70-90% casualty rates realistic?

[BeeSting]

I find the average casualty rates per engagement, land and sea battles alike, a bit too high. The AI does not seem to understand that sometimes it is better to fight another day and retreat than go kamikaze. I would think if it saw that the fight was hopeless it would pullout of the battleground, hopefully in good order. But no, it throws everything at you till all its units are killed or shattered.

When generals saw no hope of winning they withdrew. Armies are rarely wiped out at such high casualty rates as you see in ETW. If ETW reflects realism, then American revolution would not have succeeded. Save the army, save the country.... It is not just a matter of realism but also better tactics. I would think the AI would be more challenging if it knew when to tactically retreat. And avoid fights until it is sure to win. I have not seen the kind of realism CA promised pre-release that the AI is suppose to behave with goal oriented objectives than simply react to what you do. I'm confused as to what the AI is doing with its armies on campaign map half the time.

In RTW and MTW2, when you click on an enemy army half your size to attack, it would avoid fight and retreat--not so with ETW; 10 against 1 it would hold ground and you are sucked into the battle ground, unless you decide to auto resolve. And in battlegrounds, it does not withdraw; it fights outnumbered 10 to 1.

Something is wrong here.

[0rly?]

The AI is a balls out fight to the death kinda guy. deep down, you have to respect that. I always thought my computer was ballsy, this game has shown me just how ballsy she really is!

PROTECT THE FLAG!!

[BeeSting]

The AI is a balls out fight to the death kinda guy. deep down, you have to respect that. I always thought my computer was ballsy, this game has shown me just how ballsy she really is!

PROTECT THE FLAG!!

LOL

[vyan]

To be honest, chasing an AI army around the map and having to have about 5 battles with the same stack just to make sure they are no longer a threat would be pretty damn boring if not repetitive.

[antisocialmunky]

To be honest, chasing an AI army around the map and having to have about 5 battles with the same stack just to make sure they are no longer a threat would be pretty damn boring if not repetitive.

If it was led by the same general each time? That's be pretty sweet. I'd love to see that.

[NimitsTexan]

If it was led by the same general each time? That's be pretty sweet. I'd love to see that.

Same here.

If I surround an army and kill/capture all his units, or if a lay seige to or take a settlement an army is holed up in, then yes, they should be destroyed. But if they have a line of retreat open, and manage to get off the field, units should be able to rally and recover and rebuild for another battle. It would definately make the campaign game tougher (without requiring you to give the AI huge stat bonuses or otherwise handicap yourself in battle).

[BeeSting]

To be honest, chasing an AI army around the map and having to have about 5 battles with the same stack just to make sure they are no longer a threat would be pretty damn boring if not repetitive.

The trick then would be is to force it to fight, by out witting, if you know what I mean.

Or would you constantly be fed, by piecemeal, smaller, less affective armies to guarantee you wins every fight?

Has anyone seen an AI army retreat when you click on it on the campaign map to fight it? It looks like they took this from the AI in ETW, although you are given the option. It seems AI will never retreat although it's hopeless out numbered and out classed.

[NimitsTexan]

The trick then would be is to force it to fight, by out witting, if you know what I mean.

Or would you constantly be fed, by piecemeal, smaller, less affective armies to guarantee you wins every fight?

Has anyone seen an AI army retreat when you click on it on the campaign map to fight it? It looks like they took this from the AI in ETW, although you are given the option. It seems AI will never retreat although it's hopeless out numbered and out classed.

Yep. AI in Rome and M2 definately could and did retreat. Not so here. Again, considering that AI is generally disadvantaged, creativity-wise, vs a human, it boggles my mind that they went so far to make it easier to destroy AI armies. I really hope some patches adjust AI behavier (Tactical, Strategic, and Diplomatic) to give it a sense of self-preservation.

[andrewt]

I don't see the high casualty rates. The losing army routs before that. It's just that Empire destroys the rest of the army instead of forcing us to chase after their small, depleted remains all the time. Sure, it's realistic, but it's also extremely tedious. I hated beating a full stack, then having to beat the half a stack remains the next turn to fight the quarter a stack remains the next turn and so on and on.

Wars in real life aren't fun. I don't see why we'd want all the realism that goes into it.

[joe4iz]

I seldom see any AI panic even when flanked. I have been in three battles where an enemy unit charge a group of troups, and I then flanked them. In many cases, this should start a route, especially when being charged by the flanking army. By the time the enemy ever does anything, they are cut to 70% losses.
But what the heck, if it were any other way, you could never get your own units to advance under fire.

[Sir Beane]

Total War games have always had rediculously high casuality rates. This is an age where armies lost more men to disease and sesertion than to the enemy. At this point it's unlikely to change, its just a design decision that we more or less have to live with.

The A.I should know when to retreat however.

[Maleficus]

When generals saw no hope of winning they withdrew. Armies are rarely wiped out at such high casualty rates as you see in ETW. If ETW reflects realism, then American revolution would not have succeeded. Save the army, save the country.... It is not just a matter of realism but also better tactics. I would think the AI would be more challenging if it knew when to tactically retreat. And avoid fights until it is sure to win. I have not seen the kind of realism CA promised pre-release that the AI is suppose to behave with goal oriented objectives than simply react to what you do. I'm confused as to what the AI is doing with its armies on campaign map half the time.

