Annoying battle won criteria

[lobf]

It's hardcoded. And it's just words. The computer can say you lost, but you know that you really didn't. I know it sucks for your stats, but those aren't important if you're not Romani, right?

[tapanojum]

Wont a greater ammount of enemy troops recover if you lose the battle by withdrawing?

[Watchman]

Would sound logical certainly, since they're left in possession of the field and hence can recover their casualties at leisure.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

When I choose to retreat (especially with an all-horse army), I'll sometimes use the character_reset cheat on my army so that they aren't stuck in some stupid place with no movement points. I chose to to retreat, they didn't run for the hills until they couldn't run any more.

[Intranetusa]

Actually with horse archer armies, you might as well just use ur cavalry and charge the enemy after you've used up all your arrows and killed the majority of them. They would be weakened/exhausted to a point where they would rout easily if you surrounded them one by one with horse archers.

[mrtwisties]

Actually with horse archer armies, you might as well just use ur cavalry and charge the enemy after you've used up all your arrows and killed the majority of them. They would be weakened/exhausted to a point where they would rout easily if you surrounded them one by one with horse archers.

If you do that consistently, even when successful you'll wear down your stock of horse archers. That's fine if you're fighting on the steppe - they're cheap troops and easily replaced. But if you're fighting in the Peloponnese you'll need all of your men for the fighting on the way back out (unless you leave by boat, of course).

There are other solutions. But the main point here is that horse archers can't harass the enemy and withdraw in good order to harass again shortly thereafter, which is something that they do appear to have done historically.



I just don't know how important the tactic was (ie whether you could wipe out entire armies with it), and whether it therefore ought to be modelled by EB. But if it happened all the time, perhaps horse archer ammunition could be increased as a way of modelling the phenomenon?

[Intranetusa]

If you do that consistently, even when successful you'll wear down your stock of horse archers. That's fine if you're fighting on the steppe - they're cheap troops and easily replaced. But if you're fighting in the Peloponnese you'll need all of your men for the fighting on the way back out (unless you leave by boat, of course).

There are other solutions. But the main point here is that horse archers can't harass the enemy and withdraw in good order to harass again shortly thereafter, which is something that they do appear to have done historically.



I just don't know how important the tactic was (ie whether you could wipe out entire armies with it), and whether it therefore ought to be modelled by EB. But if it happened all the time, perhaps horse archer ammunition could be increased as a way of modelling the phenomenon?

Well, with proper micromanagement, charging and recharging enemy formations after you've run out of arrows results in minimum casualties. (ie in the strange battle formation, my 19 horse archer + 1 general and also another 17 unit horse archer + 2 dacian heavy cavlary merc + 1 general won various victories with less than 30 casualties per battle).

I mean, even horse archer armies would eventually lose troops, and you always have the option of hiring mercenaries.