loose 5000 and kill 50???

[minority]

I'd like to think that the loss in me includes desertion.

That way, it's no stretch that when a low morale army meets another enemy, many simply ran.

cheers

 

[unmerged(4444)]

And this sort of result IS the exception in the game.

In about a hundred battles throughout my Burgundy game so far, the only battles I've seen with kill ratios even remotely approaching this sort of result were those that involved a dramatically advantaged side (ie, with a defending army that drastically outnumbered the attacker, had a better leader, better starting morale, and better units (tech level-wise)). And even then I don't think I've seen 1-to-100 kill ratios.

The OP stated that this happened 15 battles in a row. That's not a fluke, it's obviously a game mechanic issue. Also Secret Master stated that a similar situation happened to him, in which he was the beneficiary and the AI kept losing horribly, so it's not a matter of poor players whining "AI is teh cheaters!!" as Vezina's rather condscending posts imply. If there's an issue with generals being a bit to powerful and/or with super-generals being too common then there's nothing wrong with bringing it up.

 

[unmerged(27192)]

Ok now hear this:

France (me) is Land Tech 3, Burgundy Land Tech 1

I sent in 50,000 Latin Knights only 10,000 of them survived. I repeatedly suffered MAJOR losses. In the end I win anyway, but the losses were ludicrious.

I don't really understand the combat very well... (lol) obviously.

The terrain was mostly between Flandres and Brabant. I had a leader with shock level 2, they did not have any leaders. My overall military morale is about +280%, I don't know what theirs is.

Does anyone know what determines the kill ratio ? I thought 50K Knights vs half that number of mixed knights and infantry would smash them, but NO... not really, more like just barely won. BTW when I started seeing regiments at ZERO men, I replaced those with infantry and then remarkably my losses were much lower.

Maybe there is an issue here, I just can't get over it. I had EVERY advantage, in fact even when I was defending in terrain favoring me, BANG 1000 men pop like flies, and the enemy lose FIVE ?. Either I don't understand the battle mechanics (likely) ot there is something wierd about this (likely too !). This happened in all the battles I just fought against Burgundy.

It could be that the game is reversing the battle, i.e the one who should win is losing rather than winning. It's an easy error. Not saying it's certain, but might be worth some testing.

 

[unmerged(4444)]

Battle of Austerlitz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Austerlitz

Generalship matters. A lot.

~9,000 French lost, the vast majority of those wounded.

~27,000 Russians and Austrians lost. Over half being dead.

A three-to-one casualty ratio... no-one is complaining about this sort of thing.

So you don't think that a head-on assault of a 14-meter wide pass is poor generalship?

I was speaking in EU terms. The decision to attack into a mountain province is the player's, not the "general's." Besides, Xerxes did outflank the Greeks to "win" the battle.

 

[Vezina]

The OP stated that this happened 15 battles in a row. That's not a fluke, it's obviously a game mechanic issue. Also Secret Master stated that a similar situation happened to him, in which he was the beneficiary and the AI kept losing horribly, so it's not a matter of poor players whining "AI is teh cheaters!!" as Vezina's rather condscending posts imply. If there's an issue with generals being a bit to powerful and/or with super-generals being too common then there's nothing wrong with bringing it up.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as condescending. I've added smiley's as appropriate.

First, Secret Master hurts your argument more than it helps. You're telling me that a better-trained(i.e. double the morale), better-led force that is out-numbered can't win? I say that's crap.

Second, the OP stated that it happened 15 times. To me, that sounds like he marched RIGHT back in as soon as he could(and I'll even assume that he waited for his morale to go back up from the loss.) You don't think that fighting a better-trained, better-led force can defend the same piece of land that it's fought in the last 14 times? You need to try something different at that point. To me, it sounds like the OP is ramming his head into a brick wall and complaining that it hurts.

I may even agree that the casualties are out of proportion at times(generally when it's just too consistent like the OP or Nikk's example), but you can't tell me that it's ridiculous for this to happen. Look at the battles already mentioned. I can come up with even more examples if need be (Battle of Lepanto....12 Christian galleys lost to over 160 Ottoman ships lost....I know..sea battle...but it still has a huge ratio.) The tides of war are not a force to be taken lightly.

