Battles in EBII: duration and losses

[Jurand of Cracow]

Hi Guys,
I've been playing a Pritanoi campaign and I have much fun with the battles in the EBII. I'm a micromanagement freak, I think, so my battles are very long and the losses are minimized. Or are they? I'm curious how do they compare to your experience.
Below there's data on 15 battles played in EBII 2.35 against Eleutheroi with similar or better troops. The battle difficulty level was Very Hard, what was very palpable in two aspects: killing (against similar units my troops were seriously loosing) and stamina (my troops were almost instantly exhausted, while the AI were always fresh). All the battles were initiated by myself, all were won, in one case there was a risk of defeat (or wasn't?). I didn't have problems with morale due to my generals. The tigernos had like 4-6 Command, up to 3 Command while Attacking, up to 6 TroopMorale and up to 6 Confidence (what is equivalent to TroopMorale) - that meant that all units had the maximum morale irrespectively from their base values (he effectively added 23 morale). They would also fight the very last man without a rout. In a few battles, I've used some other generals with lower stats (so perhaps adding only 4-6 to morale) but the units didn't flee either (but two cases when they're overwhelmed locally).

[1-1] 10%, 40 min.
[2-1] 20%, 40 min.
[1-1] 10%, 50 min.
[2-1] 15%, 75 min.
[1-1] 20%, 60 min.
[1-1] 20%, 75 min.
[1-1] 30%, 90 min.
[1-1] 30%, 25 min.
[1-1] 10%, 8 min.
[1-1] 40%, 130 min. (battle in a hilly landscape)
[1-1] 30%, 50 min.
[2-1] 20%, 35 min. (unexperienced general with 0 Command and morale)
[1-1] 30%, 60 min.
[1-2] 45%, 120 min. (large siege battle)
[5-3] 5%, 6 min.


What's your experience related to the losses and duration?
JoC

[Beckitz]

In my experience, EB II battles have realistic mechanics but an unrealistic scope. (I'm just talking about evenly-matched battles, since a player stack destroying a small enemy force would just have been a strategic action, not a battle, in warfare terms). My battles rarely last more than 30 minutes; basically, my battle line collides with the enemy, my troops break through a given section of the line, and the remainder of the enemy line is encircled and then destroyed also. In the alternative, when my army is outclassed by the enemy troops/general, the battle can last closer to an hour and it usually boils down to a tight nucleus of my best troops locked in a 1-on-1 fight to the death with the enemy. Depending how the AI uses their cavalry, I take between 10 to 25 percent losses in an evenly-matched battle. Against truly powerful enemy armies - like in the East, for instance - without a superior commander, it's generally on the higher end of 25 to 30 percent. (In my hairiest battles, when the enemy has all the stat advantages, I've taken as high as 60 percent casualties). In contrast, in an evenly-matched siege battle, I find 35 percent to be a good casualty rate - if I play it really well, I can get away with only 20 or so. In my opinion, if you know good siege tactics, then you can get away with fairly low casualties (~10 or 15 percent) assaulting a city when you outnumber them, even if your size advantage isn't that extreme.

It's been forever since I lost a battle. Last time was an extremely painful loss against the Sarmatians as the Sweboz; I got hasty and I stupidly abandoned my winning principle of strength in numbers and I sent a single stack alone up into the steppes to finish my conquest of the Bosporus. Turns out, my spy missed a fast-moving stack under the command of an 8 star warlord - they simply overran my troops on the battle map and slaughtered them. I lost over 70 percent of that army and had to return to my base of operations in Greece with the Sarmatian menace still looming over the Danube and Cheresoneses...

[Septentrionalis]

I play on medium battle difficulty and can usually avoid losses in the 20-30% range by carefully picking my fights. When facing a formidable enemy, it can take up to an hour and produce in-battle (before factoring in the recovery of the incapacitated) losses in the order of 35%. I once had to fight a more or less elite force in a shallow river crossing (in the water) and, with both parties having high morale and slowly mounting losses, I had lost 72% by the time the enemy routed. That came down to 62% after recovery.

