increase casualties recovered

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I wanted to ask one thing ... Where is the file that acts on casualties recovered?

I think we should most increase the casualties recovered, but only for the winners (in the case of clear victory).
So you can avoid the problem of constantly having to retrain the troops (which may be very distant from the right place to train).

EB2 would make this more playable and fun.

I had mentioned this in the topic "snowball effect", but feared that the modders do not see. I think that would be a change that would solve many annoyances.
You can bring the troops away, without losing their power to push the rebels to blame for meetings or other events.
Excuse me for noise, but this topic is particularly close to my heart ...

Bye

[mikil100]

I wonder if its hardcoded or not, sounds like it is... but I agree it would be nice to up the healing rates... Of course it would also be possible to give better traits for healing casualties.. I mean, most armies did have medics, right.. or atleast and equivalent.

I'd be happy with better traits and ancillaries.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

true ... but excluding ancillaries an traits, I noticed that some units (like mercenaries) recovering many more men. Obviously each has a different arrangement to have recovered casualties.

I am very interested to know how does this mechanism ..

[Cullhwch]

Only winners can recover casualties, as they control the field and can simply kill/capture the enemy wounded. There is a trait characteristic that increases the chances of an army's casualties recovering, though. You can just add BattleSurgery 15 to the Green, Blooded, etc traits.

[desert]

Maybe we could just lower the lethality or something so that less men die during battles, but also lower morale so they rout more easily.

[mikil100]

Maybe we could just lower the lethality or something so that less men die during battles, but also lower morale so they rout more easily.

Thats changing far to much for battle casualties.

So the amount of recovered casualties is adjustable? Sounds great. I wonder if they really want to up the amount of healed though. It would be nice to have my Hetairoi on a protracted campaign over many lands.

[Cullhwch]

I've already told you how to do it. The higher the BattleSurgery modifier is, the more likely the units are to survive. Just add "BattleSurgery xx" to whatever trait your generals have and that'll do the trick.

[desert]

Well, you could have it so more casualties heal, or you can just lower the number of casualties in actual battle.

So, say, a unit of levy hoplites would whittle down some Thracian spearmen, but the Thracians have to take relatively high casualties to rout. But if the phalanx is penetrated and Haploi start dying, the hoplites will rout.

I admit that it might be impossible to fine-tune morale and lethality well enough for this to work, as I have never messed with them myself, and it might be that the current lethalities can't just be scaled down proportionally.

[antisocialmunky]

The issue is that we don't want the battle taking several hours. RTSes are games that abstract battle. So I think that the current casualty rate is good, we should just get way more units back. This would making losing to a giant stack of celts in your home territory really bad.

[desert]

So I guess it's the age-old question of "How much realism is too much?".

[machinor]

Regarding casualties recovering... I noticed that men lost due to missle fire have a higher probability of recovering. So I guess that the probability of units recovering is among other things affected by the way casualties were inflicted.

[desert]

Yeah, sometimes you see weird things: for example, taking 1500 casualties in a battle, and all 145 men lost from 1 unit healing while no one else does.

Friendly-fire casualties (non-elephant related) are probably the most likely to heal, in fact.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

I do not believe they recovered the casualties seen in EB or medieval 2 they are just playing for a long campaign and expand the territory.

More casualties recovered is also realistic because not many fighters have died in battle, but simply lost your senses (for the fear or suffered a stroke).

The fact of winning a battle clearly lost half of its army does not make sense ...

I would like that after a battle won my army is still strong enough to pursue an invasion, if I return back to retrain is useless.

[Cute Wolf]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

More casualties recovered is also realistic because not many fighters have died in battle, but simply lost your senses (for the fear or suffered a stroke).

And Romans got nailed sandals for the purpose to kill anyone lying on the floor.... they will mostly dies when trampled by many men wearing nailed sandals.....

Even without the nails, they will still be killed with sheer trample force.... remember the Rock concert?

[V.T. Marvin]

Increasing casualties recovery might be realistic, but it does not necessarily follows that it would make a better gameplay. It is usually the human player who wins most of times and would thus get an unfair advantage over the AI (who is mentally-challenged already). So one should be very carefull here...

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Increasing casualties recovery might be realistic, but it does not necessarily follows that it would make a better gameplay. It is usually the human player who wins most of times and would thus get an unfair advantage over the AI (who is mentally-challenged already). So one should be very carefull here...

I am not convinced of this.
In my opinion it would be favored only those who won.

If the human player loses a battle at the border of his territory: to curb the invasion enemy becomes very difficult because the enemy army was still intact its strength.

Having recovered most victims do not favor anyone in particular, but only the speed invasions ...
so throughout the game will focus more on the battles in open fields instead of continuous sieges as now (and unrealistic).

my proposals to improve the game remains essentially the usual 2: Improve sieges (battle map) and an increase in victims recovered (almost to the point of having the same first-army).

[Tudhaliya]

You forget that the losing side gets to recover casualties in MTWII through Ransom. That should lower the attrition nicely AND add in a "spoils of war" component, as if the winner had looted the loser's battle camp and gets money (in this case the post-battle "loot" is the ransom money).

[desert]

There's also a Spoils of Victory mod for EB I. I'm not sure how it works, but if you win a medium or big battle, the FM in charge gets a temporary "Enemy Camp Captured" trait that reduces movement.
I think it also adds money to your treasury, but I've never been able to personally verify that.

From the Minimod pack: "Spoils of Victory for EB; by V.T. Marvin (Well basically after a large battle you’re able to get some profits out of the dead bodies left on the battlefield, collecting metals , weapons and armors ,which translate into mnai)"

So maybe we could have it both ways?

