16
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
17
Sell/Trade / Gimme Morion and Brigandine over Aketon or Palace Guard, adding gold
« on: July 01, 2013, 06:56:06 pm »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
+50k visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
+125k -> visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
(or any other colour, but prefer blue or red)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
If you can help me with any of this, please PM me offers. Of course I am talking all +3's here.
+50k visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
+125k -> visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
(or any other colour, but prefer blue or red)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
If you can help me with any of this, please PM me offers. Of course I am talking all +3's here.
19
Closed Requests / Ban The_Great_Dictator
« on: June 24, 2013, 02:06:16 pm »
He spawned twice in one round. I just couldn't fit both deaths in one log screen, but the top one shows the start of the round, where The_Great_Dictator was getting ganked and managed to quickly disconnect just before dying, then later in the round I met him again. The bottom of the first screen and the top of the second screen being the same hopefully proves that it is the same round.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
20
Sell/Trade / Teeth trading everything - Looking for Arab head armor and MW pike
« on: May 22, 2013, 02:55:38 pm »
Trading these items
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Looking for:
- +3 Pike
- +3 Light Body armor (35-40 body armor unloomed)
- +3 Helmet (Arab culture)
- Any gold or heirloom point offers which might help me obtain these items.
Specifically these two:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Other helmets I'm interested in of the above two are hard to obtain:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
If you have any other helmets of which you think they will look good with the Sarranid Mail Shirt, offer them and I will think about it. If you have any other light armours feel free to offer them as I am not entirely sure about going Arab. If you can help me get a helmet or MW pike, offer away!
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Looking for:
- +3 Pike
- +3 Light Body armor (35-40 body armor unloomed)
- +3 Helmet (Arab culture)
- Any gold or heirloom point offers which might help me obtain these items.
Specifically these two:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Other helmets I'm interested in of the above two are hard to obtain:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
If you have any other helmets of which you think they will look good with the Sarranid Mail Shirt, offer them and I will think about it. If you have any other light armours feel free to offer them as I am not entirely sure about going Arab. If you can help me get a helmet or MW pike, offer away!
21
Game Balance Discussion / English Bill and Swiss Halberd rebalance suggestion
« on: April 15, 2013, 11:06:21 pm »
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
These two weapons occupy quite a unique role in the polearms section (and they look way fucking cool). They are two directional, of which we have many, but what sets these two apart is that their overheads are as good, if not better than their stabs. These weapons provide the longest, high damage overheads in the game. However, the turn rate tweak hit these weapons hard, especially the English Bill. The new turnrates are calculated using weight and length of weapons. Now these weapons score quite high on both. I can't seem to find the formula but I remember doing the calculations for a few weapons and the English Bill got the same turn rate value as the Great Maul and the Pike, the heaviest and longest weapon in the game. The minimum turn rate of 5, compared to 14 in Native and 7 in cRPG before the tweak. This turn rate of 5 does barely allow any turning. Now trust me when I say that for a 2D support polearm turn rate matters a lot for the effectivity of the weapon.
Now the pike, although underpowered as well in my opinion, can still function similar to the way it has before, because 10 degrees of turning amount to quite a great distance at the length at which the pike operates. The Great Maul can basically only do overheads in a straight line, but it has a bazillion blunt damage and crushthrough. Now the English Bill and Swiss Halberd are not as extremely long and not clearly OP and they feel pretty damn gimped now. Case and point, how often do you see either of these weapons being used?
In my opinion these weapons should be compared with other 2D polearms of similar length which I have displayed below. The stab damages are comparable, length varies. Now all these 2D polearms are clearly meant for stabbing with the overhead only serving as a downblock breaker. The length to weight ratio is higher on the Swiss Halberd and English Bill than any of these weapons. Of these the Long Awlpike is a way better choice than the English Bill and the Ashwood Pike is a way better choice than the Swiss Halberd.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
In my opinion, 2D support polearms of the same length should have similar turnrates. Currently the biggest effect that weight has on how a weapon performs is on its turn rate, stunning weapons, getting stunned and movement speed reduction all have less significant effects. I think the low turn rate and thus the weight is too big a disadvantage for the Swiss Halberd, English Bill and while we're at it, the Partisan. Sure a weapon may look heavier, but balance takes precedence over realism and what is the point of giving a weapon stats that fit its look when you never actually see it being used anyway.
Now of course the devs have said that they are planning to implement weapon specific turn rates at some point, but we all know that the ETA of that is December 2010. So I suggest the following changes to be done to the weight of overhead support polearms to bring them back in the game until then. Due to the polearm stab being a faster and in my opinion better animation than the polearm overhead this will not make these weapons too strong, as they do have significantly weaker stabs.