 

[unmerged(56271)]

As I've already said on another thread, I had much the same experience playing the demo. I was playing Scotland v England, and King Henry of England owned my armies again and again, scoring 100 to 1 kill ratios.

I was getting pretty desperate but what seemed to remedy the situation was when I started fighting with a mix of troops, especially longbows. Once I added longbows to my mercenary infantry, suddenly I was inflicting substantial losses on Henry even though he was still killing more of my own troops. More importantly though, I was winning the battles

BTW, there are plenty of examples of smaller armies owning much bigger ones in history. Take Cannae, for example, where Hannibal's 46,000 troops were defending against Rome's 80,000. The Romans lost between 46-60,000 dead and another 10,000 captured. Hannibal lost about 6,000.

Or Crecy, where the English inflicted up to 30,000 losses on the cream of French knighthood for the loss of only about 200 of their own. Same with Agincourt, where the English were outnumbered 5 or 6 to 1 and still inflicted 10 to 1 losses and a huge defeat on the French.

 

[unmerged(4444)]

First, Secret Master hurts your argument more than it helps. You're telling me that a better-trained(i.e. double the morale), better-led force that is out-numbered can't win? I say that's crap.

Hey, I'm not trying to make an argument. Neither am I saying that a superior force can't win when outnumbered... just not all the time. Quantity does (or should) have a quality all its own in the long run.

Second, the OP stated that it happened 15 times. To me, that sounds like he marched RIGHT back in as soon as he could(and I'll even assume that he waited for his morale to go back up from the loss.) You don't think that fighting a better-trained, better-led force can defend the same piece of land that it's fought in the last 14 times? You need to try something different at that point. To me, it sounds like the OP is ramming his head into a brick wall and complaining that it hurts.

Could be. But he's not the only one who feels that the influence of generals is too great.

I may even agree that the casualties are out of proportion at times(generally when it's just too consistent like the OP or Nikk's example), but you can't tell me that it's ridiculous for this to happen. Look at the battles already mentioned. I can come up with even more examples if need be (Battle of Lepanto....12 Christian galleys lost to over 160 Ottoman ships lost....I know..sea battle...but it still has a huge ratio.) The tides of war are not a force to be taken lightly.

Again, I've never said that it's ridiculous for this to happen... occasionally. It's when it happens consistently (due to leader overpowered-ness?) that there's a problem.

 

[Vezina]

A three-to-one casualty ratio... no-one is complaining about this sort of thing.



I was speaking in EU terms. The decision to attack into a mountain province is the player's, not the "general's." Besides, Xerxes did outflank the Greeks to "win" the battle.

You're right about the Austerlitz example. It was just the first thing I thought of when you dismissed Thermopylae as nothing to do with the general. I was just thinking of a situation where the out-numbered side won because of their general only.

But on the "speaking in EU terms," the poor generalship applies to the player. Of course a military genius would never do what Xerxes did, but that's what the player would do, and that's who I would apply my term to. Yes, Xerxes did win the battle, but his casualty ratio was still around 1 to 10 or higher. I've seen several "victories" like this in the same, and have participated in some too. That's why there's different phases to the combat. Just because you started off terrible (as Xerxes did), the next day might bring some insight like the local guide did to the Persians. That's represented in the dice rolls.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

More of my observations (yes I know I am annoying with my Russia examples - but that's the only nation I had time to play ).

Generals seem to be far less affected by the dice rolls. Shock seems to be added straight to the roll, so even rolling zero a well-commanded force is competent. Rolling 9, they are killers.
But it also seems that general's skill modifies the damage. My generals who rolled 0 seemd to perform better than non-commanded armies that rolled 7 against same enemy roll.

Also, infantry seems very weak. 6 regiments of Marucian infantry (from Teutonic order core provinces) performed worse than 2 regiments of Stepee Cavalry.

Fire seems to be weak, at least up to 1700. the highest I've seen wat 100/day loss from fire while cavalry shock can cause losses in thousands.

 

[Dev]

I dont know what to say anymore...look, don't you find it strange that one man can kill 100? we are talking close combat here! in the shock phase its man vs man...so unless he is steven segal on crack, there is no way a man on a horse can ride down a hundred before biting the dust!