[bovi]

So you can avoid the problem of constantly having to retrain the troops (which may be very distant from the right place to train).

EB2 would make this more playable and fun.

Why precisely should you avoid this problem? Logistics has been a constant problem in warfare. The player wins more battles than the AI does, so this would be a great advantage to the player. In EB1, the AI has a significantly higher recovery rate than the player, and yet I don't see anywhere that people are getting overrun by regenerating enemies.

I think the suggestion would cause only easier blitzing, which we do not want.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Why precisely should you avoid this problem? Logistics has been a constant problem in warfare. The player wins more battles than the AI does, so this would be a great advantage to the player. In EB1, the AI has a significantly higher recovery rate than the player, and yet I don't see anywhere that people are getting overrun by regenerating enemies.

I think the suggestion would cause only easier blitzing, which we do not want.

Under the present system (seen in EB and Medieval 2) almost all the battles of the field become "Pyrrhic victories" like victories totally useless because you lose 3 / 4 of your army.

The only battles sieges are useful: this is really unrealistic.

To avoid too rapid expansions just lower the costs of maintaining unity of the barbarians. besides this we can generate (with script) full army of rebels, when someone enters a rebel province ...
Become so difficult to capture the rebel provinces and the expansion of the area will be slow.

But simultaneously we have the pleasure to fight with our trusty army many battles before you have to train.
If you make it strong rebels (but only in defense) there is no longer the problem of rapid expansion ...

But then, where is this blessed file that acts on the recovery of victims?
None have been able to explain.

[machinor]

If you lose 3/4 of your army against the AI, then you are definitely doing something wrong. You should work on your tactics.

[bobbin]

Ye gods man 3/4's of you army! Most of my battles are 10% or less casualties which i think is pretty realistic. Medieval 2 casualty rates are higher but i think thats more to do with stats and i fully trust the team will sort it out come EB2.

[antisocialmunky]

MIITW does away with lethality but instead uses a global pseudo-lethality multiplier. And yeah, I feel for Mr.75% casualties. I've taken 1%-70% casualities in victorious field battles.

No only would higher heal rates be more realistic, it would work better for RPing since you don't constantly lose all your guys.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

MIITW does away with lethality but instead uses a global pseudo-lethality multiplier. And yeah, I feel for Mr.75% casualties. I've taken 1%-70% casualities in victorious field battles.

No only would higher heal rates be more realistic, it would work better for RPing since you don't constantly lose all your guys.

Let me give an example of my gaming experience.

Commanded the Romans and had to protect a city of Dalmatia just won against Geta.
I started from Rome with 5 hastati, 4 principes, 3 triarii, 2 equites, and the general (who was also the surgeon).
In the street I had to attack the rebels which obstructs the passage.
Then, at Patavium, I had to bear the attack of a germanic horde.
In these two passages I have lost already 30% of my army.
Arrived in Dalmatia, I defeated the horde of Geta losing another 30% of my army.
Moral of the story, it has rapidly come another horde of Geta, it has destroyed my army and conquered the Dalmatia.

I still believe that the casualties recovered are too low and it makes it too cumbersome to the game (sometimes boring).

Look at this equation:

few armies around + all armies full + increase casualties recovered = large and significant battles


But where is that damned file?
Could perhaps be the export_descr_unit?

[bobbin]

There's no file you can edit that directly controls the casualty recovery rate (hardcoded i believe), the best you can do is to do what Cullhwch said with the traits, that will work.

[V.T. Marvin]

I started from Rome with 5 hastati, 4 principes, 3 triarii, 2 equites, and the general (who was also the surgeon).
In the street I had to attack the rebels which obstructs the passage.
Then, at Patavium, I had to bear the attack of a germanic horde.
In these two passages I have lost already 30% of my army.
Arrived in Dalmatia, I defeated the horde of Geta losing another 30% of my army.
Moral of the story, it has rapidly come another horde of Geta, it has destroyed my army and conquered the Dalmatia.

To everybody his own...
To me the moral of the story would be that this exactly what I deserve. Newly conquered and border provinces could be rebellious and would demand significant resource (namely the Army) investment into their subjugation and protection.

Casualty in RTW a are a fair GAME REPRESENTATION of troubles that you woud have in "real life" - disease, desertion, garrisoning of lots od places, contless of minor skirmishes with natives, reconneissance details, gathering of supplies, etc, etc.

If your casualties seem too high, make sure that you are playing on MEDIUM battle difficulty - this is what EB was ballanced for. If still, try play on EASY...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

There's no file you can edit that directly controls the casualty recovery rate (hardcoded i believe), the best you can do is to do what Cullhwch said with the traits, that will work.

I have already tried to change the trait or ancillaries, but the game crashes when I start the campaign. why?

[bovi]

Frequent issues.

[bobbin]

I'm trying to mod EDCT and any tiny change I do means the game crashes.

Stop using Notepad to edit Unicode files, it has no idea how to treat those.

Get a free Unicode-aware editor. There are lots available, but Crimson or Notepad++ should be sufficient. Google them.

[Aulus Caecina Severus]

Thank you very much guys


Now I try to play EB with these particular changes ...
we'll see how it will be ...

I would like to clarify that I do not intend to put any criticism of the EB mod, which I consider the best ever.
First I tried "casus belli" and "Roma Surrectum" excellent mod, but too focused on the Romans.

Excuse me, modder to EB, if I wanted to modify their great masterpiece.