English Bill : From 4 to 2.8 (Same as the Long Awlpike which has 11 more length and is therefore still less gimped by the turn rate)
Swiss Halberd : From 3.2 to 2.5 (Same as most of the 2D stab polearms, closest in length is the awlpike which has 5 more pierce, so I'd say that is okay)
Partisan : From 3 to 2.5 (Same as most of the 2D stab polearms, but this still makes the Partisan a complete turd, buff its stats. 37c stab simply does not compare to 32p + 9 length)
tl;dr version: Gib turnrate pls
You should probably up the ashwood pike weight to 2.3 or 2.5 as well
Or just remove the boring turn rate nerf altogether
These two weapons occupy quite a unique role in the polearms section (and they look way fucking cool). They are two directional, of which we have many, but what sets these two apart is that their overheads are as good, if not better than their stabs. These weapons provide the longest, high damage overheads in the game. However, the turn rate tweak hit these weapons hard, especially the English Bill. The new turnrates are calculated using weight and length of weapons. Now these weapons score quite high on both. I can't seem to find the formula but I remember doing the calculations for a few weapons and the English Bill got the same turn rate value as the Great Maul and the Pike, the heaviest and longest weapon in the game. The minimum turn rate of 5, compared to 14 in Native and 7 in cRPG before the tweak. This turn rate of 5 does barely allow any turning. Now trust me when I say that for a 2D support polearm turn rate matters a lot for the effectivity of the weapon.
Now the pike, although underpowered as well in my opinion, can still function similar to the way it has before, because 10 degrees of turning amount to quite a great distance at the length at which the pike operates. The Great Maul can basically only do overheads in a straight line, but it has a bazillion blunt damage and crushthrough. Now the English Bill and Swiss Halberd are not as extremely long and not clearly OP and they feel pretty damn gimped now. Case and point, how often do you see either of these weapons being used?
In my opinion these weapons should be compared with other 2D polearms of similar length which I have displayed below. The stab damages are comparable, length varies. Now all these 2D polearms are clearly meant for stabbing with the overhead only serving as a downblock breaker. The length to weight ratio is higher on the Swiss Halberd and English Bill than any of these weapons. Of these the Long Awlpike is a way better choice than the English Bill and the Ashwood Pike is a way better choice than the Swiss Halberd.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
In my opinion, 2D support polearms of the same length should have similar turnrates. Currently the biggest effect that weight has on how a weapon performs is on its turn rate, stunning weapons, getting stunned and movement speed reduction all have less significant effects. I think the low turn rate and thus the weight is too big a disadvantage for the Swiss Halberd, English Bill and while we're at it, the Partisan. Sure a weapon may look heavier, but balance takes precedence over realism and what is the point of giving a weapon stats that fit its look when you never actually see it being used anyway.
Now of course the devs have said that they are planning to implement weapon specific turn rates at some point, but we all know that the ETA of that is December 2010. So I suggest the following changes to be done to the weight of overhead support polearms to bring them back in the game until then. Due to the polearm stab being a faster and in my opinion better animation than the polearm overhead this will not make these weapons too strong, as they do have significantly weaker stabs.
English Bill : From 4 to 2.8 (Same as the Long Awlpike which has 11 more length and is therefore still less gimped by the turn rate)
Swiss Halberd : From 3.2 to 2.5 (Same as most of the 2D stab polearms, closest in length is the awlpike which has 5 more pierce, so I'd say that is okay)
Partisan : From 3 to 2.5 (Same as most of the 2D stab polearms, but this still makes the Partisan a complete turd, buff its stats. 37c stab simply does not compare to 32p + 9 length)
tl;dr version: Gib turnrate pls
You should probably up the ashwood pike weight to 2.3 or 2.5 as well
Or just remove the boring turn rate nerf altogether
22
Suggestions Corner / Valour tweak suggestion.
« on: March 28, 2013, 12:06:43 pm »
I am not sure what the formula for getting valour is, but I find it silly that your chances of valour depend not only on the performance of your team, but also on the performance on the other team. I will provide some examples to illustrate my point.
Example 1:
It is a horribly unbalanced round of battle with the enemy team barely only a handful of players while ganking your team. Most of your team didn't even reach 10 points in the round, but you managed to hold out fairly well and got 30 points, making you have a way above average score. The valorous top gankers on the other team got 40 or even 50 points with most of their team having a good 20 points due to proximity score. Which makes the top gankers on their team receive valour instead of you. There is no doubt in that the top scores of the other team did well, but you can't really compare the circumstances in which they got 40-50 points and you got 30. Considering the circumstances I'd say you were as valorous if not more than they were.
