I'm a little surprised this has never been officially reported. I went to report it, but apparently we need to submit a save. I'm tempted to just give the 1444 save, lol. But I will probably do the 2 minutes of legwork to set it up instead once I'm able to.
I know I'm not the only one that's noticed this, because Lambda did a video on assaulting forts. But basically, if you just get a breach and hit "assault" you will take massively more casualties than you should. It's actually possible to take more casualties per combat tick than soldiers allegedly allowed to participate.
Either there's an X limit or there isn't. We shouldn't be getting massively different disparities depending on whether we do swap/merge micro to keep right around maximum soldiers assaulting. The game should actually just use X soldiers, and replenish from available regiments to top that off as needed per tick.
The lack of discussion on this suggests to me this isn't common knowledge? That's actually kind of crazy. I can't be the only one who noticed how stupid casualties are on fort assaults .
I know I'm not the only one that's noticed this, because Lambda did a video on assaulting forts. But basically, if you just get a breach and hit "assault" you will take massively more casualties than you should. It's actually possible to take more casualties per combat tick than soldiers allegedly allowed to participate.
Either there's an X limit or there isn't. We shouldn't be getting massively different disparities depending on whether we do swap/merge micro to keep right around maximum soldiers assaulting. The game should actually just use X soldiers, and replenish from available regiments to top that off as needed per tick.
The lack of discussion on this suggests to me this isn't common knowledge? That's actually kind of crazy. I can't be the only one who noticed how stupid casualties are on fort assaults .
- 3
- 2
- 1