Troop losses

[DEMETRIOUS II]

I remember in the original MTW that while you campaigned your army would loose soldiers due to disease and famine etc. Has anyone seen anything about this feature in the upcoming MTWII? Will this feature be included? I haven't seen this addressed in any of the previews or interviews.

Cheers!

[Lusted]

I don't remember loosing troops to disease etc, the only time you lost troops like that was in sieges.

[Kanfoosh]

You probably mean the plague right?

[DEMETRIOUS II]

Maybe I did get mixed up with siege losses. In any case I believe in RTW you did not loose any troops even in sieges. I hope this isn't the case with MTWII.

[Barbarian-Bob]

Hmm... I never thought of that when playing Rome. Maybe that was what made it too easy to just starve someone out.

But yes, I would like to see that in MTW2. There has to be some consequence for starving out a big nasty castle.

[Dave of the West]

Crusades did that.

And it bugged me. Realistic true, but what am I going to do with 6 Knights Templar?

[Beiss]

You would think the enemy would suffer far greater losses in their besieged city.

[DougyM]

I hated that to hell in MTW.

Yes the besieged took much more casualties but it was a pain in the arse seeing your elite army loose 150 men per turn to a castle full of peasants....


There should be an option for sieges...

1. Enforce a strong siege: enemy starve at 150% normal rate, attackers take heavy casualties.
2. Enforce a siege: enemy starve at 100% normal rate, attackers take moderate casualties.
3. Enforce a light siege: enemy starve at 60% normal rate, attackers take light casualties.
4. Enforce a skeleton siege: enemy starve at 25% normal rate, attackers take very light casualties to its ranged units only.

It seemed silly that your best troops (ie.. gothic knights) would be doing the duties of a siege when your unit of archers/basic spearmen would be the ones actualy sieging the castle.

[The Lord Of Dance]

I hated that to hell in MTW.

Yes the besieged took much more casualties but it was a pain in the arse seeing your elite army loose 150 men per turn to a castle full of peasants....


There should be an option for sieges...

1. Enforce a strong siege: enemy starve at 150% normal rate, attackers take heavy casualties.
2. Enforce a siege: enemy starve at 100% normal rate, attackers take moderate casualties.
3. Enforce a light siege: enemy starve at 60% normal rate, attackers take light casualties.
4. Enforce a skeleton siege: enemy starve at 25% normal rate, attackers take very light casualties to its ranged units only.

It seemed silly that your best troops (ie.. gothic knights) would be doing the duties of a siege when your unit of archers/basic spearmen would be the ones actualy sieging the castle.

Good Idea, you should be able to apply certain levels of pressure. But you could only enforce certain levels of pressure such as 150% if you had siege equipment. Like trebuchets.

[mark0701]

You would think the enemy would suffer far greater losses in their besieged city.

Depends mate. There are many examples in history of huge attacking forces being ruined by diease and hunger.

One of the reasons Syracuse held out for so many sieges was due to the swamplands surrounding it. Just keep the attackers at bay for a few weeks and let the plague do the rest.

[Barbarian-Bob]

You could just move the gothic knights to somewhere else... or was that Rome only? :hmmm:

But yes, I agree. It's annoying and pointless to lose elite troops in a siege.

[John I Tzimisces]

My solution was typically to just assault as quickly as possible. I was generally pretty good at it, as long as I had artillery backup and/or expendable units to smash gates open.

[Dave of the West]

My solution was typically to just assault as quickly as possible. I was generally pretty good at it, as long as I had artillery backup and/or expendable units to smash gates open.

I dunno, the castles look pretty hardcore now.

I'll be right behind you

[Captian Marcus Cornelius]

I dunno, the castles look pretty hardcore now.

I'll be right behind you

that would be a pain to Assault but then again it would also be a pain re-supply

[theking994]

I dunno, the castles look pretty hardcore now.

I'll be right behind you

I wonder if castles like that will really be on the campaign map, almost too easy to defend it.

[Ceasar]

I wonder if castles like that will really be on the campaign map, almost too easy to defend it.

You'll have quite fun taking it down though... I know I will

[Freddie]

I wonder if castles like that will really be on the campaign map, almost too easy to defend it.

I was watching a program on the history channel about medieval castles and how they worked, it was fascinating stuff.

A castle should give a massive advantage to the defender anyway, and they should be attackers worst nightmare, if you look at history throughout this period only 3 castle ever fell to attackers.

[Kanfoosh]

You woud lose alot more units if your forces were bigger than the defending army.

[Ringeck]

You want attrition. So do most of us, siege attrition especially. It was always kind of stupid to be able to starve out an open-port Constantinople in BI with a big land army that stayed put for 5 years outside the walls.

[Kanfoosh]

Boys and girls, can you say screwed?