Healed casualties

[SwissBarbar]

Hi there

Why is it that the AI mostly is able to heal 50% of its casualties after a battle?
Why is it that mostly light units are healed when the player wins?
At least in my campaigns...

And can this be modified for EB II?

[Tollheit]

Why is it that mostly light units are healed when the player wins?
Because you use mostly light troops as arrow pin cushions and cavalry shock absorbers in the first minutes of battle, while you keep your elites in reserve. The first x % of casualties get healed, those who fall last are out of luck.

I've always assumed it is hard-coded, but I may be wrong.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

The first x % of casualties get healed, those who fall last are out of luck.


Really? :wall:

[Raygereio]

The first x % of casualties get healed, those who fall last are out of luck.
You sure about that? I don't think the order of soldiers that drop has any significance.

I always thought the type of wound the soldier in the unit recieved also had something to do with it, though. For instance; I always notice that units that get heavy casualties from a cavalry charge get no men back, while a unit that was decimated by arrow fire is usually almost completely restored at the end of the battle.

[Tollheit]

Yes, I am sure about that for EB1.
I have paid attention to that in countless battles.
Don't know for Medieval2, though.

[SwissBarbar]

Quite interesting, but very unlogical. Why should the units that lie the longest time wounded on the battlefield survive, while those, who get wounded short time before the battle ends, and then very quickly can be brought to the chirurgeon or whoever, die?

[Tollheit]

I agree, and it irks me too, SwissBarbar.

[Ludens]

I was under the impression that it was missile casualties that were more likely to heal. There is some research in the Ludus Magna (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=39234), but it's ancient and IIRC Aemilius Paulus posted evidence some time ago that it was not correct. I cannot find his post, unfortunately.

[Tollheit]

It's not that enigmatic, guys.

[Tollheit]

Some battle result screenshots to illustrate my point:

Battle for Chach, Saka vs. Eleuthereu, spring of 272 BC, battle difficulty: normal

1) Sent in Early Saka Nobles first, then Saka HA, then Saka FA:
https://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk4/Tollheit/0411a.jpg?t=1260914425
2)Sent in Saka HA first, then Early Saka Nobles, then Saka FA:
https://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk4/Tollheit/0413a.jpg?t=1260914287
3) Sent in Saka FA first, then Saka HA, then Early Saka Nobles:
https://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk4/Tollheit/0414a.jpg?t=1260914498

Most casualties were casualties by missile fire, but I can assure you, you'd get the same results for melee sieges. I'm just too lazy to demonstrate.

[WinsingtonIII]

That evidence is pretty hard to argue against, you're right....

Now why would the system work like that? It doesn't make any sense!

I guess maybe it was an ease of programming issue.

[seienchin]

Okay as far as my researches to this topic goes:

1. Fleeing units get nearly every man back they lost after starting to run, if you win the battle.
2. When a unit card starts to blink and you loose a lot of men in short time it is the same
3. Cavallery charge victims do not recover, but(!!!! really important) most units start to blink after getting charged by heavy cavallery, so they get most of there casualties directly after the charge back.
4. Cavallery tend to get less man back. Maybe because in EB they rarely blink.
5. Arrow fire casualties in EB seem to have a higher recovery rate, but I never experienced that in Vanilla. Dont know why

The thing about fleeing units and blinking is 100% true, but everything else is my conclusion after countless battles.:book:

Against Tollheits point:
Fight a siege battle and not only the units you let atack the walls first recover, but everybody also.

[Cullhwch]

Check the AIGeneral trait. I edited the hell out of mine (no more 5 minute fights against the general himself), but I believe that the AI generals get a big bonus to their BattleSurgery stat. That would explain the healing discrepancies between human and AI generals. Remove that line and everything should equalize.

[HopliteElite]

It was my understanding that the system was indeed that the first casualties received treatment and this makes sense to me at least. The first men who go down, usually in skirmishes, would be the first dragged to safety and worked on while the middle one would be downed and basically abandoned until the battle is over (leading to death) and the last ones downed would likely die due to lack of free surgical hands, which are tied up healing the early casualties. I'm sure there would be more realistic ways of handling it but it seems to make sense to me the way it is.

