How often do you lose battles?

[chunkynut]

Voted 5%-10% but I'm on my first campaign and playing as English (grand campaign) on M/M. I think I'll refine the difficulty after this campaign.

I've not really lost more due to successful campaign map manipulation e.g. asking the pope for a crusade against the danes at one point (could have been hit or miss as the french (enemy at the time) sent a stack the attack the city too).

My main concern is those pesky Mongols reducing my middle east expansion of crusades to antioch to nothing, they've destroyed Eygpt and weakened the Turks and the Bysantians but I've caused them a lot of grief with spies and religious conversion. I've not yet beat them in the field yet but I can just keep them out of my city/citadel. Had a funny battle last night where numerically we were similar but they were split into three armies and I thought I should attack the middle one (with the faction hier) first. Started with a massive up hill run to get to that army with 2 other armies slightly behind and to my left and right! I took out a lot of their troops at the loss of most of my men was a fantastic battle though. This attrition is the only thing that kept my city safe (they still attacked but I saw them off).

They also attacked the citidel that I had taken twice in 2 or 3 turns. Love the 3 walls! Only just kept those 2 armies out 2 with major losses on my side too.

Great

[Brighdaasa]

so far i've lost 2 battles in about 200, not including naval battles

i lost one battle as the french where i attacked a full stack of those milanese crossbowmen and militia with 5 knight units, i lost because i hand't anticipated that the map was completely covered in trees which makes charging near impossible

my other battle was to 3 stacks of mongols as the turks, i put up a hell of a fight though

to be fair though, i do pick my battles, and tend to not assault a castle but wait till the ai sallies the last turn of the siege, and the passive ai bug did score me a few wins when i was heavily outnumbered

[Clearchus]

I generally don't lose because I don't put myself in a position to lose. (ie I have good units, plenty of them in my vulnerable armies) So I pretty much only lose if they (really) surprise me, usually on a lightly garrisoned (or poorly garrisoned) city. The battles are definitely tougher though.

[Cos3]

I've only lost one battle in the few H/VH campaigns I've played part of, so far. I only lost that because I didn't bother reinforcing one of my border armies after a large battle. That in itself says a lot about the challenge of the game; I did not feel the need to reinforce.

The A.I in MTW2 is smarter, but it's still painfully easy to beat for an experienced player. Unless you seriously handicap yourself, the battles really arn't challenging, and it doesn't take long for boredom to set in (for me anyway).

I've stopped playing MTW2 already. Not finding any fun or challenge even in 2v1 custom battles, or the campaign, so I'm waiting for the patch. If the patch doesn't fix it then I won't play it again and hopefully Rome Total Realism 7.0 will fill the gaming gap (if they release it before I forget about it....)

[wzup]

I´m playing as england on h/h and its just a bit easy, havent lost yet, except for naval battles but i dont care much for them

[Kobal2fr]

Like Clearchus, I don't often get beaten because I won't stay and fight battles I know I'll lose in the first place, dodging full stacks, running and hiding, bribing, buying truces etc...

Oh, and I don't assault cities, much less castles, either :)

On the whole though, I do take much more casualties in my victories than I ever did in Rome or MTW, and fighting at even odds often results in Pyrrhic victories for, especially when using armies relying mostly on heavy cav.