Example 2:
Oh Siege, valour on Siege, ain't that something. You are playing a shitty ladder map and are attacking. You charge up the ladder valiantly again and again and you manage to do incredibly well. Accruing 120 points in the round. You are well on top of your team and even though you didn't manage to win no one can say you didn't try. Then looking at the other side of the scoreboard, 4 people with over 200 points. All of them high damage 2h who spent their round camping the top of a ladder, with loads of proximity points being awarded to a lot of people. Of course they were very useful for their team, but you can't really compare the circumstances in which they got so much more points than you.
My suggestion being that valour should only depend on the scores of your team, because they got those scores in comparable circumstances. This goes especially for siege, where as an attacker you often have no chance at all to gain valour. It goes for battle as well though, being on a winning team makes getting points a lot easier. Comparing apples and oranges makes the valour system unfair. I don't know why the system works like that in the first place, but it is not too late to change it.
Example 1:
It is a horribly unbalanced round of battle with the enemy team barely only a handful of players while ganking your team. Most of your team didn't even reach 10 points in the round, but you managed to hold out fairly well and got 30 points, making you have a way above average score. The valorous top gankers on the other team got 40 or even 50 points with most of their team having a good 20 points due to proximity score. Which makes the top gankers on their team receive valour instead of you. There is no doubt in that the top scores of the other team did well, but you can't really compare the circumstances in which they got 40-50 points and you got 30. Considering the circumstances I'd say you were as valorous if not more than they were.
Example 2:
Oh Siege, valour on Siege, ain't that something. You are playing a shitty ladder map and are attacking. You charge up the ladder valiantly again and again and you manage to do incredibly well. Accruing 120 points in the round. You are well on top of your team and even though you didn't manage to win no one can say you didn't try. Then looking at the other side of the scoreboard, 4 people with over 200 points. All of them high damage 2h who spent their round camping the top of a ladder, with loads of proximity points being awarded to a lot of people. Of course they were very useful for their team, but you can't really compare the circumstances in which they got so much more points than you.
My suggestion being that valour should only depend on the scores of your team, because they got those scores in comparable circumstances. This goes especially for siege, where as an attacker you often have no chance at all to gain valour. It goes for battle as well though, being on a winning team makes getting points a lot easier. Comparing apples and oranges makes the valour system unfair. I don't know why the system works like that in the first place, but it is not too late to change it.
23
Sell/Trade / Looking for +3 Ashwood and Round Shield, Igot +3 Guard Helmet and German Poleaxe
« on: March 11, 2013, 08:58:41 pm »
Help a poor hoplite get hoplite stuff of his own:
I need
Masterwork Ashwood Pike
Masterpiece Round Shield
Offering
Lordly Guard Helmet
Mighty German Poleaxe
Tell me if you can do something for me.
I need
Masterwork Ashwood Pike
Masterpiece Round Shield
Offering
Lordly Guard Helmet
Mighty German Poleaxe
Tell me if you can do something for me.
24
Scene Editing / Vocht Castle, my first siege scene, feedback requested
« on: March 08, 2013, 05:46:15 pm »
I have made a siege map for the first time. During the making of this map some questions arose, which I will ask in this thread as well as requesting some thoughts and feedback of my fellow mappers on this map, before uploading a final version.
The main feature of this map is an underwater tunnel straight to the flag.
This tunnel has portcullises at both the start and the end, which require opening before this quick way into the castle can be used. Opening these is intended to be quite easy and it will probably happen within the first minute of the map. After which the attackers have a 30 second long route to the flag. However there is a risk of drowning if you can't get through fast enough and the defenders should be able to close the gates with some effort. Also, some defenders in the tunnel can cause some serious drowning.
I tested drowning in cRPG and it takes 20 seconds. The scene editor character takes 14 seconds to get through the water, which seems like a good time to me, leaves you 6 seconds to fight your way to oxygen. Which brings me to my first question.
1. How does the speed of the scene editor character compare to your average cRPG character and does 14 seconds sound good to you?
Here is an overview of the map:
The yellow dots represent spawn spots for defenders, this is very approximate and there are some which aren't visible topdown. My intention with placing the spawn points though was to always have the flag reasonable close. Personally I hate nothing more in siege than spawning at the arse end of the castle when the flag is being taken, making you have to walk almost as long as the attackers to get there.
There are 4 routes to the flag, the tunnel, a jump over some water for the players that opened the gates, a side ladder and a backdoor. I have listed the the time it takes the scene editor character to get to the flag with each route. I hope the 10 second difference gives enough of an incentive to use the tunnel at a risk of drowning.
The two small red arrows represent the spots where defenders can jump down to defend the winches or close the gates, this is a one way jump.
Moar questions:
2. What is your impression of overall balance, does the map seem to favour attackers or defenders to you and what would have to change?
3. I started with a too big map size, does having quite some empty useless map space decrease performance significantly and if so, is there a way to change it without ruining your map?
