Battle Revival Rate

[Caelifer_1991]

I'd like to know how you change the amount of soldiers recovered after the battle, as it is, like half the army's casualties are recovered, i think it's too much >.> and wanna change it, anyone know? ^^

Anyone? At all? and i dont mean changing the difficulty, everything else that comes with VH i like, i just want this one thing changed

[kelvintyk]

I think its pretty much hardcoded no?

[Tony83]

I think maybe you are referring to the "prisoners" captured after a battle and not the casualties. Compared with Rome, relatively few casualties actually "recover" from their injuries.

After a battle, you have the option of ransoming, releasing or executing your prisoners. If you want to ensure half your enemy don't live to fight another day - execute them - as long as you don't mind the hit on your "chivalry" rating and increase in your "dread".

[AirnetSnake]

Byg had changed this value for AI in his BGR mod. You could ask him by PM.

[Caesar Clivus]

I'd like to know how you change the amount of soldiers recovered after the battle, as it is, like half the army's casualties are recovered, i think it's too much >.> and wanna change it, anyone know? ^^

In the battles I've played today, in a unit of 150 men that suffered around 60 casualties, a maximum of 9 recovered so I'm not sure what's going on in your game...:hmmm:

[Willowmound]

I lost 30 of 60 svenner yesterday. After the battle, I had a full compliment again (60). Maybe they all just fell off their horses, I don't know...

[Iscariott]

I lost 30 of 60 svenner yesterday. After the battle, I had a full compliment again (60). Maybe they all just fell off their horses, I don't know...

Svenner have the benefit of being cowards. When the unit takes lots of casualties, it prefers to route than to fight. I too have lost 30+ svenner only to find them all sitting in a circle after the fight, 'captured' they tell me. Funny how 30 men got themselves captured while we won the fight.

[Caelifer_1991]

Well for a start im not refering to prisoners, i played against an army of like 570, lost but got them down to about 320, and @ the end they were back up to 460... somehow 140 of the 250 casualties they took came back up again, and not more than about 20 of 'em were prisoners. If anyone finds the files for it tell me, and im almost certain (although not sure) that it's not hardcoded since broken crescent had far fewer returning to combat after battles than this.

[Quark]

Caelifer_1991
Oh dear this is one of those conversations, on the one hand people ask, how can you make it so that the Ai recovers troops and retrains then like we can, and then on the other, oh no the Ai is recovering troops. You can never please people it seems.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Units who are shot by arrows recover more than those who die in melee btw.

[Willowmound]

Funny

[Caelifer_1991]

Quark no you cant please people, not all at once anyway, and although some ppl may enjoy half the enemy armies casualties miraculously returning from the dead, i personally would like to change it, so rather than some pointless critism towards my preferances, a useful answer would be appreciated.

Oh and @ crucifix, like 90% of the casualties were from melee.

[Quark]

Caelifer_1991
It was not a criticism as to your preference, just a generally frustrated response to the fact that KK seems to get posts asking him to do one thing, and then another asking him to do the exact opposite, so he is never going to win. As to your issue, its in the traits file, just look for Ai_boost and reduce the Battle Surgery value slightly. Its there to make the game harder and reduce the player having to face armies of 8-15 units, or whatever value due to increasing unit size.

[Erlinggra]

Remember any prisoner the loosing side had captured counts as a casualty healed for the victor. This is why it can sometimes seem as thought the healing is a bit high.

[Player8]

Actually the fatality rate among medieval battles was surprisingly low. The chivalric code and quest for prisoners that could be traded for ransoms took precedence. Having a high 'recovery' rate and large numbers of people to be ransomed are both accurate.


http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/42107/
This is an abstract of an article, which appeared in the Journal of Medieval History. It agrees with the above statements.

[Caelifer_1991]

Ah thx for the answer, hehe couldnt find the thread again and thought it was deleted or something, but yeah, ty for the link to the thread again and the answer ^^ appreciations

[shenryyr]

Ah thx for the answer, hehe couldnt find the thread again and thought it was deleted or something, but yeah, ty for the link to the thread again and the answer ^^ appreciations

there is a SEARCH feature you can utilize to find anything on the message board.

also, if you go to Quick Links (it's right next to Search), then My Profile, you can navigate to every single post or thread you've ever written.

[Westermeyer]

I think a good way to have it is that recovery rates are based on the unit's armor. For example, someone in full plate is much more likely to recover from being slashed by a sword than a peasant wearing only cloth.

[Caesar Clivus]

I think a good way to have it is that recovery rates are based on the unit's armor. For example, someone in full plate is much more likely to recover from being slashed by a sword than a peasant wearing only cloth.

Unfortunately the good way and the possible way are often two completely different things in this game

[Gorrrrrn]

casualties varied depending on what type of units were fighting and what armour they had. But it would appear that many casualties occurred during the rout that followed one army deciding it had had enough and ran.

For example:

the battle of shrewsbury started off with an exchange between two sets of longbowmen (thousands of them.) Casualties were heavy, then the men-at-arms engaged. During the melee many more were killed and injured but the rout saw many more casualties (estimated at 3000):

King Henry raised his mace. The battle opened with a massive archery barrage, arrows killing or wounding many of the men before they could meet hand to hand in the field. Of the two forces, the Percys's Cheshire bowmen proved generally superior. Thomas Walsingham recorded how the King's men "fell like leaves in Autumn, every one [arrow] struck a mortal man". Prince Henry was reputedly struck by an arrow early in the battle, sustaining a facial wound and a scar he bore for life. However when the two armies finally met, the greater numbers of the Royal army generally prevailed. The Percys attempted to address this imbalance with a charge, the Royal Standard was overthrown and Sir Walter Blount, its carrier, hacked down. Edmund Stafford, 5th Earl of Stafford, the Lord High Constable of England lay dead as a result but it was premature and Henry Percy was killed. The story goes that he had raised his visor to ascertain whether it was actually the King who opposed him or an imposter; an archer, recognising Hotspur's plume and arms, fired one very decisive arrow hitting him in the face and killing him, lodging deep in his brain. At this point some of the rebel forces fled the field, and a rout began. The battle had apparently lasted three hours. It was claimed that over 300 knights and another 20,000 men-at-arms fell on the field, 4,600 of King Henry's force were killed and thousands more on both sides died of wounds, broken limbs and injuries over the next few weeks.

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

(allowing for literary conventions, hyberbole etc (the figures seem inflated by x10) it seems pretty obvious that much slaughter took place at shrewsbury, and many died of wounds subsequently. chivalry be damned.)

as for recovery rates - I suspect they're too high, a few may recover from injuries but many more would be invalided out of further fighting.