Send Troops - Excessive Casualties

[Apocal]

I tend to frequently lose troops that are veterans.

I'd have to take a second look at the code, but as it stands, Autocalc could use a lot of work. Gear in particular is not taken into consideration.

Yes, it still happens that you will lose veterans. In particular if your army is made of mostly high-tier troops, they'll still tend to be the ones who die because the distribution of casualties (wounded and killed) aren't weighed in any direction. But when it comes to being wounded vs. being killed, high tiers have an advantage.

Or, I should say, had an advantage. mexxico rebalanced things so more troops (including high-tier ones) would die in autocalc rather than being wounded. I tried to push back against it but no one else in the thread backed me up, in spite of all the fire and fury about autocalc killing too many troops making the whole BL experience even more grindy. High-tier troops still should have an advantage, but it won't be as noticeable.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Or, I should say, had an advantage. mexxico rebalanced things so more troops (including high-tier ones) would die in autocalc rather than being wounded. I tried to push back against it but no one else in the thread backed me up, in spite of all the fire and fury about autocalc killing too many troops making the whole BL experience even more grindy. High-tier troops still should have an advantage, but it won't be as noticeable.

Too bad he didn't delete the tactics skill and replace it too if it's going to make it even worse for the player. I understand all the tinkering to try to balance the AI X AI stuff, but they should have a different system for player since we don't use auto calc constantly like the AI. Of course auto cals sucks so much and is so ill received in general I doubt anyone notices.

 

[CrazyElf]

Yes, it still happens that you will lose veterans. In particular if your army is made of mostly high-tier troops, they'll still tend to be the ones who die because the distribution of casualties (wounded and killed) aren't weighed in any direction. But when it comes to being wounded vs. being killed, high tiers have an advantage.

Or, I should say, had an advantage. mexxico rebalanced things so more troops (including high-tier ones) would die in autocalc rather than being wounded. I tried to push back against it but no one else in the thread backed me up, in spite of all the fire and fury about autocalc killing too many troops making the whole BL experience even more grindy. High-tier troops still should have an advantage, but it won't be as noticeable.

But that's the problem - I think that higher tier troops should be much less likely to die. Veterans have better armor and are better trained, with years of combat experience. In many cases, some military forces will hold their veterans back.

 

[Apocal]

But that's the problem - I think that higher tier troops should be much less likely to die. Veterans have better armor and are better trained, with years of combat experience. In many cases, some military forces will hold their veterans back

They are less likely to die. The fix you want is already in.

 

[CrazyElf]

They are less likely to die. The fix you want is already in.

If it is, then the frequency of the fatalities for higher tier units still needs tweaking.

 

[MostBlunted]

Auto-calc should punish the player.

It is a lazy workaround. If they encouraged it, they'd be encouraging people avoiding the main premise the entire game is built around. (It's not a RTS, it's a RTS introduction to a FPS battle simulator)

Cripes, you should see how bad the auto-calc is in Total War.

The main premise of the entire game is to fight medium sized looter parties with my 200 T4+ troops warband, so that I don´t lose my elite units?

 

[Antaeus]

The main premise of the entire game is to fight medium sized looter parties with my 200 T4+ troops warband, so that I don´t lose my elite units?

I had a battle this afternoon. I attacked a band of 30 looters, to get it over with I casually hit 3/F3 with my 50 cavalry. I ended up watching as 2 of my Druzhinnik cavalry were killed - they were isolated and mobbed. I was annoyed. But meh. It happens - and should also happen in auto-calcs.

I can tell you for certain. If me and 15 of my mates took on a couple of mounted, armoured warriors... we'd be distracting them while a couple of us killed the horses with pitchforks, and then the rest of us would mob those armoured men to the ground and stomp on them.

Your tier 4+ warriors aren't supermen. They're skilled but human. But a farmer who works hard and eats their vegetables is easily capable of thinking about a scenario and getting a lucky kill or two. There should always be a chance for a good strong farmer to smash an armoured person in the face and put them on the ground.

How many protests have you seen on the news over the past couple of years where trained police get out thought by untrained protesters? How many medieval rebellions took out entire armies of the best? Same rules apply here. War is inherently risky business. It is dangerous. The moment you make your high tier troops invulnerable to all but the best, you make war not-dangerous, not realistic, and boring.

That's life.

 

[MostBlunted]

I had a battle this afternoon. I attacked a band of 30 looters, to get it over with I casually hit 3/F3 with my 50 cavalry.

Yes, that´s another issue that shouldn´t happen and doesn´t happen in mods like the realistic battle mod, because armor behaves like armor in this mod.

