Killing vs. Capturing

[putts]

For my first little while playing MTW, I treated it much like an advanced Risk......I got my territories, did what I needed to build up a good army and then just moved them in and hoped for the dice to fall in my favor.

Just recently, however, I have begun actually fighting most of my battles personally.

One thing I've noticed is that when I let it automatically resolve, the casualties (on both sides) were much higher in general.

If I attacked a full stack with one of my own, it wasn't out of the ordinary for the total casualties to be around 1000 men. But, when I fight that same type of battle personally, I end up losing around 200-250 men, killing an equal amount and then capturing 300-400. I am just assuming that I am good at hitting the enemy at the right moments to route their troops but not really sure. I also tend to build the better troops, which might help.

Do a lot of players see similar outcomes in your battles?

Additionally, do you aim to kill as many in a battle to totally eradicate their army or do you try to hold on to prisoners to make some extra Florins?

[Peasant Phill]

calculated battles are being fought differently then the ones you command yourself, as a result the outcome can be very different. Calculated battles have both sides face each other in a full out frontal attack, meaning that all units will be engaged at once and that there are no tactical advantages to be won. Commanded battles only support 16 units on both sides at once and there are huge tactical advantages to be reached (when on a steep hill, defending a bridge, hammer and anvil tactics, ...).

This means that there is a huge difference between commanded and calculated battles. Because there are no tactical advantages to be achieved in calculated battles, there won't be any quick routes (only routes by attrition) which means a lot more casaulties on both sides.

Most of the times you'll have less casaulties on your side if you command your battles yourself. This can somethimes not be the case when you're still learning, make a capital tactical mistake, fight at a steep disadvantage or would otherwise outnumber your opponent a lot more.


It depends on the situation when it's best to kill or to capture. For example, when you're pressed for money, it's best to capture as many as possible. If you're facing a high quality army that you've just managed to beat, or you've lost most of you're men it could be best to kill as many of your opponents men. You can also face the same general with the 'good runner'-vice by routing his army time and time again instead of killing him.
In short, if you can use the money capture, if you don't want to face those men again kill.

[Heidrek]

There's a lot of debate about what the better option is. If I capture a lot of enemy troops I tend to kill them, as even if I have to face them again they will inflict kills that will take time and money to replace so it could actually cost me more money than I make in ransom.

also, I tend to kill when I'm invading someone elses territory and it'll be harder to get reinforcements, and ransom when defending my own lands which are easier to resupply.

[seireikhaan]

Eh, for me it depends on the situation. If I've got a booming economy and I'm at least 40-50k florins, then I'll just execute every prisoner I get just to eliminate the hassle of dealing with them again. However, if I'm a bit more tenuous on the economy, then I'll generally let things play out and see if I get a ransom or not. Unless its a really massive number, like against the Mongolsl, where the sheer cost of having to fight them again would outweigh the benefits of the ransom.

[Heidrek]

.....both sides face each other in a full out frontal attack, meaning that all units will be engaged at once and that there are no tactical advantages to be won.

So, if you jast had an army of all heavy infanrty units and melee superstars you could autocalc your way to victory against armies that wouls actually tear you apart?

Who does Autocals handle archers and HS's for example?

[ArtistofWarfare]

this is definitely an area that I need to learn more about as well...

It's quite confusing...

Even when it makes sense to kill prisoners, it generates by in largely poor vices.

[Martok]

So, if you jast had an army of all heavy infanrty units and melee superstars you could autocalc your way to victory against armies that wouls actually tear you apart?

Who does Autocals handle archers and HS's for example?

IIRC, the auto-calc treats archers and other missile units as if they had fought hand-to-hand, meaning it only looks at their melee stats.

[caravel]

As a rule I only execute prisoners when I'm losing the battle. Otherwise I tend to hold on to them and send in my light cavalry to mop up as many routers as possible to gain more. The way I see it the benefits are thus:

Pros:

1) If the enemy pays the ransom: Money!
2) If the enemy pays the ransom they have to support a lot of battered units with low loyalty (possible civil war trigger)
3) If the enemy pays the ransom they may regain a general with one of the coward line of vices
4) If the enemy pays the ransom, they are weakened financially
5) If the enemy don't pay the ransom, loyalty will drop


Cons:

1) The enemy may pay up and regain a decent army to use against you again.
2) Your general will not gain one of the "butcher" line of dread boosting vices.