[Tollheit]

Okay as far as my researches to this topic goes:

1. Fleeing units get nearly every man back they lost after starting to run, if you win the battle.
2. When a unit card starts to blink and you loose a lot of men in short time it is the same
3. Cavallery charge victims do not recover, but(!!!! really important) most units start to blink after getting charged by heavy cavallery, so they get most of there casualties directly after the charge back.
4. Cavallery tend to get less man back. Maybe because in EB they rarely blink.
5. Arrow fire casualties in EB seem to have a higher recovery rate, but I never experienced that in Vanilla. Dont know why

The thing about fleeing units and blinking is 100% true, but everything else is my conclusion after countless battles.:book:

I disagree with all your points.



Against Tollheits point:
Fight a siege battle and not only the units you let atack the walls first recover, but everybody also.
Not true.

[seienchin]

I disagree with all your points.


Not true.
HAHAHAHA Okay :book:
So you are disagreeing that blinking units casualties normaly recover and that units beeing killed while fleeing replenish?:dizzy2::dizzy2:

[Tollheit]

Yes.
In my example battles shown here, pretty much every unit routet (except for the last to be send in) and took losses while fleeing, but only the first few % of casualties total recovered. 0, nil, nada, zilch of other units, fleeing or not.
And it was a "siege battle", too, albeit without walls.

[seienchin]

Yes.
In my example battles shown here, pretty much every unit routet (except for the last to be send in) and took losses while fleeing, but only the first few % of casualties total recovered. 0, nil, nada, zilch of other units, fleeing or not.
And it was a "siege battle", too, albeit without walls.
Okay, nothing about that, but I doubt the unit would have recovered 45 men if it hadnt been fleeing, blinking whatever:book:

[Tollheit]

Well, the Early Saka Nobles in example No. 1 fled when they were down to 6 men - where do the other 40 recoveries come from?

[Cambyses]

From my experience it is always the first guys to die that have the greatest chance to recover. Co-incidentally these are often killed by missile fire. Tollheit is absolutely correct.

[Ibrahim]

my experience shows that Tollheit is basically correct-I have high recovery rates for all initial contact units, regardless of unit type-missile units seem to recover most as they fight first in normal situations; I had a pezhetairoi unit get reduced to little over 20 men (of 123), but since they were the first to go into battle, all but 15 were healed (AS v. Carthage)*.

and yes, I had plenty of people heal from Charges-the above unit in fact took most of the casualties from the initial charge (a unit of medium cavalry+shoch troops).

*it was a guerilla style battle: soldiers hiding, taking cover, and ambushing each other. I basically had to take off the phalanx ability in order to "range" through the woods and do a sweep of the *******.

[Ludens]

Most casualties were casualties by missile fire, but I can assure you, you'd get the same results for melee sieges. I'm just too lazy to demonstrate.

That does look pretty strong. I have referred to this thread in the Ludus Magna discussion. Feel free to post your research in the LM (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=39234).

[seienchin]

WOOW. Okay I researched myself and played 10 custom and 2 campain battles to do so and here are my results:

1. The units who are first getting casualties (Not just contact, not just killing enemies) are getting their soldiers healed.
2. When I atacked with 3 Units and let one of them rout, it had the most people restored.
3. Getting one man killed in the beginning is enough. I got one rider killed and 5 minuits later 30 more and they still got healed.

This blows my mind? Who made that system? :sweatdrop:
I guess that is the reason why the only efficient tactic in a long campain in EB is to always press forward. When I started to roleplay my battles I took huge losses :thumbsdown:

There is still something I didnt research:
What about reeinforcement?

[Jerat]

2. When I atacked with 3 Units and let one of them rout, it had the most people restored.


If a unit routes, the warriors it looses do not die. They are captured. So they do not get healed, they are just released, if you win the battle. This works definitly in MTW2 like that, but I also think that it is similar in Rome.

[seienchin]

If a unit routes, the warriors it looses do not die. They are captured. So they do not get healed, they are just released, if you win the battle. This works definitly in MTW2 like that, but I also think that it is similar in Rome.
I know^^
But Tollheit said he disagrees so I just researched it again.

