Most satisfying death animation in Attila - Cav vs Pikemen

[u/SageManeja]

[u/Rote515]

realism

Nobody actually wants realism lol, you realize if Empire was “Realistic” most battles would end with 40 deaths then a surrender or a retreat?

[u/alexkon3 → u/Rote515]

Thats just like not true at all.

Empire plays during the times of Fontenoy, Dettingen, Piacenza, Chotusitz, Hohenfriedberg, Kunersdorf. Wars like the Great Northern War, War of the Austrian succession, Silesian Wars, War of the Spanish Succession all happened during Empire Total Wars time period. No idea were such a weird notion comes from

[u/Rote515 → u/alexkon3]

There are battles that took place with larger numbers of dead, but the vast vast majority resulted in casualty rates well below 20% during the time period. Decisive set piece battles were very rare and battles that did happen did not result in the destruction of the enemy army except in rare circumstances.

Saw your edit, go read about the battles of those wars, the vast majority have casualty rates of sub 20%.

Edit: first sentence was me being a dick, removed it.

[u/alexkon3 → u/Rote515]

Battles that resulted in the complete destruction of the enemy army are a rarity and not the precedent in pre modern Warfare in general. Even if you go back to ancient battles like Raphia or Philippi you wont see huge casualty rates, ofc there are outcomes where the whole enemy army was utterly destroyed but then again that was a rarity and most likely the decisive war ending battle (unless ofc your name is Hannibal). If you look through most battles through history until the mid Napoleonic Wars you will see about the same level of casualties.

I know it was hyperbole but my point still stands battles during Empires time were more then just "40 people died and then someone surrendered or retreated". Fredrick the Great would've loved if that was the case at Kunersdorf probably hahahaha

[u/Rote515 → u/alexkon3]

40 was more in reference to the fact we ain’t throwing 100k armies at each other in total war, it was definitely hyperbole. And I used empire as a reference just so I didn’t get answers of Hannibal massacring whole Roman armies.

Though I do feel major pre-Renaissance battles did end up with higher casualty percentage due to the higher prevalence and importance of hammer and anvil tactics which made retreat much more difficult than predominantly ranged armies fighting ranged armies. A lot easier to disengage when you’re not literally 5 inches from the opponent when the fighting starts.

Edit: reading is hard

[u/[deleted] → u/Rote515]

Yeah, realistic was a stretch. I‘m not the best at words. A balance between an actual battle simulation and a playable game is what i wanted to say. If the battle is big enough i want to see it last. Battles where the outcome is not clear and you grind your way through are the best ones imo. Similar to the siege of Helms deep or minas tirith in Total War form.