View Full Version : One question

4th March 2005, 12:58 AM
How come an attacking force has less casualties than the defending? even though the damage done by the defender is greater than the attackers :no:

4th March 2005, 01:08 AM
There is a random factor in every battle calculation. One the whole, the person with the most damage will sustain the least casualities, but from battle to battle this may not always be the case.

4th March 2005, 01:10 AM
This may not neccesarily be true it may of just been a coincedence but I have noticed that if a larger army attacks a smaller army that the bigger army suffers less casualties.

Happens with me anyway. :)

4th March 2005, 01:18 AM
Thx for the answer, even if it does not explain the problem, every time there is a cassualty, my defending forces has a greater casualty than the attacker, even though my army is 10 times larger than the attacker

4th March 2005, 12:12 PM
Actually, I think it's the exact opposite of what lord_blurg said. If the two armies are approximately equal in strength, the bigger army usually sustains more casualties. That was certainly true last age, anyway.

4th March 2005, 03:20 PM
i have noticed to tendencies,

1: when a larger army attacks a smaller and equivalent damage is done (either equal strength or random factor) the larger takes more damage
2: it seems that having a high % of untrained soldiers leads to more casualties,
i havn't tested this but it seems when i have enough def soldiers to take the hit i lose a few but if my def soldiers (mercenaries) are gone my untrained soldiers will use weapons and i have much higher casualties
gist seems to be untrained casualty chance higher than trained true???

and pretty sure everyone agrees bigger an army gets the more casualties it suffers

5th March 2005, 06:39 AM
true. Untrained soldiers die first and i much greater number then trained. Also the bigger you army is the more casualties you're going to have in a battle.