Campaign Battle Statistics?

[Brian93]

Hey i was just wondering, how should my campaign battles be looking, in terms of numbers?

Campaign difficulty VH
Battle difficulty M

unit scale is Large (82 principes in a unit)

As i play, i sort of developed a perfectionist attitude, meaning unless i dont overwhelmingly annihilate the enemy, i consider the battle unsatisfactory and fight it again. Obviously i shouldnt be doing this.. LOL

what kind of numbers would be historically accurate in terms of casualties suffered and inflicted?

[Genius of the Restoration]

Historically accurate? Hard to say.

From a gameplay perspective you should be able to win battles with a casualties inflicted/losses ratio of 10:1 in most situations. Though in reality it's not the number of kills and losses that solely determines how well you fought the battle, but also the odds against you at the start. It's much harder to destroy a full enemy stack with six or seven of your own units than it is to destroy a stack absolutely without taking many casualties on your own equal-sized forces.

I think it's perfectly healthy to refight battles that you didn't like. It'll only help you get better at them. What sort of results are you getting at the moment and what are you aiming for?

[Brian93]

For the most part i get satisfactory results. I havent been keeping track, but in average-sized battles, where im outnumbered, i'll destroy the entire enemy force, and lose an infinitesimal fraction of my army.

ex: 600 vs. 600

i'll have 500 something troops remaining

But i kind of cheat... lol
What i do is i put my armies in situations where i KNOW the AI will attack me, which allows me to deploy defensively on high terrain. This works in my favor because i tend to abuse my principe's pila and other missile troops.

edit: also when i siege settlements, i batter a bunch of holes in the walls/gates and put my principe in front of the openings. Enable guard mode, enable autofire, and let them kill a bunch of enemies. Then i move them back, and bring in my velites and other skirmishers. During this entire process, i'll kill more than 1/2 of the enemy army, which then retreats to the town square. then i swarm in the settlement and surround them in the square, and continue to abuse them with missile fire, then mop things up with heavy infantry and cavalry.

When i siege stone walls, i send troops in on a siege tower, and strategically lure soldiers on their walls to my sap points, which i then activate when their troops walk over it. Then i take the walls and towers, put my skirmishers up, and repeat what i do to smaller settlements: rain javelins on their army, until they lose so many troops that they retreat to the square, then i walk into the city with the rest of my army, unopposed.

Also, when im heavily outnumbered, i deploy my troops at the corners of the battlefields so i cant be flanked..
Otherwise i wont be able to achieve a heroic victory, or a satisfactory clear victory.

Of course i shouldnt be doing all of this... haha

[Hopit]

For the most part i get satisfactory results. I havent been keeping track, but in average-sized battles, where im outnumbered, i'll destroy the entire enemy force, and lose an infinitesimal fraction of my army.

ex: 600 vs. 600

i'll have 500 something troops remaining

But i kind of cheat... lol
What i do is i put my armies in situations where i KNOW the AI will attack me, which allows me to deploy defensively on high terrain. This works in my favor because i tend to abuse my principe's pila and other missile troops.

edit: also when i siege settlements, i batter a bunch of holes in the walls/gates and put my principe in front of the openings. Enable guard mode, enable autofire, and let them kill a bunch of enemies. Then i move them back, and bring in my velites and other skirmishers. During this entire process, i'll kill more than 1/2 of the enemy army, which then retreats to the town square. then i swarm in the settlement and surround them in the square, and continue to abuse them with missile fire, then mop things up with heavy infantry and cavalry.

When i siege stone walls, i send troops in on a siege tower, and strategically lure soldiers on their walls to my sap points, which i then activate when their troops walk over it. Then i take the walls and towers, put my skirmishers up, and repeat what i do to smaller settlements: rain javelins on their army, until they lose so many troops that they retreat to the square, then i walk into the city with the rest of my army, unopposed.

Also, when im heavily outnumbered, i deploy my troops at the corners of the battlefields so i cant be flanked..
Otherwise i wont be able to achieve a heroic victory, or a satisfactory clear victory.

Of course i shouldnt be doing all of this... haha

use hastati instead of principes... principes only have 1-3 more defense

[elite_commando]

historically, battles were usually played over several hours, sometimes they could go on for days, casualties are high but the casualty rate is somewhat low. if it was 50k vs 50k in real life, a decisive victory would probably be 10-15k killed while the other loses 3-5k. back then only the males would be recruited and they were usually around 20-40 yrs of age. the ones that were older that still served in the army were probably part of a veterans unit or elite unit and were used as last resort, that way they wouldnt lose experienced troops which were rare back then. in ur battles, relative to real life, in a 1.5k vs 1.5k (2 full stacks afaik), casualties should be around 300-500, remember battles were won by the enemy routing, and in rtw if they rout u can kill their entire army pretty quickly cause of attack bonuses to pursuing units, in rtw, its necessary to chase down and kill routers and completely wipe the army off map, cause if u dont, that army will just regroup with another and u will have another full-ish stack to face ur depleted forces, on top of that ull have another 4-5 stacks waiting for u down the line. there is a game for rtw that simulates battles that are dependent are morale loss over kill rates, im not sure but i think its the newest expansion for RTR, realm of empires or something like that, afaik the kill rates are reduced a lot and so are attack stats and morale is increased to simulate how battles were historically about morale of the armies

[Plant]

Historically, at least half of the men in the army which has lost will survive the battle.
In game, you should win just about every battle, without having to reload, except for sea battles.

[Brian93]

Historically, at least half of the men in the army which has lost will survive the battle.
In game, you should win just about every battle, without having to reload, except for sea battles.

Does winning every battle include using the ridiculously unfair and unrealistic tactics i mentioned? lol

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Does it include your peasants moved from town to town being jumped by rebels with like chosen swordsmen or stuff? Don't really know if that can happen, though.

[Brian93]

Does it include your peasants moved from town to town being jumped by rebels with like chosen swordsmen or stuff? Don't really know if that can happen, though.

It's possible, you'd have to look at the file that lists all of the rebel units i guess. But rebels are so freaking annoying -_-
i just remove them from the game before i start a new campaign lol

[Xerrop]

As i play, i sort of developed a perfectionist attitude, meaning unless i dont overwhelmingly annihilate the enemy, i consider the battle unsatisfactory and fight it again. Obviously i shouldnt be doing this.. LOL

what kind of numbers would be historically accurate in terms of casualties suffered and inflicted?

Well it is a game. It doesn´t matter how the statistics are.
And were is the fun playing a campaign and reload each battle were you don´t crush the enemy???

About the historical casualties - no one knows. There are nearly no exact accounts and most sources are very inaccurate. Like the 100.000´s (or even more) of Persians/Parthians fighting against some thousand Greeks or Romans.
We have no figures showing us how many died during battles, died afterwards through the wounds suffered or how many got injured.

[Plant]

Does winning every battle include using the ridiculously unfair and unrealistic tactics i mentioned? lol

No it does not. You should be herorically winning almost every battle without having to resort to corner camping or reloading. The ones you lose should be the ones where you are desperately outnumbered. And you should never be totally outnumbered if you are playing right.

And were is the fun playing a campaign and reload each battle were you don´t crush the enemy???

About the historical casualties - no one knows. There are nearly no exact accounts and most sources are very inaccurate. Like the 100.000´s (or even more) of Persians/Parthians fighting against some thousand Greeks or Romans.
We have no figures showing us how many died during battles, died afterwards through the wounds suffered or how many got injured.

Well you can either trust the vast body of historical academia which interprets sources or you don't. In your case, it seems that your only sources are bizarrely enough aggrandised stories.