Kill ratio question for knowledgable people

[efx]

Hey guys,

Been playing this game for a little while now. I'm definately getting the hang of it I think.. I'm mostly playing custom battles trying out different tactics and so forth. I guess my question is, what do you guys consider an acceptable kill ratio in a win? I mean, I'm winning more and more but sometimes it takes alot of men. What do you guys consider a good win?

Maybe it's a silly question but I was just curious.

Regards.

[Eastside Character]

Welcome to the Org. efx http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

In custom battles every win is good for me.
In campaigns it depends on the situation, quality and numbers of the enemy forces and of my forces, the terrain, if it's a defensive or offensive battle, what was the weather, and so on. But when the chances are equal, then i thik 2 to 1 for me is a good win.

Regards,
EC

[bighairyman]

Yeah welcome efx http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

most of my victories results in thousands of enemy death and a couple of my soldiers dead. But that's only in a well planned invasion. in a unexpected invasion, i would be happy with a 3:1 . http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Cebei]

Too difficult.

Imagine you got one line of spearmen one line of archers and one line of cavalry. Is 4:1 is bad against 4 lines of Armenian HC, or 4:1 good againt 6 lines of peasasnts? Include the upgrades too. A good win can be calculated perhaps by avoiding being flanked, protecting archers, avoiding unnecessary losses. Sometimes losing and routing can be a win too, imagine that as a part of a wider strategy of attrition.

[Eastside Character]

Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Feb. 15 2004,18:00)]Too difficult.

Imagine you got one line of spearmen one line of archers and one line of cavalry. Is 4:1 is bad against 4 lines of Armenian HC, or 4:1 good againt 6 lines of peasasnts? Include the upgrades too. A good win can be calculated perhaps by avoiding being flanked, protecting archers, avoiding unnecessary losses. Sometimes losing and routing can be a win too, imagine that as a part of a wider strategy of attrition.
But the question is about a battle win.
And as i assume, we discuss here situations were the forces are equally strong. If not, well then i can say a 100:1 is a good win when i'm fighting some crap peasants with high valor heavy cavs.

Regards,
EC

[efx]

Hey guys,

Yeah, I should have stated that my experiments are done with 2 fairly equal armies (not equal down to a man but you get the idea).. I usually get 2:1 or 3:1.

Thanks for the replies guys.

[R'as al Ghul]

I nearly achieved a victory with only 1 loss.
I defended Tuscany, strong position on a hill
with Genoese Sailors and Arbalesters (Italy).
The Sissi-lian King attacked with a strong force, somewhere behind him. Riding his 2 units of Kings Knights into the arrows, he was quickly shred to pieces. With the last 3 men he desperately climbed the hill and was then finished by an enormous charge of my King's Knights, me loosing 1 man on the impact.
His whole army withdrew. I sent two units of mounted Sergeants after him to make some prisoners.
Unfortunately a unit of Halbardiers turned around and attacked them, resulting in about 40 dead horsies.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
It could've been so good
Cheers

[[DnC]]

I have recently gotten a 1227-1 k/d ratio in a bridge battle, buuttt I have modded missile units to be a bit more accurate and deadly.

Now I really have to advance quickly if the enemy has a lot of archers

[Kulgan]

Reminds me of a bridge battle where each of my 4 units of pavise arbelasters each got about 300 kills http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif
A good kill ratio is where you can make up your losses while your opponent can't ---> you'll gain the advantage, strategically.

[a_ver_est]

IMHO less 2:1 is bad, in fact AI use less tech units than me, so in a 1:1 ratio I would lose more resources.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

In campaign game; no clue.

In MP or custom SP, it somehow depends on what kind of army you play with and against. It also depend on how much florin you play with.

Army with a lot of cavalry will often end up with high loss/kill ratio, mostly because they end up capturing a lot of ennemies, and also because they are only 40... That does not mean an army with a lot of cavalry will win, but on average their kill / loss ratio will look good. The same kill / loss ratio for two different armies might be either good or bad...

In my opinion, I know a player is doing a good job when he/she consistently has less than 50 routed and less than 50 captured. Usually it's a sign of very good control and a good understanding of morale system.
If you are defeated with less than 50 routed and 50 captured, you still gave a good fight and was able to fight until all your men were dead and without them routing too quickly. There is a huge difference between having 600 men killed and 300 killed/ 300 captured.

Louis,

[vonNichts]

What matters is to win the day (is that an idiom also in English?) There is great honour in forcing the enemy off the field. Last man standing won't care much about the costs...

No, for real, one should calculate the economics of it all. One mustn't mistake price (in florins) with real costs. If the units you loose would've been very useful to keep, then you might've experienced a Pyrhuss (spelling?) victory. If they were expendable, then it was well worth it.

But forgetting about rationality, I think victory is worth any price

[gaijinalways]

Good last point. Getting your high valor, high cost units killed in exchange for archers or crossbowmen may not be a good victory. I try to balance it, but I also have a tendency to lose cavalry (sometimes by over chasing or sometimes the troops get exhausted or I simply sacrificed them to delay and harass an emerging unit).

Kill ratios will vary, though of course between equal units you should do fairly well against the AI though it might still depend if you are attacking or not as the defender has the advantage of picking a better location and setting up his troops as he wishes.

Also, sometimes time is a major factor as on expert, sometimes the AI will attempt to delay and stay away as the AI can gain a time victory if you don't have the proper troops to chase down AI units with a high morale (so they don't rout).

[Nelson]

I can’t remember playing a custom battle. I only play campaigns. So long as I prevail in a fight and still have enough forces to garrison and defend the turf I’m sitting on, I call it I good win. I have had Pyrrhic victories that won a new region but were so costly that my plans for rolling onward were stalled. These were not such good wins.

Battles are closer early in the game because a player’s troops haven’t been improved much yet and good commanders may not be present. A 1.5 to 1 ratio is fine early on. Later, with good generals and well accoutered men, anywhere from 3 – 1 to 10 – 1 is common depending on the enemy commander.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (vonNichts @ Feb. 16 2004,18:42)]What matters is to win the day (is that an idiom also in English?) There is great honour in forcing the enemy off the field. Last man standing won't care much about the costs...

But forgetting about rationality, I think victory is worth any price
There is such a thing as winning a battle only to lose a war.

Should the Kill Ratio be against you for most of the battle you may be able to drive the enemy from the field but lose your army... In Custom battles and Multiplayer that doesn't matter, but in a Campaign it can have a wider impact.

[DojoRat]

Good battles come in many packages. I was attacking Constantinople without siege weapons so I tried to eliminate ALL his troops. I just did it, running down the last xbowmen as he approached the edge. I probably took more casualties but it was worth it.

[el_slapper]

I'm especially bad on attack, thus 1-1 with victory is enough when I'm in offence(unless the enemy is made of peons, of course). On Defence, 2-1 with win is good if enemy forces were superior. 3-1 if they were equal.

Of course, the real victory might be elsewhere. In my last campaign with the Danes, I was holding Lithuania & surroundings, while Byz(by far the most powerful faction) was holding the steppes. In 1210, they attacked me(they were faaaaar stronger). The next 20 years, my whole strategy was to hold the ground until the Horde arrives.

At any cost.

I've suffered very bad kill-ratios during those 20 years(they had Varangians, me not, I do not have VI). But I only lost Smolensk to them, when the horde backstabbed them. Objective reached. I later exterminated them(thanks mister Mongol).