Individual soldiers represent what?

[SirGrotius]

I am wondering, how many men does each individual soldier on the map represent? Is it just one? I had an instance playing the Saxons earlier today when the Vikings unleashed a particularly vicious raid on my coast and continued ravaging my lands for a number of turns. I brought the damn invading army down to two individuals, one Beserker, and the General himself (I don't recall what kind of Viking he was, but I'm sure his valor was max). Now, these two individuals managed to rout 17 Royal Knights (I think that's what they're called in VI), 60 peasants (laughs), 26 spearmen, and 21 Huscarls (crap). Now, this is miraculous, and maybe it can be done, but if they truly represent single individuals, I don't think it's plausible in the least.

[R'as al Ghul]

Why don't you think it's plausible?


http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Okay, just kidding.
I don't think there's a formula.
If you multiply it with 10 it still seems ridiculous.
100 makes it even worse.
Well, in the end it's only a game, isn't it.?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif Call the grand Inquisitor. There is
heretic among us. Only a game.....

[*Ringo*]

Eliminating that last general unit can be v. annoying http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif I once had the King of France plough through about 5 full units http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-furious3.gif It's the valour that makes the difference i think. +1 valour equals +1 attack, +1 Defence and +1 moral (unless i'm mistaken) So a valour 9 Huscarle would certainly kick ass

Regards

*Ringo*

P.S Think one man represents one man, thats how the battles are calculated from what i've read, check out the Log files to your battles you can check on the individual valour of each man in every squad

[The Wizard]

Ah well... berserkers are some amazing units, and paired together with obscenely high valour and a good general they can be very deadly indeed.

[Monk]

Max valor? Thats got to be around 20 or something http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

taking down V 4 units is hard let alone Maxed out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif

SirGrotius, i am wondering what valor your men were? For one, high valor units will cause fear to low valor units. Thats why your 17 horsemen routed so fast, and well peseants are useless so you can't blame them. It looks like the spearmen and huscarls put up a great fight but in the end got hammered.

You have seen first hand what we sometimes call "Jedi generals", and the only way to kill them is a mass of soldiers coming in from all sides. When a General gets that much valor it will be for the good of Britian that you kill him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Good luck in your quest SirGrotius http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[Hurin_Rules]

In VI, one man usually represents one man. Those battles were small in the British Isles in the Middle Ages and rarely did they exceed 1,000 men.

Now, on the continent, and during the Battle of Hastings, some of those battles involved more than 10,000 men, which is about the limit you can do in the main campaign. But even then, I think the most you would need to say was that each man signified two men in real life.

That being said, I think the way in which a general or single remaining fighter from a unit can resist being killed and even rout whole units is very frustrating and not at all realistic. Part of the problem is that the engine only allows two men to attack any one man at one time. In real life, three, four or even more could attack one person, and one person cannot rout whole units.

[Demequis]

There is indeed a formula for attack and defense. I don't know the specifics, but I read it on these forums. I believe it may be in one of the beginner guides?
The details aren't that important, what is important is that the disparity between the battling units' attack/defense is used as an exponent when determining the chance to kill per combat round. This means that a slight disparity is magnified immensely. A 6 valour general supposedly should survive much much longer than a 4 or 5 valour general versus same troops (depending on who he's fighting and how great of a disparity it is).
I'm sure someone around here can quote the formula. I can't recall the particulars but it was something like 1 + 1.small^(attack-defense) to ger chance to kill with armour somehow in there, maybe multiplied times defense? defense is defense of your enemy, attack is your attack.

Can someone provide the link to the actual formula?

[CBR]

Formula is :

1.9% x 1.2^(attack-defense)

Armour is already calculated into a units defense to give the actual defense stat you see in F1

Then there are units that have armour piercing weapons. They give a bonus to attack depending on a targets armour value (pure armour value so excluding the armour you gain from shield)

Against infantry the bonuses are:

Armour: bonus
1-2: +0
3-4: +1
5-6: +2

Against cavalry:

2-3: +0
4-5: +1
6-7: +2
8-9: +3


CBR

[solypsist]

one man is one man.

