The last battle

[Garth]

When fighting a large group of enemies, due to calculations on tactical advantage and army sizes, I often end up with 1-4 guys in the last battle that I have to tediously chase down.

I don't know about you guys, but I imagine the last attack wave in a losing battle to be much more desperate and dramatic than having two foot soldiers charge your army of knights.

So my suggestion: if the enemy's army has less than, say, 5 troops left in reserve in the second-to-last attack in a battle, those troops should join the attack.

It would save time and be more realistic than having the last three bandits stand on a hill, watching all their comrades get slaughtered, scratching their chins and saying, "Nope, this ain't lookin' too good, guys. This ain't lookin' too good at all."

 

[svart]

What do you mean by "the last battle", the reinforcements thing, or when the game goes to the menu thing ?

 

[Epicurus]

[...]

So my suggestion: if the enemy's army has less than, say, 5 troops left in reserve in the second-to-last attack in a battle, those troops should join the attack.

Agreed, it would be cooler and more realistic.

[...]
It would save time and be more realistic than having the last three bandits stand on a hill, watching all their comrades get slaughtered, scratching their chins and saying, "Nope, this ain't lookin' too good, guys. This ain't lookin' too good at all."

I cracked up when I read this part.

 

[DaLagga]

What do you mean by "the last battle", the reinforcements thing, or when the game goes to the menu thing ?

I think he means the last wave of the attack. Like how after you slaughter their main force 2 or 3 lingering units will spawn way in the middle of nowhere. And i agree, it would make more sense for the last wave to be somewhat powerful...as i doubt after watching 50 of their comrades get slaughtered those 3 pirates would actually rush in to "save the day".

 

[Sir Prince]

Yeah, it is annoying, I thought "YES! Those khergit are all dead!" I still had 4 left to kill . ANd I had forgotten to swith my horse so I was stuck with a lame hunter wich didn't last long and had to wait for the khergit to use up their arrows. BORING

 

[Volkier]

I think it has something to do with the maximum allowed units on map (you can actually adjust 'battle size' in the option menu, maximum unit is 40 I think) In my oppinion its nothing significant, but oppinions vary :

 

[Garth]

Umm, how do I explain this...


So you fight a long battle on a map, kill everything, press tab, and go back to the menu that let's you attack, order your units to attack, or leave.

My problem is when you go back to this menu and the enemy has less than 5 units left, and you then have to waste a few unnecessary minutes obliterating them.


I'm not sure whether to call each one of these 'rounds' a 'battle' or a 'wave' (or maybe just 'round' works), but I would rather the last 5 or so enemies spawn during one of these attacks so that the last attack is the biggest and most dramatic instead of having to go back to the menu and then chasing them down again.


Clarified?

EDIT: And 5 is a rough number

 

[Volkier]

But what about if those last 5 units attempt to flee? :
Not all bandits would fight to the last man. I am trying to say that there is a fixed number which is aquired from the game's calculators which say how many men are left. I don't know how difficult it would be to change that, but I have a feeling Armagan would have to re-write the entire equation lol.

Its how you look at it I guess.. Normally you would have enough units to just click 'order your units to attack while I stay back' if there are so few who die so fast remaining. If you don't have enough units, it would probably be fun enough to have a battle.I mean this game is BASED on combats, so cutting a fight short just seems a bit.. unnesessary? I dunno, wouldn't have any significant effect on me, so I'll remain neutral lol

 

[Lobos]

When you get this situation... shouldn't they just surrender to you?
Live to fight another day instead of needlessly dying? Of course, they wouldn't be too happy lookin forward to a life of working the saltmines

Also, if your large war party of 50 men attack a small group of 10 bandits who just came out of a battle, shouldn't they just surrender to you?

This could be a function of their 'bravery' variable (think it already exists in-game). So that the brave knights in shining armor do not surrender to you but that lowly peasant only interested in staying alive or that bandit looking for a way out of a loosing battle surrender easily?

Oh, and Volkier, I do that all the time, the problem is, even if I outnumber the enemy by quite a few guys, say, 10-1, I STILL seem to loose more men than what those 5 bandits would have ever been able to kill even in ideal conditions, had 3 remaining bandits kill a knight, and wound a few horsemen, while I had 20 concious soldiers vs their 3.

 

[Volkier]

Ouch.. I do occasionally get a 'wounded' but never really had any serious casualties in such situations as you have described.. Maybe it has something to do with morale as well? I don't know how exactly the calculators work...

But I agree that on the battlefield your men are suicidal. They TRY to die. I mean when you have a hired blade with a charger (one of the few I have) rider RIGHT into the middle of 10 enemies, and STOP without any attempt to leave.. Stuff like that really needs to be looked into imo haha

 

[dirtbag]

Or why not all of the soldiers join the battle in the beginning

 

[Lobos]

 

[dirtbag]

Yeah, on THAT computer yes :p