Stil there is something that bothers me.
In a campain battle today I hold my cav back and atacked late but still they got restored half their casualties. WHY? :juggle2:
In my test battles it wouldnt have worked.

[DaciaJC]

I am in full agreement with Tollheit's theory. I picked up on the casualties trend several months ago and scores of battles since then have only served to confirm my first guesses.

[satalexton]

It tends to be the akonkistai and peltastai that I get most back after every battle. It must have something to do with the missles.

[Drewski]

I am in full agreement with Tollheit's theory. I picked up on the casualties trend several months ago and scores of battles since then have only served to confirm my first guesses.

Me too. (Lo again Frontline btw ;))

I just said in another thread (before reading this one)


It's also to do with which units die first in a battle, without a shadow of a doubt.

E.g. If you assault a stone wall with say a unit of Pedites as Rome, and they win but lose 90% of their number, then after the battle (as long as you win and have a General with a <healer> anciliary), you'll get most, even all of them back sometimes.

This is true without exception to my knowledge. You seem to get a percentage of the total casualties back (assuming a healer ancil). The chirgeon seems to heal more than the doctor, who heals more than the herbalist. Then a random percentage is applied on top of that. Whoever gets "killed" first seems to have the highest chance of being healed, with those falling to missile fire also having a high probablity.

When I think about it, I'm not too sure about the "missile" casualties recovering bit either. The reason in my experience, that you get most of your Archer/Slingers back, is that generally they die first, as they are the first to be targetted by ai missile troops. If the ai has no long ranged missile troops, then your slingers/archers normally stay out of melee totally (unless you do some strange things with them;))

My theory based on close observation, is that you get X% of the first casualties back (as Tollheit said), and then every other casualty has a small random chance of healing. This is modified by the type of healing anciliary that the General has. Without the General and healing ancil, you only get the small random chance per man, which always exists.

The type of weapon the man fell too, may have an influence on the caualty recovering, but it may just be coincidence, or that they happened to fall first.

[Blxz]

Ok tollheit, interesting points. But to really prove them you must try and disprove them.

Try losing large amounts of archers and light troops but do it late in the battle after other troops have fallen. The light troops seems to always recover, lets see if its because of a value recovery or if its because they are normally the first to fall. I've found that many of my archers and slingers come back after battle; but I like to protect them and make them avoid all enemy contact unless I am not paying attention and they get flanked. Even so they tend to recover considerably....why?

Point 2: Lazy or not you can't really justify anything unless you do actually try a melee battle. Arrows seem to equal units that recover, so only using units killed by arrow fire is only evidence to what we already suspect; try and do the same with a large melee fight.

Like drewski said, maybe you get a certain percentage of troops back plus a random chance per man. Is this testable? Refighting the same battle a few times should sort it out.

[Subotan]

Given the state of battlefield surgery in Antiquity, you should be glad there are healed casualties at all.

[Tollheit]

This works definitly in MTW2 like that
Yes, if you win/pay ransom.

but I also think that it is similar in Rome.
No, not at all.


Try losing large amounts of archers and light troops but do it late in the battle after other troops have fallen. The light troops seems to always recover, lets see if its because of a value recovery or if its because they are normally the first to fall.
I have done exactly that. Saka Early Nobles are not "light troops", especially when compared to Saka HA and Saka FA.

[Tollheit]

Arrows seem to equal units that recover,
No, not to me. Why don't you do some test battles for yourself?

Refighting the same battle a few times should sort it out.I have done that, haven't I?

[SwissBarbar]

We have much discussed this Question:



Why is it that mostly light units are healed when the player wins?


but not this one:



Why is it that the AI mostly is able to heal 50% of its casualties after a battle?

It seems that the AI is able to recover an unproportional amount of casualties after winning a battle. Can this be modified?

[podoh]

Check the AIGeneral trait. I edited the hell out of mine (no more 5 minute fights against the general himself), but I believe that the AI generals get a big bonus to their BattleSurgery stat. That would explain the healing discrepancies between human and AI generals. Remove that line and everything should equalize.

