View Full Version : Realistic casualties
In RTW battles usually end with 70-80% casualties for the loser (and with "Continue Battle" thing - 90-100%... IMO using this option is a cheat, because AI is not able to use it and, erm, is it possible to remove it?) and with 5-15% casualties for the winner. Don't you think that the loser should suffer less casualties? IMO 30-45% in most battles will be just right...
In RTW battles usually end with 70-80% casualties for the loser (and with "Continue Battle" thing - 90-100%... IMO using this option is a cheat, because AI is not able to use it and, erm, is it possible to remove it?) and with 5-15% casualties for the winner. Don't you think that the loser should suffer less casualties? IMO 30-45% in most battles will be just right...
Losing armies in ancient battles often suffered extremely high casualty rates due to the fact that once the route was on, the fleeing soldiers were pursued and slaughtered from behind. So, while these huge disparities in casualty rates certainly seem incredible by modern standards, they were actually quite common in the classical world.
Hmm... I think that you may be wrong... You know, in RTW dead bodies don't affect unit movement, but in reality they do...
And in real life the enemy wouldn't stop pursing you after a 5 min chase once you have left the battlefield...
QwertyMIDX
02-25-2006, 19:51
Battle of Thapsus:
Winer:1000 Casualties
Loser: 30000 Casualties
Battle of Pharsalus
Winer: 1200
Loser: 6000-10000
Battle of Cannae
Winer: 15000
Loser: 60000-70000
Battle of Lake Trasimene
WinerL 1500
Loser: 15000
Battle of Zama
Winer: 5500
Loser: 31000
O'ETAIPOS
02-25-2006, 20:34
Aleksandros prusued persians for 50-70km after battle at Gaugamella. remember also that many men will desert if it is possible - so losers not only rout and die, they also disperse. low losses are possibe if both armies maintain order, but do not continue to fight - for example battle at Leuktria(sp?) during Sparta vs Thebes war.
QwertyMIDX
02-25-2006, 21:22
Leukrta.
Ok, thanks guys. I thought that this is just another stupid thing from CA... Anyway, I was wrong. I have a question: was the situation the same in Medieval? I would assume that in Medieval the winners (in most cases) preferred taking prisoners (ransom...), but I was wrong once, so...
A simple foot soldier is not worth much, in fact it would have been cheaper to kill him and loot what he got with him than give him food and quarter for several weeks. Of course, a knight or nobleman is worth taking him as a prisoner, a ransom could make you rich. Some facts (source is Wikipedia, so dont take them for too proven):
Battle of Agincourt:
Winner 400
Loser 8 000
Battle of Crecy:
Winner: up to 1 000
Loser: up to 20 000
(both numbers including soldiers injured in a way that they couldn't take part in further battles)
Battle of Pavia:
Winner: 500
Loser: 12 000
Battle of Bannockburn:
Winner: 4 000
Loser 10 000
Reverend Joe
02-26-2006, 00:19
Actually, if the prisoners were nobles, taking them risoner was infinitely preferable to killing them, because fortunes could be made via ransom.
cannon_fodder
02-26-2006, 01:01
I have a question: was the situation the same in Medieval?
Think of it this way- neither communication nor mobility had improved much since ancient times. There's no reason why it would be much different.
Lord_Morningstar
02-26-2006, 01:19
It’s also worth noting that there’s three things that affect battles in RTW that wouldn’t have done so in real life. One is the omniscient battlefield view – Hannibal and Ceasar would not have commanded their battles from a helicopter, nor could they have given instant commands to any unit. You can spot a fleeing unit and immediately send your nearest cavalry unit after it. Ancient commanders could not have, and in the confusion of a rout there would have been more opportunities for soldiers to slip away.
The second is somewhat related to the first – armies in RTW are quite small. A battle between two armies of 2,000 men, where both commanders know that no more enemy soldiers are hiding anywhere, would presumably result in quite high casualties for the loser. When you get bigger armies, there’s the fact that some units will probably not see action and will have a head start in a retreat, some units will have already been pulled back from fatigue and communication across a kilometer-long front would have been poor (a ‘general attack’ order would have to have been relayed down the line by trumpets, drums, shouts or messenger riders). Also, an ancient commander could not have known that the soldiers he ordered to chase retreating enemy units would not have blundered into another line or reinforcements coming up - look what happened when Harold's right wing chased down the fleeing Bretons at Hastings.
Finally, RTW units are very disciplined. They hold together and go where they’re told. Not every general would have had the luxury of commanding soldiers who would have leapt up in a neat formation to systematically chase down fleeing foes even when they were tired and have torn armour and clothing and broken weapons.
QwertyMIDX
02-26-2006, 01:44
And routers wouldn't have stayed with their unit either.
LorDBulA
02-26-2006, 07:42
Yep. Killing 90% or 100% is unrealistic.
But if you end battle when you are asked if you want to continue fighting it gets much more realistic (withought RTW cheasing of routers, this is very unrealistic). I usually do this and enemy loses are usualy betwean 50% and 75%.
Ok, I will repeat my first question in this topic...
Is it possible to remove this "Continue Battle" thing?