Something is wrong here.

Dude, it's called Total War for a reason.


It's about fighting.



Seriously, this game would be incredibly boring if the AI never wanted to fight.

[JAG]

I would quite like it if the AI pulled out more and limited itself to as few casulties as possible, would make the game so much more realistic and intriguing. You would still have big fights, but there would be a lot more tactics to every battle - it wouldn't just be about beating the opponent for the AI, it would be about so much more. Think Quatre Bras before Waterloo.

[Wausser]

I would quite like it if the AI pulled out more and limited itself to as few casulties as possible, would make the game so much more realistic and intriguing. You would still have big fights, but there would be a lot more tactics to every battle - it wouldn't just be about beating the opponent for the AI, it would be about so much more. Think Quatre Bras before Waterloo.

Go William, go William

[loony]

70%-90% casualties in Land Battles?? No way.
I play on VH as british, i do some volleys, soften the fellas up and charge with bayonets (and cavalry if I happen to have any). They run away. Even more so if you had some artillery shooting at them beforehand.

[Dayve]

Dude, it's called Total War for a reason.

And that reason is because it sounds good, not because the AI should never retreat and should always fight to the absolute last man. If that were the case then the human player would have no option to withdraw either, but we do. If Total War was supposed to be something more than a name, then there wouldn't even be a diplomacy option in the game.

Crappy cop-out argument.

It's always the same with my games, battles where the AI has a relatively even amount of soldiers as i do, i always win, the AI always loses 90% of its army and i always lose 70% of mine.

I've also noticed that no soldiers ever recover from battle... why is that? If your army loses 500 men, none ever recover, not a single one.

[NimitsTexan]

Did they not use to recover in M2TW? I know leaders can still pick up traits related to wounded recovering . . .

[A Very Super Market]

Also, Total War is simply a term regarding a nation's stance towards a war. In a total war, as many goods as possible are converted for the war effort, the economy in general is put on the war, and the nation will commit themselves entirely to it. The citizens of said nation will also form a home front, the vast majority of them producing goods for the war effort. The most recent total war? WWII, although Vietnam was one for the Vietnamese.

Also, I'm fine with the recovery, since the majority of wounded in this period died of their injuries, and I highly doubt the ability of someone recovering to be fight-worthy after a musket ball plowing into him.

[NimitsTexan]

Also, I'm fine with the recovery, since the majority of wounded in this period died of their injuries, and I highly doubt the ability of someone recovering to be fight-worthy after a musket ball plowing into him.

I do have ready access to any casualty studies from the Wars of Succession. However, one study of Waterloo [granted out of ETW's time frame, but my limited knowledge of medical military history suggests there were not significant advances between 1700-1815] done in the 1970s, suggests that the death rate of wounded in British field hospitals in the immediate aftermath of the battle was about 9%. Given that about 55% of the total casualties suffered made it to a hospital, that means about 45% of the total casualties survived the fight.

Shelby Foote in his history of the American Civil War, used the rule of thumb that 50% of wounded return to their army eventually when doing a casuatly analysis of the Seven Days. Aknowledging that the ACW was a different era, we can for the sake of this argument assume that things were alot worse in the 1700s, and that only 25% of wounded returned to their units. That would still mean, that on average, about 11% of all casualties should be recovered after every fight.

[NimitsTexan]

I find the average casualty rates per engagement, land and sea battles alike, a bit too high. The AI does not seem to understand that sometimes it is better to fight another day and retreat than go kamikaze. I would think if it saw that the fight was hopeless it would pullout of the battleground, hopefully in good order. But no, it throws everything at you till all its units are killed or shattered.

When generals saw no hope of winning they withdrew. Armies are rarely wiped out at such high casualty rates as you see in ETW. If ETW reflects realism, then American revolution would not have succeeded. Save the army, save the country.... It is not just a matter of realism but also better tactics. I would think the AI would be more challenging if it knew when to tactically retreat. And avoid fights until it is sure to win. I have not seen the kind of realism CA promised pre-release that the AI is suppose to behave with goal oriented objectives than simply react to what you do. I'm confused as to what the AI is doing with its armies on campaign map half the time.

In RTW and MTW2, when you click on an enemy army half your size to attack, it would avoid fight and retreat--not so with ETW; 10 against 1 it would hold ground and you are sucked into the battle ground, unless you decide to auto resolve. And in battlegrounds, it does not withdraw; it fights outnumbered 10 to 1.

Something is wrong here.

I totally agree (and have posted similar thoughts myself). Battles of annihilation did not challenge suspension of disbelief as much in RTW and M2TW (though battles were still too bloody), as in the days of melee combat, the army that lost was quite likely to suffer horrendous casualties as it disengaged. However, by the Age of Muskets, 50% was about the highest casuatly rate you would ever see (on an army-wide basis), and 10%-40% much more likely, even in a so called "bloody" battle.

I suppose an easy fix would just be to reduce the base morale of all units (say by half); which should in theory make them more brittle and less willing to stand and die; and, in theory, it should reduce casualty rates and make armies more survivable.