I think you read over this one...

[antisocialmunky]

Thanks. Now I can go make all generals recover 90% for realistic battle losses.

[SwissBarbar]

I think you read over this one...

Indeed. What's the AIGeneral trait?

[Cullhwch]

It's the trait that gives the AI generals ridiculous bonuses. Ever wondered why the dude whose ass you kicked 3 times has 7 stars while your continent-conquering badass only has 5? It's because of the AIGeneral trait. The AI also gives similar bonuses to its governors.

[antisocialmunky]

It's the trait that gives the AI generals ridiculous bonuses. Ever wondered why the dude whose ass you kicked 3 times has 7 stars while your continent-conquering badass only has 5? It's because of the AIGeneral trait. The AI also gives similar bonuses to its governors.

To be honest, the AI general deserves 7 stars if he manages to beat the player once.

[SwissBarbar]

Ah, that explains a lot

[Cullhwch]

To be honest, the AI general deserves 7 stars if he manages to beat the player once.

He'll get it anyway. He only needs to fight battles to increase the trait, not win them.

[Cyclops]

Thanks and many thanks to Tolheit for his excellent research. +rep, oh wait this is the org not twc. :idea2:Have a balloon:balloon2:

I had a pretty strong impression that it was the weapon type that influenced % recovery. It always seemed that the guys getting shot with arrows recovered but the guys getting javelined, speared, sworded, axed and above all lanced stayed well dead.

However this fits the pattern of most of my battlesL: missile/melee/pursuit.

I guess its not too bad, and gives one a reason for leading with elites. I suppose a drawn out battle will ahve some escalating chance of casualtuies, not just a linear increase for deaths/time, but an increase in deaths because they go untreated longer.

I can't rationalise that the earlier deaths get healed and the later ones not, except maybe the medics run out of herbs and bandages? Its not that realistic but its not too bad.

Now I just have to stop myself from exploiting my newfound gamelore.

[GenosseGeneral]

could there maybe a difference in healing rates between custom and campaign battles?

[Cullhwch]

Yeah, the difference is due to the General's BattleSurgery stat. That being said, the BattleSurgery stat seems to have an upper limit on recovery. I don't think that it'll let you recover 100% of your fallen troops no matter how high you set it. Could someone test putting a BattleSurgery stat at something ridiculous like 200?

[Vincent Butler]

The missile-damage units tend to recover faster, I agree, as well as with the light infantry. I have had Legionary Cohort in vanilla RTW get ahold of my Peltasts, and they recovered just about everybody. On the other had, I have had Egyptian Chariots get ahold of my archers (as Macedon) and wiped the unit out. I won, but got none of those archers back. Too bad, they were in the silver chevrons, with gold sword and shield. I have noticed I tend to get friendly fire units back if not using a fire attack if my units are light infantry. Heavy infantry seem to not get that luxury.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Given the state of battlefield surgery in Antiquity, you should be glad there are healed casualties at all.

Not so. Battlefield deaths in EB are far higher proportionally than they were in real history. And in EB, the majority of men die while fighting. In reality, most men died after routing and being cut down while they fled.

[Ludens]

Not so. Battlefield deaths in EB are far higher proportionally than they were in real history. And in EB, the majority of men die while fighting. In reality, most men died after routing and being cut down while they fled.

True, although that doesn't apply here. Only the winning army gets healed casualties in the TW engine.

Just for the record: I am not sure that, in reality, the majority of men on the losing side would be killed. I guess the majority would get away safely. This was certainly true for hoplite vs. hoplite battles, where the opposing side could not mount an effective pursuit.

That isn't reflected in TW games though, because the engine can't simulate this. In TW, if the men survive, they can engage in battle the next turn. In reality, the command structure would be in disarray, the men scattered across the region and thoroughly demoralized, and resupply would be difficult just when it was needed the most.

[QuintusSertorius]

Let's also not forget how often in the wars of the Diadochi the Macedonian phalangites wouldn't even be broken, but would surrender on the expectation they'd be hired by the winning side.