Kill 100?

Casulaties aren't necessarily kills, they are men who are no longer available to you for some reason or another.

Did you know that in ww2 the british routed the entire italian expedition army halfway across northern africa only taking about 6 casualties themselves?

 

[Evie HJ]

And we are NOT necessarily talking close combat, at least not continuous close combat. A "battle" in game term lasts several day - it's a series of engagement over the control of a province.

As for it happening 15 times to the initial posters, I'd have to get the details, but the claim smells of exaggeration.

 

[cccino]

Ok now hear this:

France (me) is Land Tech 3, Burgundy Land Tech 1

I sent in 50,000 Latin Knights only 10,000 of them survived. I repeatedly suffered MAJOR losses. In the end I win anyway, but the losses were ludicrious.

I don't really understand the combat very well... (lol) obviously.

The terrain was mostly between Flandres and Brabant. I had a leader with shock level 2, they did not have any leaders. My overall military morale is about +280%, I don't know what theirs is.

Does anyone know what determines the kill ratio ? I thought 50K Knights vs half that number of mixed knights and infantry would smash them, but NO... not really, more like just barely won. BTW when I started seeing regiments at ZERO men, I replaced those with infantry and then remarkably my losses were much lower.

Maybe there is an issue here, I just can't get over it. I had EVERY advantage, in fact even when I was defending in terrain favoring me, BANG 1000 men pop like flies, and the enemy lose FIVE ?. Either I don't understand the battle mechanics (likely) ot there is something wierd about this (likely too !). This happened in all the battles I just fought against Burgundy.

It could be that the game is reversing the battle, i.e the one who should win is losing rather than winning. It's an easy error. Not saying it's certain, but might be worth some testing.

What's the province support limit in that area early in the game? I'd be surprised if you didn't take those kinds of losses in enemy territory from attrition alone. I might have it wrong, but if you had 75000 (you and enemy) in one province with a support limit of, like, 10k (pure guess), it's no wonder so many of your men died.

 

[hildoceras]

It is a 5/5/6/6 star general ...

What was your tradition when you bought the general?

remember, these are not EU2 generals where the average was 2/2/2 but EU3 generals where average leaders are 0/0/0 !
You had a sort of Napoleon or Gustav Adolf here !

Exactly. The only time I've seen results like these is when I'm fighting a vastly superior General across bad terrain. People need to lose the veil of Invulnerability that seems to be so dominant when playing games. You make mistakes, you pay for them. Try to avoid fighting foes when they have Napoleon's, Gustav Adolphus's, and the like. One of the biggest mistakes you can make.

I agree

 

[unmerged(6105)]

No in my opinion it is simply AI Cheating ...

have the same problem, even I have better Tech, better troops, better moal, better troop consistance (2xCav, 4xinf and 2xArt) ... and better foritifications.

It doesn't matter if I attack Ottomans, Bavaria or anything else ... I am loosing always more ... their problem is that I always have more money and so I could buy mercenaries over and over ...

THE ONLY THING THEY HAVE BETTER "SEEMS" to be the GENERALS, as I only have one star Generals as I am loosing always more troops EVEN I ALWAYS win the war. (As I said I have more money, as I own all North America gold provinces and Atecs, Mayas (whole middle America)

I even have choosen the military traits for my country (+50% and I am up at the land tech, most 3-5 in front of my oponent)

It could be two reasons AI cheating or GENERALS ... will see when I could buy that War Academies and recruit high star generals, what will happen.

Bye the way even that PC only attacks my 3star Fort with 1000 infantry he always is faster to conquer it, than I with my full Army (2xcav, 4xinf AND 2xART) ... I am sure he is cheating, even I am winning against him.

SO I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THE GENERAL and if it is that case, it is stupid. As I said I will try to get also (even didn't know if the PC has high star Generals) high star generals and see the difference.

At the moment it feels like AI cheating, even it couldn't win a war with that tactics.

The AI doesn't cheat, it is only in a few short periods the AI have gotten the better of me. You already mentioned the most common reason, great generals. In the first part of the game Cavalry and shock is very imporant, almost to a point where you shouldn't recruit Infantry at all. Now after you get better troop types this will change.

