'd have 4 regiments on their flank shooting and they still wouldn't rout.
Naval battles are even lighter on casualties. The most ship of the lines I've lost was 2, in a 12 british (me) vs. 14 french throwdown (all ships of the line).
Now playing VH/VH
BeeSting
03-14-2009, 01:03
Yea, I'm with the shoot-a-few-volleys-and-charge school of thought, so my casualties, while still high compared to M2TW and RTW, is not so bad, usually 20-30%, 40-50% if its a real grind 'em out, beat down 3 stacks at a time type battle.
I found out playing RTI having a shootout wasn't the way to go (did you know in RTI the French have fire by rank and you don't? lol); I do agree they should make teh routing threshold a little lower (not that much lower though), sometimes I'd have 4 regiments on their flank shooting and they still wouldn't rout.
Naval battles are even lighter on casualties. The most ship of the lines I've lost was 2, in a 12 british (me) vs. 14 french throwdown (all ships of the line).
Now playing VH/VH
Interesting read.
But I'm more worried about the AI casualty rates and its inability to tactically withdraw or retreat.
Interesting read.
But I'm more worried about the AI casualty rates and its inability to tactically withdraw or retreat.
i have to admit we havnt really seen the tactical we were promised the ai would only fight tooth and nail to the death if it was down to its last city in a siege or something like that.
I THINK the biggest problem is that, it isnt really possible to withdraw in good order. either u rout, or u die. if u tried to withdraw in game as it is atm, u will get shot in the back or cut down by cavalary. perhaps they need to look into changing the withdraw feature currently in game to make them march in rank perhaps even in a fighting retreat of some such. so that its possible for the AI to actually retreat out of battle without suffering insane casualties.
having high casualties when they rout is ok, but as it stands they AI cant really just perform a strategic retreat without leaving itself open to being slaughtered.
Cheers Knoddy
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-14-2009, 01:33
Has anyone ever seen the AI withdraw? I remember that was one of the selling points - the new AI could take into account the strategic situation and pack up if staying alive was more important than keeping ground...
Callahan9119
03-14-2009, 02:14
If I was playing a battle that was gonna last 8 to 10 hours I would be mad about the kill rate. My complaint is that the AI forces the issue too often due to its poor handling of a battle. How am I supposed to resist quickly killing an endlessly shuffling mass of men standing (sometimes) in my way? It is normally in such a bad position that it really has no chance to escape, as it always commits its full force quickly.
I remember mtw1 as the best one for the AI's ability to retreat and get reinforcements quickly off the map if things had gone south.
I can bet that if there were tons of soldiers surviving battles, you would have way more complaints from people annoyed with chasing defeated armies all over the map.
Divine Wind
03-14-2009, 02:52
Has anyone ever seen the AI withdraw? I remember that was one of the selling points - the new AI could take into account the strategic situation and pack up if staying alive was more important than keeping ground...
Nope not once. Every battle I have fought, they have stayed till the death. As you said, the tactical retreat was being advertised as one of the great new strategic moves the AI would make... :no:
Dude, it's called Total War for a reason.
And that reason is because it sounds good, not because the AI should never retreat and should always fight to the absolute last man. If that were the case then the human player would have no option to withdraw either, but we do. If Total War was supposed to be something more than a name, then there wouldn't even be a diplomacy option in the game.
Crappy cop-out argument.
It's always the same with my games, battles where the AI has a relatively even amount of soldiers as i do, i always win, the AI always loses 90% of its army and i always lose 70% of mine.
I've also noticed that no soldiers ever recover from battle... why is that? If your army loses 500 men, none ever recover, not a single one.
NimitsTexan
03-14-2009, 03:22
Did they not use to recover in M2TW? I know leaders can still pick up traits related to wounded recovering . . .
A Very Super Market
03-14-2009, 04:51
Also, Total War is simply a term regarding a nation's stance towards a war. In a total war, as many goods as possible are converted for the war effort, the economy in general is put on the war, and the nation will commit themselves entirely to it. The citizens of said nation will also form a home front, the vast majority of them producing goods for the war effort. The most recent total war? WWII, although Vietnam was one for the Vietnamese.
Also, I'm fine with the recovery, since the majority of wounded in this period died of their injuries, and I highly doubt the ability of someone recovering to be fight-worthy after a musket ball plowing into him.
quadalpha
03-14-2009, 05:27
Has anyone ever seen the AI withdraw? I remember that was one of the selling points - the new AI could take into account the strategic situation and pack up if staying alive was more important than keeping ground...
I was wondering the exact same thing. Mind, they did stop talking about that point a few months ago ...
NimitsTexan
03-14-2009, 08:07
Also, I'm fine with the recovery, since the majority of wounded in this period died of their injuries, and I highly doubt the ability of someone recovering to be fight-worthy after a musket ball plowing into him.
I do have ready access to any casualty studies from the Wars of Succession. However, one study of Waterloo [granted out of ETW's time frame, but my limited knowledge of medical military history suggests there were not significant advances between 1700-1815] done in the 1970s, suggests that the death rate of wounded in British field hospitals in the immediate aftermath of the battle was about 9%. Given that about 55% of the total casualties suffered made it to a hospital, that means about 45% of the total casualties survived the fight.
Shelby Foote in his history of the American Civil War, used the rule of thumb that 50% of wounded return to their army eventually when doing a casuatly analysis of the Seven Days. Aknowledging that the ACW was a different era, we can for the sake of this argument assume that things were alot worse in the 1700s, and that only 25% of wounded returned to their units. That would still mean, that on average, about 11% of all casualties should be recovered after every fight.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.