Why not surrender?

[Crash]

Units become shaken, waver, and then rout but why not surrender en-masse? Of course prisoners are taken when routers are caught by pursuers but why wouldn't a unit that is surrounded, hopelessly outnumbered, out-manned or out-gunned and with no escape route whatsoever surrender?

Case in point, the castle of Tunis held by one unit of Sicilian Italian Spear militia was assaulted by my large Venetian army consisting of heavy infantry, dismounted and mounted knights, various types of archers, a four-star general and a ballista unit. The Sicilian unit immediately retreated to the central plaza and went into the Schiltron formation.

My archers literally rained arrows upon them until only 23 remained out of the original 60. As my archers ran out of arrows my heavy infantry and knights stood at the edge of the plaza just watching the arrows raining down on the unfortunate Sicilians. Instead of attacking at this point, I rolled up my ballista unit and positioned it on the corner of the plaza to fire bolts at the Sicilians at point blank range. I was just curious to see what would happen.

The Sicilian spearmen just stood there as I fired bolt after bolt at them, each bolt taking out one or two men at a time. The last man left was the commander. I fired several more bolts at him but they all missed him. Finally I sent my dismounted knights after him. He bravely fought off three of knights for at least a minute two before he finally fell.

Questions:

1. Is it a coincidence or design that the unit commander was the last one to survive the ballista attack? I could understand him being the last survivor of a melee attack but not a missile attack by armor-piercing projectiles.

2. Why did the spearmen not rout and be captured instead of fighting to the death in a hopeless battle? Technically, they didn't even fight, they were just slowly slaughtered by arrows and bolts.

3. Perhaps the TW engine doesn't distinguish defense against melee attacks from defense against missile attacks when it comes to morale?

IMO, the Sicilian unit should have either surrendered en-masse or routed and been captured. Are these possibly bugs or by design?

[FactionHeir]

By design.
And I agree that it is highly unrealistic - just as unrealistic how there is no populace trying to help you defend a settlement or you thus lose men during occupation.

[lobo76]

your ballistae will hit the comdr last coz it always aims for the center of the formation, and the comdr is always positioned on the side.

[_Tristan_]

your ballistae will hit the comdr last coz it always aims for the center of the formation, and the comdr is always positioned on the side.

I disagree with this as most non-gunpowder artillery is particularly deadly to unit commanders and generals as you can see in this thread

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=82206

[FactionHeir]

Ballistae are not trebuchets.
Ballistae are more accurate than crossbow bolts in the projectile file, and the more accurate a projectile is, the closer to the center of the unit (red column) the projectile will hit. This actually makes more accurate projectiles worse against cantabrian circles for example.

Trebuchets are highly inaccurate and thus might hit pretty much anywhere further away from the center. Considering the general is at the side of a unit, he is more likely to be hit by a trebuchet than by a ballista, if his entire unit is intact.

[crpcarrot]

when using cannons it looks to me like its the balls that r meant to miss that take out the general since he is positioned one space outside the units formation.

[_Tristan_]

Ballistae are not trebuchets.

I know that quite well but I sell trebuchets and train crews to become trebuchet snipers...

[lobo76]

of course, if you position the ballistae to the flank where the general is ... well, you have a decent chance of doing him in.

[sirnoob]

i thought the general goes to the middle in aschiltrom?

[Red Spot]

on topic, I call it game-limitations

dont get me wrong I dont mean the game is limited, at least I cant say it is or isnt...
what I mean is, and I've written a lot of AL-scripts/plugins, that you cant make AI work like the player, if you say by default "surrender if the enemie is stronger by x%" than what you end up getting is a player that never attacks without overwelming force, very basic always resulting in similair behaviour type of AI

You can and IMO need to make the AI take into account the balance of forces but no matter what the AI needs to fight, specially if the player is the agressor.
(afaik often also the reason the AI cant really compete with the player without some sort of cheat)


G

[joe4iz]

They were waiting for you to surrender.

[Crash]

I must admit that the AI in a game like TW could not be expected to ever surrender. It would, however, add a touch of drama and realism if there was a possibility that a town, castle, or unit could surrender under certain circumstances.

The TW engine could take into account the characteristics of a general present in the besieged town or castle. A good general could either inspire the defenders to fight harder or recognize a hopeless situation and negotiate surrender terms. A bad general could surrender prematurely or force his soldiers to fight in a hopeless situation. A good diplomat present in the besieged force or in the besieging force could add his skills and influence in negotiations, and a bad one culd botch them.

TW is still a terrific game despite the mediocre strategic game and AI. It's great to have a game that is so enjoyable but still has much more potential for improvement.

[lobo76]

I wonder if the naffatun or something unit, can blow themselves up when they 'fight to the death'. :D

[Ice]

One thing I've always wanted was the option on the battlefield. You are trapped or cannot retreat. Why not offer surrender terms? The enemy can either kill you, ransom you, or release you.

Same with sieges. You should be able to negotiate with the defenders. You let them live, half them live, the faction member live, etc. in exchange for the castle.

[GFX707]

If this was ever added it would be great if a very low loyalty general would surrender out of the blue when under siege....would add a great touch of realism.

Also, there have been many situations throughout history where armies have surrendered a fortress in the hope of leniency from the enemy when the situation looked hopeless.

Maybe if there is a high chivalry general sieging there should be more chance of a complete surrender. Maybe it could also take into account what you usually do with your prisoners.

[Rhyfelwyr]

your ballistae will hit the comdr last coz it always aims for the center of the formation, and the comdr is always positioned on the side.

The General is in the centre of a Schiltrom formation anyway.

[lobo76]

The General is in the centre of a Schiltrom formation anyway.

Come to think of it... i haven't really encounter the AI using the Schiltrom formation...