[SirGrotius]

Thanks for the replies. I feel somewhat relieved that one man equals one man as I can now picture the battles clearer. I apologize for re-hashing the old "how does that damn general survive" argument, but I was perplexed and lost a good number of men in the process. Fortunately, the General ended up dying of explosure to the English rain. No, really, he did.

[Finn]

Actually not entirely unrealistic

battle of stamford bridge 1066 (google cache link as i cant find a decent one thats working)

one viking held off the entirity of the english army while the rest of the vikings prepared for battle, anyone who came near him was cut down, he was only defeated by the english going underneath the bridge and stabbing a spear up through the bridge to get him.

[*Ringo*]

Quote[/b] (SirGrotius @ Jan. 23 2004,06:57)]Fortunately, the General ended up dying of explosure to the English rain. No, really, he did.
It never rains in England..... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ...No really, it doesn't http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

*Ringo*

[insolent1]

I've had a unit that was 24 valour & I have seen a screenshot of a lone royal knight(high) that was 36 valour. As to the killing the lone uber units use missile troops(archers, arbs & javelins)its much easiar
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
As to the the amount of men each unit/man represents its up to you use your imagination http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif

[insolent1]

Quote[/b] (Finn @ Jan. 23 2004,05:13)]Actually not entirely unrealistic

battle of stamford bridge 1066 (google cache link as i cant find a decent one thats working)

one viking held off the entirity of the english army while the rest of the vikings prepared for battle, anyone who came near him was cut down, he was only defeated by the english going underneath the bridge and stabbing a spear up through the bridge to get him.
Yeah I read that story too he was one tough nut but its not surprising as i'm sure there where many men throughout the ages that where almost godlike on the battlefield.

[Hurin_Rules]

That account of Stamford Bridge is from a notoriously unreliable Norse Saga-- the genre that has trolls and dwarves and men turning into women and such. If you believe that account, then perhaps you'd also like to consider purchasing some wonderful swampland I own in Florida.

[.:vVv:.Monkey]

Nothing cures the Jedi general menace like a good group of Naphta throwers or a large boulder from a catapult http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

It would be nice to bring the Kensai in from STW, would send him after Jedi generals and other kinds of menace heheh

[Ironside]

See it this way, he started to scream out challenges to his opponents and they started one to one battles and won them all. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

It stood somewhere in that info you got in STW about a man and his son covering the retreat of a hole army using this tactics.

And remind you that if you had the game rule, that says only two opponents at a time against any unit, in real life, then the history would be filled with jedi knights. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[SirGrotius]

In terms of controlling the loyalty of a province in Viking Invasion, I think the one to one ratio works. Essentially, each province is a town and its countryside, or something like that, and I can imagine even a couple hundred men doing that fairly well (not cranking out the most florins, of course, but keeping it from revolting). In the regular campaign, however, I wonder if that ratio still stands? For instance, two hundred men would be hard pressed to keep a province such as Flanders under tabs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Puzz3D]

Hurin_Rules,

The engine actually allows more than two men to attack a single man according to LongJohn who programmed it. The limit is as many as can fit around the lone man. I know GilJaysmith posted otherwise, and that post is quoted below. However, LongJohn corrected me when I recently posted that only two men could attack a single man. Here is his post:
R.I.P. - Swiping, Good Riddance (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=18;t=11744;st=25)

longjohn2

Programmer
Group: CA
Posts: 263
Joined: Nov. 2000
UK Posted: Oct. 15 2003,16:58

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The game often reports cavalry as winning against spear units, when viewed over the longer term they're not. The reason being that push backs as well as kills are used in assessing who's winning, and in situations where the kill rate is low, they dominate. Since it's much easier for horses to push back men than vice versa, the cavalry get more push backs, and are shown as winning even though they're not doing any killing.
This doesn't matter that much though, as the determination of whether a unit is winning or losing a melee that's used for morale is different to the one shown to the player. The morale version takes into account the number of cassualties being inflicted in comparison to the size of the unit, whereas the version shown to the player just looks at absolute numbers, and leaves it for players to decide if the contact area is big enough to have any effect.

