More realistic battle results

[Julianus]

In fact, it does have be brought up before, even by myself.
And the answer I got is that it is indeed possible to achieve more realistic results by reducing attack relative to defence, lowering lethality, lowering morale, etc., so one army will break and rout before so many of them are actually dead or wounded. But then you'd have really messed-up town square battles...As the defenders will never break on the bloody square, whatever cowards they are elsewhere. So you'd have to spend all day cutting all of them down.

[Ptolemaios]

Yes forgot that point. I had this in another mod of the game, and it was infact quite annoying. But did the EB team say what they were going for?

[Populus Romanus]

You could solve this by not clicking continue battle once the enemy army routs.

[Moros]

Lethality is not used by the MTW2 engine.

[ziegenpeter]

You could solve this by not clicking continue battle once the enemy army routs.

Even if then, the casualties are to high.

But then you'd have really messed-up town square battles...As the defenders will never break on the bloody square, whatever cowards they are elsewhere. So you'd have to spend all day cutting all of them down.

But it still sounds like a good trade-off. Lets be honest: Siege battles are still much less cool than field battles with the MTW2 engine...

[Populus Romanus]

Even if then, the casualties are to high.

True, but at least then the highly unrealistic disparity between your casualties and the AI's casualties is resolved. Furthermore, it eliminates an unfair advantage the human gains over the AI (the AI does not have the option to continue battle).

[Ichon]

But when the battles ends without "continue battle" the victor still captures a random portion of the defeated(well not totally random- more cavalry in enemy army and less in defeated seem to change the amount).