 

[De Savage]

I have made few observations about casualties too. Because loses are percentages (?), large armies tend to lost much more than smallers. Many provinces cant support such large armies. Added that leaders are over powerred results speak for itself.

Let's talk about attrition. Example 5% attrition from 10,000 men is 500 men. Add that to loses from battle. Soo you will be losing hundreds of men. I don't think attrition is too severe, but those armies should get replacements too. And reinforcing is only possible in you own province.

 

[Darktooth]

Generals and cavalry seem to be too strong and with the AI always having war it always has good leaders. When they have an skill 9 military leader you can't win at all! I think this is an issue which should be fixed.
I played with the Ottoman Empire against the Persians. My tech level was 10 whilst their was 1 - my soldiers got slaughtered because the AI had the better generals. This is just frustrating - having no chance at all against the AI in some cases.

 

[NikkTheTrick]

I played with the Ottoman Empire against the Persians. My tech level was 10 whilst their was 1 - my soldiers got slaughtered because the AI had the better generals. This is just frustrating - having no chance at all against the AI in some cases.

You do have a chance.
Join every war you can and fight, fight, fight. As Russia, I easily get my Army Tradition to 100 and recruit shock-6 generals.
You cannot get good generals and go to war. you have to go to many wars and only then you will have good generals.

 

[Arilou]

I sent in 50,000 Latin Knights only 10,000 of them survived. I repeatedly suffered MAJOR losses. In the end I win anyway, but the losses were ludicrious.

I *strongly* suspect these losses are due to attrition: You still suffer losses due to attrition during battles and 50,000 men would be FAR above supply limit.

Losing 25% of your army a month due to attrition would not be unreasonable.

Does anyone know what determines the kill ratio ? I thought 50K Knights vs half that number of mixed knights and infantry would smash them, but NO... not really, more like just barely won.

That's because Attrition counts as casualties inflicted by them. So your moraly starts to decrease from attrition.

Maybe there is an issue here, I just can't get over it. I had EVERY advantage, in fact even when I was defending in terrain favoring me, BANG 1000 men pop like flies, and the enemy lose FIVE ?. Either I don't understand the battle mechanics (likely) ot there is something wierd about this (likely too !). This happened in all the battles I just fought against Burgundy.

Again, I think it's attrition: You fight, you inflict 5 casualties, which is enough to make them flee, they might kill 3 of your men, but then 1000 die from attrition and the game wrongfully assumes htese to be battlefield casualties.

 

[Darktooth]

You do have a chance.
Join every war you can and fight, fight, fight. As Russia, I easily get my Army Tradition to 100 and recruit shock-6 generals.
You cannot get good generals and go to war. you have to go to many wars and only then you will have good generals.

But I don't want to have join every war. I don't think that this should be necessary to win wars. Only nations that are warmongering can win wars?

The problem is that army tradition decreases so fast, you just need some years of peace and you are no longer able to win battles?

Again, I think it's attrition: You fight, you inflict 5 casualties, which is enough to make them flee, they might kill 3 of your men, but then 1000 die from attrition and the game wrongfully assumes htese to be battlefield casualties.

This might be true for this example but generally I made the same experiences with smaller armies, too.

Another problem is, that fire phases are too weak. My Janissary infantry has some good fire values and my sliders give my leaders an extra fire bonus, but still they only kill 25 enemy soldiers a day. Thats no comparison to shock damage.

 

[unmerged(27192)]

I *strongly* suspect these losses are due to attrition: You still suffer losses due to attrition during battles and 50,000 men would be FAR above supply limit.

Losing 25% of your army a month due to attrition would not be unreasonable.




That's because Attrition counts as casualties inflicted by them. So your moraly starts to decrease from attrition.



Again, I think it's attrition: You fight, you inflict 5 casualties, which is enough to make them flee, they might kill 3 of your men, but then 1000 die from attrition and the game wrongfully assumes htese to be battlefield casualties.

Thanks for the reply. FINALLY someone who's focusing on the issue instead of talking of Austerlitz History X.

Well I shoudl've mention it but yes, of course, all those 50K were split up into 6-10k units. Attrition was never more than 5%.

But that could be it, though. I think it makes sense. Good observation ! I will test it again in the next war.