I´m fine losing high tier troops in "normal" auto battles, but my 200 troop warband (armored cav, inf, archers) against 30-40 looters (with stones and pitch forks)...come on....

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I attacked a band of 30 looters, to get it over with I casually hit 3/F3 with my 50 cavalry.

first of all you should f6 the Cav, they do much better then a f3.
Secondly Cavarly can't fight very well and foot units are over tuned to hit riders thanks to MP centric fake bull. This is a big stinky problem with the game.

I can tell you for certain. If me and 15 of my mates took on a couple of mounted, armoured warriors...

Thirdly I think 1 Druzhinnik would murder all of you easily. Half of you would have a pitchfork handle impaled through your from guts trying to use fake bannderlord MP balancing physics on a armored warhorse!

This comes up so much I can't even remember if I said it in this topic, but the best fix would be to select what troops to send in auto calc battle! We often want to level recruits or just clear bandits, so just sending something that isn't our elite troops would solve this without interfering with the delicate flower of AI X AI balancing.

But a farmer who works hard and eats their vegetables

They're NOT FARMERS they're emaciated, un-skilled, rock bottom, poo poo pee pee looters!

 

[Dreed89]

Losses in armored units vs looters auto-calc battles should only occur sparingly, and that is to account for randomness and unpredictability.

Other than that, there should not even be 1 loss, in say, 20 vs 20 armored units vs looters battle.

 

[Antaeus]

Losses in armored units vs looters auto-calc battles should only occur sparingly, and that is to account for randomness and unpredictability.

Other than that, there should not even be 1 loss, in say, 20 vs 20 armored units vs looters battle.

They do only occur sparingly. People seem to be arguing here that it shouldn't happen at all. Which is silly.

@Ananda_The_Destroyer your Druzhinnik was still drunk from the night before. He fell off his horse on his own and was tied up by the emaciated looters and laughed at for a week before being freed out of pity.

 

[archaicwarrior]

no ... no ... no .. We all know what Looters do .. they run away , that's what Bannerlord has taught us - Looters charge - one opponent looks angry - all looters run away.

This should be same situation in simulated battles. .. But I Bet they're NOT. My 22,000 gold caravans are continually being destroyed by looters.

.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

no ... no ... no .. We all know what Looters do .. they run away , that's what Bannerlord has taught us - Looters charge - one opponent looks angry - all looters run away.

This should be same situation in simulated battles. .. But I Bet they're NOT. My 22,000 gold caravans are continually being destroyed by looters.

.

For the player it seems impossible for the enemy bandits to rout from a auto-calc battle. I'm not sure exactly what the mechanic is for the AI X AI parties when one runs from another mid-battle, I must admit though I've never tried to auto-calc a large battle against lords to see if they can break if off when the player's involved. But bandits seems unable to rout for sure. This WOULD be a benefit of using auto-resolve to clear looters and bandits, if it didn't risk high tier units.

 

[five bucks]

I had a battle this afternoon. I attacked a band of 30 looters, to get it over with I casually hit 3/F3 with my 50 cavalry. I ended up watching as 2 of my Druzhinnik cavalry were killed - they were isolated and mobbed. I was annoyed. But meh. It happens - and should also happen in auto-calcs.

Yeah, and that's a problem too. It only happens because armor is weak and cavalry AI is bad at charging or using weapons correctly. It shouldn't be happening in real battles and shouldn't be happening in autocalc battles.

I can tell you for certain. If me and 15 of my mates took on a couple of mounted, armoured warriors... we'd be distracting them while a couple of us killed the horses with pitchforks, and then the rest of us would mob those armoured men to the ground and stomp on them.

Mall ninja words if I ever heard them. Those warriors would have to be pretty stupid to get "distracted" by you. Looter pitchforks are also quite short, they aren't pikes, so you would just get impaled by a lance if you tried pike tactics with them.

Your tier 4+ warriors aren't supermen. They're skilled but human. But a farmer who works hard and eats their vegetables is easily capable of thinking about a scenario and getting a lucky kill or two. There should always be a chance for a good strong farmer to smash an armoured person in the face and put them on the ground.

Agree in principle, but that "chance" is currently far too high.

How many protests have you seen on the news over the past couple of years where trained police get out thought by untrained protesters?

This is called confirmation bias, something I saw you accusing someone of just the other day. Out of thousands of police-protester physical encounters over the past couple of years, apparently you've seen a handful LiveLeak videos of a protestor knocking out a cop and concluded it's how these things frequently go.