BTW, I don't know where the idea that only two men can fight a given opponent came from. It isn't true, as many as can fit can have a hack. The idea that only two men can fight might have arisen from discussions about 100 man spear units fighting lone kings. In that case it's likely that only two spearmen will choose to fight if the unit is on hold formation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SirGrotius,

Another factor besides valor which causes a general to be hard to kill is that he has hit points. Hitpoints of unit leaders and kings (http://www.totalwar.org/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=7;t=9867;hl=hit+points)

Quoting Odyssey of War's post,

Health of a general was explained by Gil from CA once.

Health explained

"The general of your army gets additional hit points (everyone else just gets 1) according to his health factor, which is increased by various vices and virtues. There is a minimum of six for this. Anyone who loses a fight or gets hit by an arrow takes 1hp damage, which is obviously enough to kill anyone except the general. The reason the general can last so long in a ruck is that only two men can fight any one target, and he's probably taking some damage but not enough. An individual melee can last for quite a while, even before you consider that some virtues can give up to 30 hitpoints to the guy. Hence the Jedi effect. In the patch, individual melees will get more dangerous for the combatants after a while, so the general will either win or lose each fight that much quicker. Statistically, therefore, he should lose when surrounded that much quicker. But you should remember that surrounding the general with spearmen is one of the worst ways to try to kill him. Shooting at him is the best way; pinning him in place with a unit while shooting him is even better. A mighty hero could conceivably turn the tide of a battle and could conceivably rout an army of hundreds of peasants; but even the mightiest hero can be turned into a pincushion or squashed under a nice big rock.

Gil ~ CA"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Gil's post is the source of the idea that a man can only be attacked twice in a combat cycle. Gil's original post is apparently no longer available.


Motorhead posted about damage points for various weapons about a month later, and the two man limit mistake is propagated:

motorhead

Group: Junior Member
Posts: 158
Joined: Mar. 2003
USA Posted: Sep. 02 2003,02:14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Damage per hit (power) from the projectilestats file:

hand-to-hand: 1 pt
reg. bow: 1 pt (this covers nearly all archers)
longbow: 2 pt
crossbow: 2 pt
arbalest: 3 pt
arquebus: 4 pt
grenade: 6 pt
ballista: 40 pt
catapult: 80 pt

This is why people recommend using xbows to kill those jedi generals. All firing men have a chance to hit and inflict 2/3 points of damage. While in h-t-h combat, maximum of 2 soldiers can engage a single enemy.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (solypsist @ Jan. 23 2004,06:04)]one man is one man.
Not if he has his arm cut off.

Even less if he has his head cut off http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif



~Wiz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-pirate.gif

[Rowan11088]

"Jedi" generals may not seem all that accurate historically, but that's partially because that kind of situation almost never came up historically. Who ever attacked an enemy or defended with only two men? Just because a real general might be capable of carving his way through a horde of enemies doesn't mean he's going to risk his life to do it just because his morale is still high. In-game you're forcing them to. Plus, when you train units in real life they are the equivalent of raw recruits, for the most part. With the exception of the best-trained units, they've been given their equipment and told how to use it, maybe given a little while to practice, but they're by no means master warriors. A very high valor general in game has had the real-time equivalent of years of fighting practice in addition to his natural ability, so it's not crazy to imagine one slaughtering foes left and right. It even makes sense for lower level, non general units. I imagined my Viking campaign lone valor 7 woodsman (with weap and armor upgrades) going in there like Bruce Lee, flipping around with his axe, using it to vault into flying kicks at enemies http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-jester.gif

[gaelic cowboy]

Someone posted before that they had a full garrison fall to a single royal knight in castile maybe he had a tactical nuke with him or something http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif