Should there be wounded in MTW2?

[Marquis of Roland]

So basically at the end of a battle either your men are dead or they pretty much survive without getting hurt. Sure you have your "casualties healed" column but should there be a "wounded" column? Much like how your general's units heal over time, perhaps the number of men in the "wounded" category will heal over time as well. Good idea or bad?

[TevashSzat]

It would probably wont be that tough to implement and it can potentially add some new choices into being chivalrous or dreadful such as choosing whether to spend money to treat the wounded or just leaving them to die

[The Spartan (Returns)]

that would be nice but the wounded can die too.

[Marquis of Roland]

that would be nice but the wounded can die too.

group those guys into the "dead" column, and have only the guys that can recover from wounds in "wounded" column.

So I guess the "dead" column will also include those that are too wounded (either fatally wounded or wounded to the point of disability) to actually return to the army to fight again.

[Vladimir]

I think it would be a great help to the AI if it's having trouble merging and retraining units.

[JCoyote]

I think there need to be wounded ON the field. Some weapons like bows often didn't kill, but produced impairing injuries. Having units that are mostly injured but still on the field, even they fight like kittens, is a good way to balance missile/melee.

Having injury instead of death is nice, it would represent the guy who's got an arrow through his arm but is still swinging a sword. Just make sure they get a hefty stat hit.

[TevashSzat]

Originally Posted by JCoyote
I think there need to be wounded ON the field. Some weapons like bows often didn't kill, but produced impairing injuries. Having units that are mostly injured but still on the field, even they fight like kittens, is a good way to balance missile/melee.

Having injury instead of death is nice, it would represent the guy who's got an arrow through his arm but is still swinging a sword. Just make sure they get a hefty stat hit.

This would make archers much more effective since they could effectively disable multiple units without necessarily killing them outright

[JCoyote]

This would make archers much more effective since they could effectively disable multiple units without necessarily killing them outright

Maybe, maybe not, still depends on accuracy. They'd get less kills as a balance. And many archers still would be hard pressed to beat a decent melee unit that's hurt, definitely not two. Hence, you couldn't really win with archers alone, even defending a siege or bridge. You have to do the Agincourt thing and have guys wade into melee to finish it.

[Frankmuddy]

Well, I don't know about your enemies, but according to the local propaganda mill (you'll get an update on it's invention eventually) the enemy archers smear their arrows with dung to ensure that any wound, no matter how minor, is fatal.

Or at least that's what I tell the troops to keep the chirugeon's bill down...

[Garnier]

Guys, thats what casualties healed is. The guys that get wounded cant fight for the rest of the battle, but they get healed at the end. However, the loser doesnt get casualties healed, because the winner kills them after the battle. Notice, casualties from arrows heal a lot more than casualties from melee.

[JCoyote]

Guys, thats what casualties healed is. The guys that get wounded cant fight for the rest of the battle, but they get healed at the end. However, the loser doesnt get casualties healed, because the winner kills them after the battle. Notice, casualties from arrows heal a lot more than casualties from melee.

That doesn't matter, as far as a battle mechanic goes, they aren't getting injured, they are dying. There is no in between in the game... they are either in it 100% or completely out of the fight. Thats just not realistic.

As far as them being all completely healed (by either mechanic) after the battle, it's fine... turns take years after all. In those days, if a wound put you out for a couple years, you probably weren't ever fighting again.

And dung? LOL. That kills them AFTER the battle... the problem with poking a guy with a small but lethally infectious stick is it doesn't keep him from planting a nice sterile ax in your face for the next... DAY or so. :laugh4:

[Spino]

Do you mean wounded as a seperate statistical entity to 'normal' healthy troops, as in having the wounded march along with an army until fully healed? I say no. Given the abstraction in the TW games I think that is something best left to a wargame/simulation.

Personally I think the casualty rates in all TW games are off the charts with respect to reality.

The number of casualties that are healed after any given battle should be increased dramatically, especially if the losing army has movement points left after the battle. Obviously a losing army that has no movement points left should be utterly smashed.

[todorp]

The some of the casulties rejoin after the battle, those are the wounded units, which are "healed".

Untill the Cremlean war 1854-6 even a pritty light wound was deadly. Medcine was non existant.

[Derfasciti]

I had thought vaguely about this for RTSs in general. I like the idea. And perhaps an abundance of wounded men may slow down an army considerably.

[antisocialmunky]

'Wounding' would be nice. I mean, I've had generals units in RTW die and get healed after the battle but they die anyways. I wish the game mechanic got a fix for atleast that. Be cool if there was always a chance of your general getting healed after he goes down in a battle.

[Lorenzo_H]

I personally wouldn't complicate things any more.

[ASPER THE GREAT]

In medieval time's the battles were brutally bloody, no doc, no medicine :skull: . If you could walk and carry your weapon then you carried on. If not then you were most likely left for dead ~:mecry: . When the army would set up camp then your wounds would be tended too & if you were the victor then "yes" troops would curry comb the battle field for weapons, loot, and wounded. No wounded would not fit in & besides it would just be another statistic on the after battle scroll. ~:yin-yang:

[KHPike]

I think there should also be a 'maimed' list, since with so many swords and spears swinging about I'm sure not all survivors are in one piece. But perhaps it's meaningless since people unable to fight can be considered 'dead'. Unless some other add on can be added to this.

[Calavera]

I personally wouldn't complicate things any more.

That's my take on it. In the end people who are to wounded to fight may just as well be dead, and wound recovery is a slow process before modern medicine, so they wouldn't be able to continue on with the rest of the army.

If you really want to, consider the "Killed" # in a battle as a casualty # instead.

[antisocialmunky]

I'd still like it so that sometimes fallen generals are healed after a battle. That would be a nice feature.

It would make for some interesting traits.