I do not quite understand how players can manage it with Very Hard tactically and how it is enjoyable that the AI wins every time two equal units fight against each other head on, all other things being equal. Is it just the thrill of extra challenge, or is that a reasonable handicap for balancing out AI stupidity and making for a more enjoyable campaign overall? I would prefer to have the difficulty level upped by facing greater numbers than having my historically equal, individual units significantly weaker than those of my enemies.

Edit: Thank you for posting detailed statistics for reference. Also, I tend to place my infantry units into a triangle that cannot be flanked really, and with about every other unit in the triangle being spearmen, the enemy cavalry is usually unable to do much. I guess that is an exploit made possible by the constraints of the game and AI behavior, but it is hard not to do something that one has found beneficial.

[Lusitanio]

I do not quite understand how players can manage it with Very Hard tactically and how it is enjoyable that the AI wins every time two equal units fight against each other head on, all other things being equal. Is it just the thrill of extra challenge, or is that a reasonable handicap for balancing out AI stupidity and making for a more enjoyable campaign overall? I would prefer to have the difficulty level upped by facing greater numbers than having my historically equal, individual units significantly weaker than those of my enemies.

Indeed, that is the reason on why I don't play with Very Hard in battles. The enemy receives an unreasonable advantage over my troops. That is clearly visible when your cavalry attacks skirmishers and they actually fight off your cavalry for a good amount of time.

[Jurand of Cracow]

how it is enjoyable that the AI wins every time two equal units fight against each other head on, all other things being equal. Is it just the thrill of extra challenge, or is that a reasonable handicap for balancing out AI stupidity and making for a more enjoyable campaign overall? I would prefer to have the difficulty level upped by facing greater numbers than having my historically equal, individual units significantly weaker than those of my enemies.

For me, it's more enjoyable. And indeed, it makes up for the AI stupidity. And I suspect that on Medium the player is actually given a kind of bonus and if the units are equal, his would win. Maybe it's related to stamina (the AI tends to move here and there without any reason, or places two units staying together that prevents recuperation of stamina), or maybe to switching between attacking and going away, but I could detect it even at Hard. And even at Very Hard I'm often surprised how my Toutanakoi fare well against more powerful units.

BTW, I find the EBII BAI to be very reasonable. I've seen flanking, encircling, proper attacks, few suicidal generals, little blobbing. Not bad.

my battle line collides with the enemy, my troops break through a given section of the line, and the remainder of the enemy line is encircled and then destroyed also.

Yeah, my battles usually look the same. In the EBII it's sad that you cannot utilize efficiently your charge-powerful infantry to this end. I'm yet to see how the cataphracts and the elephants may be utilized in this respect.

Last time was an extremely painful loss against the Sarmatians as the Sweboz; I got hasty and I stupidly abandoned my winning principle of strength in numbers and I sent a single stack alone up into the steppes to finish my conquest of the Bosporus. Turns out, my spy missed a fast-moving stack under the command of an 8 star warlord - they simply overran my troops on the battle map and slaughtered them. I lost over 70 percent of that army and had to return to my base of operations in Greece with the Sarmatian menace still looming over the Danube and Cheresoneses...

Sounds exciting! I've got vivid memories of a campaign I lost despite many battles and all the efforts to save it (it was Poland in the Stainless Steel - I took Prague and the (un)Holy (not)Roman (not)Empire got nervous, sent a few full stacks that were joined by the Lithuanians, Kievan Rus and the Kipchacks from the other side ;-)

[Lusitanio]

Playing with Hard and increasing AIGenerals Hitpoints does the trick for me Battles are hard and take their time, but can be pretty dangerous if the enemy General survives for too long x)

[Beckitz]

I should do VH, but generally stick to H. I like H, since, I try and make every campaign into a alt 'Rise of Rome' -esque supercampaign, only with whatever faction it happens to be

[Aper]

Playing with Hard and increasing AIGenerals Hitpoints does the trick for me Battles are hard and take their time, but can be pretty dangerous if the enemy General survives for too long x)

This.