• The forum has been updated. For an explanation of some of the changes, head over here.

In Progress Casualties inflicted or Casualties sustained?

Currently viewing this thread:

zach99zulu

Recruit
version e1.5.3 beta
This is the same game I started in release.

I attacked an Aserai unit and sustained 12 casualties while their entire unit was lost (94 casualties).

SUMMARY:
1) It shows that I inflicted 12 casualties. That is wrong. I sustained 12 casualties. (this'll make sense if you re-read from the top of the thread)
2) It shows that Aserai inflicted 93 casualties. That is wrong. They sustained 93 casualties. (this'll make sense if you re-read from the top of the thread)
3) SEPARATE NOTE/BUG: the unit commander is not counted as a casualty. I think they should be counted, so I think that is a separate bug.

I tried to upload a photo, but it's not working. I submitted a photo to imgur at the following URL:
 

Doofus

Regular
Looked back at this. I mentioned previously that I looked at it as a minor issue because the numbers are just reported reverse or mislabeled. But looking at it again, this could actually be a major issue. If this is just an issue of bad reporting, but doesn't really affect the game its a minor issue. But as someone pointed out earlier, if the AI is actually looking at these numbers to decide what it could cost to declare peace then its a major issue. I have always thought it was ridiculous that when I'm looking to make peace with someone because I have multiple wars going on, and I'm crushing this faction, they want a ton of tribute from me to accept peace. It may be that they think they are winning because of the numbers being misreported. If thats the case, it is definitely a major issue and probably one that could be fixed fairly easily by the devs.
 

Thoridon

Regular
It does seem to work against the 'winning' faction (1.53 beta).

I was in a war I was dominating; Captured 2 settlements, a dozen lords as prisoners and had killed roughly 4k troops vs losing 1.7k on my end. The diplomacy interface was showing the casualties the wrong way round as has been highlighted above, making it appear as if the enemy faction had killed a lot more.

It would cost me over 2000d per day to make peace with a faction I was crushing. Every battle I won pushed that value higher.
 

yehrom

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SVC
By the way, not sure if it is a bug or intend, but casualties count killed & KOed units [Main | e1.5.7.260167]
 

zach99zulu

Recruit
By the way, not sure if it is a bug or intend, but casualties count killed & KOed units [Main | e1.5.7.260167]
That's covered earlier in the thread with a before and after photo.

If the commander is wounded (I didn't test killed), that doesn't count towards casualties.
 
Love some of the suggested alternative labels...

For the UI to make sense, the casualties needs to follow the same convention as all the other metrics - which is to say bigger bar on a factions side means good for that faction.

A faction wants more:
Total strength
Prisoners (taken/held... the actual number appears to reflect prisoners currently held and should probably be labeled as such)
Casualties Inflicted
Successful Sieges
Successful raids

So the Casualties Inflicted label makes sense, the problem is just that the number and graph appears to represent the opposite of what it says. Practically every war you look at shows the side obviously winning the war as having inflicted fewer casualties. It needs to be double checked in code, and assuming it is backwards, swapped accordingly.

Should also make sure any diplomacy decisions the AI might be making based on casualties aren't being done backwards as well. Might explain some of the suicidal diplomacy decisions being made by factions that were being snowballed against.

AI leader looking at casualty stats: "Oh look at all the dudes we're killing and how few we are losing, we are awesome!"
*Declares another war.

*Lords actually doing the fighting: "Um, no sir, our K/D ratio is actually terrible and all our people are dying..."
*Faction gets curb stomped
As far as I can tell it looks like the AI reads "Kingdom Strength" almost purely as an "available living/wounded" troops metric, which also seems to include garrisoned troops and militia; It does not appear to factor in the QUALITY of troops, therefore the AI thinks it has an advantage when it has massive armies of recruits and peasants. Additionally it also appears that the AI does not value any hostages that you may or may not have available. For instance in 1.5.7 Beta I conquered Epicrotea which had over 120 enemy Lords in it all at once (almost all of them were not involved in combat since the garrison and militia were junk)

Despite this, the Western Empire still wanted me to pay them a tribute for peace!

Now mind you that any rational lord or faction would decide that an enemy holding hostage over 120+ of their various nobility and family would be considered a breaking point in any conflict in which I could force their surrender on terms favorable to me.

The fact that I cannot force my enemy to surrender and under which terms (tribute/payment amounts, single payment amounts, or with forced periods of non-aggression, territorial surrender, etc) is infuriating.
 
Top Bottom