Question regarding lethality in v8

[Aenima]

What's the deal with lethality going to be with the new update? Will it be battles where soldiers simply cleave through their opponents, mincing weaker units or will it be a longer, more drawn out style of combat whereby outflanking enemies is the only way to avoid a long, drawn out melee? (Think the combat in vanilla vs the combat in EB)

I was just curious about this. Personally I much prefer the second one, but either will be fine, and as I said, I just wanted to know. Cheers!

[Joar]

What's the deal with lethality going to be with the new update? Will it be battles where soldiers simply cleave through their opponents, mincing weaker units or will it be a longer, more drawn out style of combat whereby outflanking enemies is the only way to avoid a long, drawn out melee? (Think the combat in vanilla vs the combat in EB)

I was just curious about this. Personally I much prefer the second one, but either will be fine, and as I said, I just wanted to know. Cheers!

I think that we're still tweaking around. But I also prefer longer battles.

[Gäiten]

Overworking lethality is a very important element of the ongoing finetuning.
You may think of how time-consuming is that for 500 different units

[Aenima]

Overworking lethality is a very important element of the ongoing finetuning.
You may think of how time-consuming is that for 500 different units

Awesome to hear that it's being reworked. Obviously it won't be the same as EB or other mods, but any game that has longer melee combats is always promising. I get so annoyed playing mods where I spend dozens of turns upgrading and recruiting troops, only to have them butchered in a minor engagement!

As for the 500 different units bit, you could always recruit mod fans to help out and give them instructions....but not me. I hold immunity from all forms of work

[llib]

Awesome to hear that it's being reworked. Obviously it won't be the same as EB or other mods, but any game that has longer melee combats is always promising. I get so annoyed playing mods where I spend dozens of turns upgrading and recruiting troops, only to have them butchered in a minor engagement!

As for the 500 different units bit, you could always recruit mod fans to help out and give them instructions....but not me. I hold immunity from all forms of work

I have to say on the contrary - I liked faster combats of IBRR. You make mistake, your men die - and I was able to use initial WRE armies for quite a long enough even while I had no money to retrain them when I was some tens of thousands in debt. So in my opinion, that part worked very, very fine as is in 7.03 version.
Problem of EB combat, no matter how much I like it, is that everything is bit too static, and AI's limitations presents themselves and are free for exploit by the human player (flanking that AI is not up to containing).
Not saying to speed things up, but they should not be speed down without significant considerations done on it (or at all).
No matter how well lead, soldiers always were killed in war, even when their side gained easy and owerhelming victory.

[Aenima]

I have to say on the contrary - I liked faster combats of IBRR. You make mistake, your men die - and I was able to use initial WRE armies for quite a long enough even while I had no money to retrain them when I was some tens of thousands in debt. So in my opinion, that part worked very, very fine as is in 7.03 version.
Problem of EB combat, no matter how much I like it, is that everything is bit too static, and AI's limitations presents themselves and are free for exploit by the human player (flanking that AI is not up to containing).
Not saying to speed things up, but they should not be speed down without significant considerations done on it (or at all).
No matter how well lead, soldiers always were killed in war, even when their side gained easy and owerhelming victory.

I didn't mean I don't like soldiers dying; as you say it's just a part of war. What I mean is I don't like it when the units I engage with get cut to pieces because of the lethality. I prefer taking an even spread of casualties, but not 50% or more just against a single unit of bog standard infantry.

[llib]

I didn't mean I don't like soldiers dying; as you say it's just a part of war.

And I have different opinion here - I hate my soldiers dying

What I mean is I don't like it when the units I engage with get cut to pieces because of the lethality. I prefer taking an even spread of casualties, but not 50% or more just against a single unit of bog standard infantry.

I'm not sure what kind of situation do you mean: Can you please show some example situation where the lethality is causing some weird level of casualties?
I mean, if two units of relatively even qualities will met, I expect that they will be damaged evenly, and I expect that they will fight to kill and for their lives, not to engage in romantic duels with 50 strokes required to achieve single kill (most of time five should do, the more the quality differs, the more the one-side massacre).

[Aenima]

And I have different opinion here - I hate my soldiers dying


I'm not sure what kind of situation do you mean: Can you please show some example situation where the lethality is causing some weird level of casualties?
I mean, if two units of relatively even qualities will met, I expect that they will be damaged evenly, and I expect that they will fight to kill and for their lives, not to engage in romantic duels with 50 strokes required to achieve single kill (most of time five should do, the more the quality differs, the more the one-side massacre).

No worries, I'll try and think of a suitable example. Consider playing RTR, or, if you don't have that, Vanilla. You'll find that when units fight the casualty rate is immense, up to the point that by the time cavalry/ infatry manage to flank the enemy unit an insane ammount of your men have been killed. It's not that the soldiers dying is bad- war is war eh. What I have a problem with is how the men seem to fall like daisies, even after time spent upgrading them extensively. It's the kind of battles that have a military campaign being cut short by you having to retrain a diminished army after a simple border skirmish, when a more balanced system of combat would simlply have a more even spread of casualties throughout your forces.

In short; battles were men die en masse from simply fighting someone=bad
Battles were men die en masse when surrounded, attacked in the rear by cavalry or javelins= good

Just my two pence

[Constantius]

Most battles come down to ,a key moment exploited by one or other general ,one side breaks and is cut down .The trick is to offer or except battle only when a situation is to your advantage.I ahve only ever lost massive casualties when i'v been ambushed or out manouvered and forced to fight a loosing battle. The Huns inflicted a catasrophic defeat on me once ,when the Emperor was out east ,and another time i was conered in Armenia by a Sassanid army coposed entirely their best

[llib]

No worries, I'll try and think of a suitable example. Consider playing RTR, or, if you don't have that, Vanilla. You'll find that when units fight the casualty rate is immense, up to the point that by the time cavalry/ infatry manage to flank the enemy unit an insane ammount of your men have been killed. It's not that the soldiers dying is bad- war is war eh. What I have a problem with is how the men seem to fall like daisies, even after time spent upgrading them extensively. It's the kind of battles that have a military campaign being cut short by you having to retrain a diminished army after a simple border skirmish, when a more balanced system of combat would simlply have a more even spread of casualties throughout your forces.

In short; battles were men die en masse from simply fighting someone=bad
Battles were men die en masse when surrounded, attacked in the rear by cavalry or javelins= good

Just my two pence

I see, but that system would not be any better balanced, rather it would suit best the human to exploit the AI limitations of not being able to flank effectively (under otherwise even circumstances).
It's not like you can't avoid (big) casualties as is when you have well-composed army and numerical superiority as is - as I wrote in original post, I was able to sustain advance in many directions with WRE even while I was in huge debt and completely unable to retrain anything, against numerically superior enemy. True, eventually number of battle-ready units went down (and fighting some elite barbarian cavalry was difficult and did cost casualties as should), but not at any terrible pace.