Also, it's a totally nonsense, apples to oranges comparison, and I'll break down why.

For an average policeman, "trained" means they know the law, how to use a gun, how to correctly file paperwork, how to lay out road spikes, etc; hand-to-hand fighting is a small part of that overall corpus of knowledge, which might have been just a handful of weekend seminars. But an elite medieval warrior has a lifetime of just hand-to-hand training or combat experience.

A regular cop has very little protection for their arms, legs, or head. An early medieval knight, on the other hand, is well protected all over by metal mail and a metal helmet with thick padding underneath both.

A cop trying to keep some protesters under control gets a baton, which they can't even use to its full extent in case they get sued for excessive force. A medieval knight gets a ****ing sword, and they are fully authorized to use it immediately on the soft flesh of the armorless peasants in front of them, before any of them can even get close.

How many medieval rebellions took out entire armies of the best?

Not very many at all actually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_revolts_in_late-medieval_Europe#Background "Most of the revolts expressed the desire of those below to share in the wealth, status, and well-being of those more fortunate. In the end, they were almost always defeated by the nobles."

In one example, a noble army of 14,500 defeated a peasant army of 15,000, inflicting 3,100+ casualties with only 17 losses.

War is inherently risky business. It is dangerous.

An elite knight with an armored horse that can batter men aside and carry them out of crowds, a lance to outreach almost everyone and oneshot almost anyone, and armor that gives you very good protection from almost everything, IS the source of the danger.

The problem is that Bannerlord cavalry AI is dumb enough to get stuck in moshpits, doesn't use its lance properly, and armor doesn't work properly. Every advantage an elite cavalryman would have in real life is reduced or missing.

The moment you make your high tier troops invulnerable to all but the best, you make war not-dangerous, not realistic, and boring.

You're using a strawman argument. I don't think I've seen anyone explicitly say "high tier troops should be invulnerable to all but the best".

Right now, only two untrained, barely equipped recruits are needed to defeat a well-equipped and trained T5 soldier. I think THAT is unrealistic and boring.

My position is that a T5 veteran fighter should be able to (on average) defeat five T1 raw recruits attacking at the same time, or two T2 newly trained fighters, or one T3 experienced fighter, or one T4 hardened fighter.

That's not "invulnerability to all but the best"- you just need six T1s, or three T2s, or two T3s/T4s to defeat him. And of course, it would be on average, not a deterministic thing. So just four or five T1s could sometimes defeat a T5 fighter.

As for autocalc, yes your cataphracts should still be able to die in battle to looters, the chance just needs to be reduced significantly.

 

[danEN]

It's a manipulation tactic, they want you too spend the majority of time in battles so it takes longer for you to realise how barren of content the game is

If they can stall you for 2 hours you lose the ability to refund the game on steam hmmmmm

The only issue with this extremely well thought out theory is that the battles only last about 1 entire minute

 

[Ted Striker]

I had a battle this afternoon. I attacked a band of 30 looters, to get it over with I casually hit 3/F3 with my 50 cavalry. I ended up watching as 2 of my Druzhinnik cavalry were killed - they were isolated and mobbed. I was annoyed. But meh. It happens - and should also happen in auto-calcs.

I can tell you for certain. If me and 15 of my mates took on a couple of mounted, armoured warriors... we'd be distracting them while a couple of us killed the horses with pitchforks, and then the rest of us would mob those armoured men to the ground and stomp on them.

Your tier 4+ warriors aren't supermen. They're skilled but human. But a farmer who works hard and eats their vegetables is easily capable of thinking about a scenario and getting a lucky kill or two. There should always be a chance for a good strong farmer to smash an armoured person in the face and put them on the ground.

How many protests have you seen on the news over the past couple of years where trained police get out thought by untrained protesters? How many medieval rebellions took out entire armies of the best? Same rules apply here. War is inherently risky business. It is dangerous. The moment you make your high tier troops invulnerable to all but the best, you make war not-dangerous, not realistic, and boring.

That's life.

50 cavalry vs 30 looters shouldn't result in one or two cavalry being isolated and mobbed though.

Heavy cavalry in a charge should mow unarmored peasants down like grass, pitchforks or no. I actually don't remember if that cavalry is heavy or light but 30 malnourished peasants vs 50 cavalry should result in 30 peasant deaths and 0 cavalry deaths except for rare blunders like a horse bolts forward out of formation.

 

[Dreed89]

They do only occur sparingly. People seem to be arguing here that it shouldn't happen at all. Which is silly.

Thanks. Hadn't been playing since months.