Unit healing

**YoungWarlord** · May 10, 2010, 01:10 AM

After playing my first campaign with the RS mod one thing that i am wondering about is unit healing. Forgive me if this has been asked but i could not find it. During a small battle with the Gauls with me as the romans I sent a unit of Aux peltast against about four enemy peltats just to soke up missles so my legion wont get wasted. Well they took it and only about 50 of the 202 survied. After the main battle i look at the stats and my peltast almost completly recovered. Like every single one. It seems the winning army gets all there units who were "Killed" by peltasts recovered.It's a little annoying. Also mercenary warbands. They get demolished by other infantry but if i win more than half recover. Just wondering if its a bug or just me?

**stanley86** · May 10, 2010, 01:46 AM

I'd say that it's quite logic. I mean that sword will either kill a man or wound him for good (like chopping off a hand). On the other hand there's a big possibility that a man would recover from being shot by an arrow or even by a javelin.

**Nolthra** · May 10, 2010, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by stanley86

I'd say that it's quite logic. I mean that sword will either kill a man or wound him for good (like chopping off a hand). On the other hand there's a big possibility that a man would recover from being shot by an arrow or even by a javelin.

I take it you have never shot a bow before or seen the effect it can have on an animal/human. Depending on the head you use it can go straight through its target or shred up the internal organs and yank chunks of them through the exit hole. They are very deadly in the right hands. But I assume you meant to say a target wearing armor is more likely to be hit in a non vital area by arrows and thereby making his chances of recovery higher.

And back on topic. I concur with the others in this thread about the first unit having the most men recover. It sucks but I am not sure anything can be done about it.

**rory o'kane** · May 10, 2010, 02:56 AM

The type of weapon influences recovery - I think I'm right in saying that "armour-piercing" weapons such as falxes mean a reduced change of recovery, and rightly so, when you think about it!

**Anubis88** · May 10, 2010, 04:30 AM

Also the the RTW engine recovers almost exclusively the units which die at the beginning of the battle. So if your peltast died at the begining, that could be the reason they survived

**Taelok** · May 10, 2010, 05:53 AM

This has actually been discussed at the twcenter much in the past. The general consensus seems to be that the greatest proportion of casualties healed is from the first unit(s) to receive losses.

Hence when you send a merc unit to 'soak' up the enemy missiles before you engage your main force, they'll get loads of 'recovered' soldiers, compared to the rest of your troops, who engaged later. Very irritating.

Try it with a full stack army of infantry plus a unit of elephants against an enemy spearman army - send the elephants in first and let them get slaughtered, then fight the enemy. Most of the time all the elephants recover.

**stanley86** · May 10, 2010, 07:23 AM

You're right Nolthra, I've never shot a bow before. However I'm aware of its power. As "man" I was refferring to in-game soldiers, not to reality. And from what I've seen when playing RomeTW, units decimated in melee have lower chances of recovery than those who suffered casualties from arrows or javelins. Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I see it. As for the "first-unit-recovery" thing I never took a look at it.

Originally Posted by Taelok

(...) Try it with a full stack army of infantry plus a unit of elephants against an enemy spearman army - send the elephants in first and let them get slaughtered, then fight the enemy. Most of the time all the elephants recover.

I shall try it today.

**Tesla** · May 10, 2010, 07:58 AM

it also has to do with the general leading them, if he has the chirurgeon trait or doctor men recover as well

**Drowsy** · May 10, 2010, 08:03 AM

Never leave home without a chirurgeon! Doc is plausible though, think he lowers the morale no?

**Nolthra** · May 10, 2010, 08:22 AM

I agree with you stanley86. It makes sense that fewer men survive melee combat since no one wants to leave a wounded man behind them who could potentially stab them in the back. I just wanted to make sure no one started bashing bows for being 'weak'. I hope you did not misunderstand the tone of my last post.

**stanley86** · May 10, 2010, 08:31 AM

No, I did not. You can be sure I will never call a bow a weak weapon. Plus I like to use all kinds of archers in game (look at my sig - yes, Parthia

)

**Binshuy** · May 10, 2010, 08:38 AM

why be afraid i think the roman legions can soak up a lot if not there is always the testudo

**Nolthra** · May 10, 2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Binshuy

why be afraid i think the roman legions can soak up a lot if not there is always the testudo

Believe it or not their testudo formation has been the Romans downfall in my Syracuse campaign. Took their 4 last stronghold in Italy without losing a single man thanks to it. I am not sure if it is a bug or if they finally understood resistance is futile but they always turn their unprotected back to my hordes of archers and well...you can imagine the rest.

At first only their First Cohorts did it at Genoa(L) but now every group able to form testudo will face the opposite way of my archers and just stand there until all are slain. Anyone else have this problem?

**rory o'kane** · May 10, 2010, 11:08 AM

I will say that missile weapons weren't usually what decided a battle - it's usually the clash of hand-to-hand combat that did that. Yes, I know Parthians at Carrhae blah blah - the Romans probably would have been okay if it weren't for the whole "do we stay in testudo and get steamrollered by cataphracts, or do we open up and get shot to bits?" dilemma. By and large, battles were won in hand-to-hand combat. I'm still generally inclined to agree that an arrow to the leg is less serious than say the hack from a falx. For one thing, you'd have to be rather lucky to sever the femoral artery with an arrow to the leg (not impossible, mind, it's the odds of hitting the right bit that's the problem). Hacking someone's leg with a sword however, will inflict more trauma on the area. You're hitting someone with a big heavy sharp metal stick. You'll cause a far larger laceration, and a lot more blunt trauma damage. If you THRUST with a sword, the laceration will be smaller, but you'll gain far more penetration. I'm not sure it'd be very pleasant to have either, but I'm relatively certain that an arrow in the abdomen would carry a far smaller risk of say, peritonitis or a perforated colon than a sword thrust, by virtue of the nature of what you're sticking into the body! I'm not bow-bashing, I'm just saying that up close and personal with a gladius is a more efficient and accurate way of sticking your piece of metal into something vital on a moving human being with armour and or a shield.

**Tesla** · May 10, 2010, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by rory o'kane

I'm still generally inclined to agree that an arrow to the leg is less serious than say the hack from a falx. For one thing, you'd have to be rather lucky to sever the femoral artery with an arrow to the leg (not impossible, mind, it's the odds of hitting the right bit that's the problem).

true, but arrows were shot in groups of hundreds? so that would increase the chance of multiple hits on a body or a gap in a armor (around the neck or something like that)

**rory o'kane** · May 10, 2010, 06:37 PM

True, but realistically, that'd only happen if you were fighting against 100s of people - it's just lucky hits that'll do sufficient damage to completely incapacitate soldiers on the receiving end. Of course you will have casualties, but the armour and shield of an infantryman in the period would at least reduce the risk of injury somewhat.