Also if you do execute prisoners you may actually be helping the AI out - this may not always be a bad thing - by removing low quality units and freeing up the AI faction's economy to train better ones. Remember that the AI cannot disband or retrain so this is a factor. Also the dread boosting vices are not much of a loss. Dread is a stat that only affects the loyalty of a province where that man is a governor, by improving loyalty. Apart from this it is only relevant to the faction leader - in the global sense - so it's not that useful. It may be useful to get the butcher vice if you're struggling to hold down rebellious provinces, though I find it's better to rely on well trained spies, decent garissons and happiness boosting buildings for this.

[Ironsword]

^^ With regard to Killing or not, the post above is about as comprehensive as you can get.

The other part of your question was about auto calculations. IMHO yes, the death toll is usually higher and another disadvantage of auto calc. is that it seems to spread casualties throughout your units. - The amount of times I've had to disband trebuchets with a crew of four! This is really annoying, because really your artillery units rarely see the cut and thrust of the melee.

[ArtistofWarfare]

As a rule I only execute prisoners when I'm losing the battle. Otherwise I tend to hold on to them and send in my light cavalry to mop up as many routers as possible to gain more. The way I see it the benefits are thus:

Pros:

1) If the enemy pays the ransom: Money!
2) If the enemy pays the ransom they have to support a lot of battered units with low loyalty (possible civil war trigger)
3) If the enemy pays the ransom they may regain a general with one of the coward line of vices
4) If the enemy pays the ransom, they are weakened financially
5) If the enemy don't pay the ransom, loyalty will drop


Cons:

1) The enemy may pay up and regain a decent army to use against you again.
2) Your general will not gain one of the "butcher" line of dread boosting vices.

Also if you do execute prisoners you may actually be helping the AI out - this may not always be a bad thing - by removing low quality units and freeing up the AI faction's economy to train better ones. Remember that the AI cannot disband or retrain so this is a factor. Also the dread boosting vices are not much of a loss. Dread is a stat that only affects the loyalty of a province where that man is a governor, by improving loyalty. Apart from this it is only relevant to the faction leader - in the global sense - so it's not that useful. It may be useful to get the butcher vice if you're struggling to hold down rebellious provinces, though I find it's better to rely on well trained spies, decent garissons and happiness boosting buildings for this.

This post answers quite a few of my questions pertaining to this...

I don't think I even considered in my Italian campaign that ransoming the prisoners back to the AI would cause them the same loyalty (as well as vnv) issues that I have to deal with. Definitely changes my approach to this in the future.

I also, did not know that the enemy's influence automatically falls when they refuse to pay a ransom. This is quite helpful as well...

Good post Caravel...

[bamff]

Also if you do execute prisoners you may actually be helping the AI out - this may not always be a bad thing - by removing low quality units and freeing up the AI faction's economy to train better ones. Remember that the AI cannot disband or retrain so this is a factor.

I didn't realise that the AI could not disband or retrain....that would explain all of those "partial units" roaming the field, wouldn't it? Taking this on board, and putting a different spin on things, I might actually start being less merciful in order to assist the AI by "pruning"...got to be cruel to be kind I suppose, and it may assist by creating a more challenging AI....

I will confess that in the past I have only ever executed prisoners when things were looking a touch "shaky" on the field....

As usual, Caravel, you are not only a mine of information, but you really do get me thinking a bit differently, and perhaps a touch harder about what is going on....

[Jxrc]

IIRC, the auto-calc treats archers and other missile units as if they had fought hand-to-hand, meaning it only looks at their melee stats.

Correct indeed. Playing as the Bizz one of my armies made of Kata (emperor Alexius I) and Byz infantry was attacked by 16 turkish horse harchers (0 star). Campaign already bored me so I auto-calc before starting a new one. Result was that my army had killed almost all the HA with losses like 15 men ... I bit silly if you ask me cause for once I thought that the IA had made quite a smart move ...

[Caerfanan]

I would say it's a balance between many things:

- Just defeated the horde at kiev and took 1000 prisonners? Kill, kill, kill.
- need for money: ransom
- quality troops taken while an army was routing (e.g. big armored kngihts or teched up halberdiers almost not killable): kill
- your general has already killed prisonners... I'll pay attention, the second level of the trait gives a morale malus...

[Peasant Phill]

So, if you jast had an army of all heavy infanrty units and melee superstars you could autocalc your way to victory against armies that wouls actually tear you apart?

Yep, that's rigth. But it doesn't even have to be heavy hitters, an big army full of peasants can win in autocalc where if the battle was played out they would, like they should, horribly lose.

I, however, don't look at my battles and evaluate whether or not it would be benificial to autocalc. It's just to much fun to command yourself (unless the battles become repetitive).

[Aldgilles]

What Caravel says goes for me to. Exeption is if I catch a multi-star general; I will execute him. Otherwise, after a few battles, the enemy mostly chooses not to ransom the prisoners...