I doubt its possible but how is that really a problem just press end battle everytime if thats what you want to do
The_White_Knight
02-26-2006, 11:39
Actually, if the prisoners were nobles, taking them prisoner was infinitely preferable to killing them, because fortunes could be made via ransom.
I even think 'the code of chivalry' prohibited the killing of other knights in the highth of medieval times. So knights could only be killed by 'plebeian' soldiers, and would be 'lucky' when they met a rival knight in battle: they'd only be taken prisoner. :book:
MTW2'd better have an in-depth simulation of the prisoner system... :boxing:
Cheexsta
02-26-2006, 11:57
I wonder...
Would it be possible to implement a battle script in which the "End Battle" button is automatically pressed as soon as the scroll comes up? I haven't dabbled in battle scripts too much, but I think it may be able to work...
LorDBulA
02-26-2006, 12:46
Well there is hope. But you would have to find EndBattle button ID first.
Personaly i dont like this idea.
While most often i dont continue battle when i am fighting agains factions, on the other hand i usually continue battles when playing against "Rebels" becouse i dont want to be bothered by them again (no point to fight another insignificant boring battle, or chase them all around my domain).
Trithemius
02-26-2006, 13:01
I even think 'the code of chivalry' prohibited the killing of other knights in the highth of medieval times. So knights could only be killed by 'plebeian' soldiers, and would be 'lucky' when they met a rival knight in battle: they'd only be taken prisoner. :book:
I believe this had more to do with the ransom system - knights could capture other knights and ransom them, initially those outside of that class could not so they had no incentive to spare a knight (when they could finish them off and loot their corpse). Conversely, the average footman could command no ransom, so there was no incentive for a knight to spare them. I expect this made things a bit cutthroat.
You also have to consider that it was quite hard to kill someone in armour outright, especially when armour technology was greater than that of weapons or offensive tactics; casualties from the 13th century are generally extremely light amongst those who fought as knights (e.g. Bouvines, etc).
Hm, this is probably slipping waaaay off topic for this particular forum though.
Hm, this is probably slipping waaaay off topic for this particular forum though.
Nothign compared to the bartix thread or that thread that evolved to a beer thread. And I don't know if it's that off-topic. It's an historical mod and a forum on wich a lot of history questions are been asked or history is being discussed. And I think this is history so it's not really off topic for ths forum.
Is there a way to make routers regain some energy, so that they run more quickly? This could represent them throwing down some of their weapons or armor, or something like that. Or can energy only replenish over time?
I think what we need isnt so much a way to not have the chasing of routers, but to make the chase a little more difficult by speeding them up. And routes were slowed up by reserves (especially reserve cavalry), who could threaten the very loose formations involved in pursuit (pursuers often became the pursued). Since RTW doesnt represent the pursuers as just as much a horde as the pursued, that doesn't work as effectively--not to mention the AI's inability to maintain a reserve of any sort.
Well there is hope. But you would have to find EndBattle button ID first.
Personaly i dont like this idea.
While most often i dont continue battle when i am fighting agains factions, on the other hand i usually continue battles when playing against "Rebels" becouse i dont want to be bothered by them again (no point to fight another insignificant boring battle, or chase them all around my domain).
I don't think you need to bother even doing that LorDBulA. In my experience the rebels always dissapear after a victory, even if you leave loads of them alive. As soon as they rout and you get the end battle message, press end battle. They will disperse into the countryside. I've never ever seen rebels retreat after engaging in a battle that they lose.
I wonder...
Would it be possible to implement a battle script in which the "End Battle" button is automatically pressed as soon as the scroll comes up? I haven't dabbled in battle scripts too much, but I think it may be able to work...
How about letting every one decide for themselves if they want to continue or not?
Seriously, if you think it's unrealistic just press end battle.. it's not that hard really. ~:rolleyes:
The A.I. is poor, so pressing continue battle gives a much greater advantage to the human as the human normally wins, and if they don't the A.I. always ends battle straight away anyway. In MTW the battles would go on until all units had left the field which was much better imo...
IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer
02-26-2006, 19:58
As people have already said, I don't get the problem here. Just press End Battle when it pops up, and leave the option open for people who want to continue.
I don't see Continuing the Battle as an advantage to the human player at all. This is mostly because the human player doesn't have the innate ability to instantly field 5 full stacks, so I always completely destroy any army I fight.
QwertyMIDX
02-26-2006, 22:39
I don't think you need to bother even doing that LorDBulA. In my experience the rebels always dissapear after a victory, even if you leave loads of them alive. As soon as they rout and you get the end battle message, press end battle. They will disperse into the countryside. I've never ever seen rebels retreat after engaging in a battle that they lose.
Yeah, I think they always disperse after being beaten.
I've noticed that your population goes up when you beat rebels. Seems that survivors are added to your closest city as slaves. I always end battle when facing them, unless the nearest city is having unrest problems.
Cheexsta
02-27-2006, 01:20
How about letting every one decide for themselves if they want to continue or not?
Seriously, if you think it's unrealistic just press end battle.. it's not that hard really. ~:rolleyes:
It was just an idea ~:) No need to jump down my throat.
Besides, it was mostly for those of us who are always tempted to press "Continue" even when we just want to exit ~;)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.