4. Do I have too many trees?
I have 2 more general questions:
5. I found a sweet scene prop called box_dynamic, which functions as a box you can push around. A wall of boxes that the attackers have to knock through seemed cool, but I expect it to be buggy or laggy. Do you recommend using them?
6. I would love to test this siege map by hosting it, to at least make sure the doors, gates and ladders work, but I do not really get how. I have a cRPG Mapmaking module, but if I try to host any siege map there I get error opcode 16 and my game crashes. In which module should I host and how do I host my map specifically?
If you could answer any of these questions I would appreciate it.
The main feature of this map is an underwater tunnel straight to the flag.
(click to show/hide)
This tunnel has portcullises at both the start and the end, which require opening before this quick way into the castle can be used. Opening these is intended to be quite easy and it will probably happen within the first minute of the map. After which the attackers have a 30 second long route to the flag. However there is a risk of drowning if you can't get through fast enough and the defenders should be able to close the gates with some effort. Also, some defenders in the tunnel can cause some serious drowning.
I tested drowning in cRPG and it takes 20 seconds. The scene editor character takes 14 seconds to get through the water, which seems like a good time to me, leaves you 6 seconds to fight your way to oxygen. Which brings me to my first question.
1. How does the speed of the scene editor character compare to your average cRPG character and does 14 seconds sound good to you?
Here is an overview of the map:
(click to show/hide)
The yellow dots represent spawn spots for defenders, this is very approximate and there are some which aren't visible topdown. My intention with placing the spawn points though was to always have the flag reasonable close. Personally I hate nothing more in siege than spawning at the arse end of the castle when the flag is being taken, making you have to walk almost as long as the attackers to get there.
There are 4 routes to the flag, the tunnel, a jump over some water for the players that opened the gates, a side ladder and a backdoor. I have listed the the time it takes the scene editor character to get to the flag with each route. I hope the 10 second difference gives enough of an incentive to use the tunnel at a risk of drowning.
The two small red arrows represent the spots where defenders can jump down to defend the winches or close the gates, this is a one way jump.
Moar questions:
2. What is your impression of overall balance, does the map seem to favour attackers or defenders to you and what would have to change?
3. I started with a too big map size, does having quite some empty useless map space decrease performance significantly and if so, is there a way to change it without ruining your map?
4. Do I have too many trees?
I have 2 more general questions:
5. I found a sweet scene prop called box_dynamic, which functions as a box you can push around. A wall of boxes that the attackers have to knock through seemed cool, but I expect it to be buggy or laggy. Do you recommend using them?
6. I would love to test this siege map by hosting it, to at least make sure the doors, gates and ladders work, but I do not really get how. I have a cRPG Mapmaking module, but if I try to host any siege map there I get error opcode 16 and my game crashes. In which module should I host and how do I host my map specifically?
If you could answer any of these questions I would appreciate it.
25
Closed Requests / [Ban] Shokoshugi_Tiborur
« on: March 06, 2013, 12:35:35 pm »
I must say I rejoiced a little when Royanss killed Shokoshugi early in the round, only for that son of a bitch to kill my horse later in the same round. Shokoshugi was rejoining to respawn.
At the top of the screen you can see the end of the last round. Royanss kills Shokoshugi short after. Pecores_Thorhammer kills him again one tick later.
At the top of the screen you can see the end of the last round. Royanss kills Shokoshugi short after. Pecores_Thorhammer kills him again one tick later.
(click to show/hide)
27
General Discussion / Bask in your new item glory here
« on: March 05, 2013, 10:42:07 am »
GLORIOUS
That's the Phyrgian Helmet with Faceplate
(click to show/hide)
That's the Phyrgian Helmet with Faceplate
28
Strategus General Discussion / The kicking of attackers at Maras Castle
« on: March 02, 2013, 07:33:06 pm »
Okay, seemingly the other thread about the matter got deleted. I wrote a huge reply for it. We should be able to maturely discuss the problem and the one sided behaviour of some admins on this forum. At least have the decency to lock it and provide a reason for the lock at the end. I don't know who deleted the last thread, but I would like to know a reason. Completely removing threads smells like censorship and I ain't having none of that. So here goes.
Now I fully agree that it is completely stupid that after retreat the defenders have to go hunt down the attackers. In my opinion when the attackers retreat the battle should end, right there. They don't however, so we have to deal with it.
Don't give me this hypocritical bullshit though.
'Attackers have to attack'
'Leave the server if you can't attack'
'If you don't attack you will get kicked'
'Stop delaying'
It's all true, but the defenders on this battle have done the exact same thing themselves half a dozen times that I witnessed alone.
Everytime you attacked any castle, you holed yourselves up in some tower after retreating with a bunch of great mauls and the defenders lost a 100 tickets trying to kill the last 30 of yours. Happened in Uxhal and Etrosq castle for example. In fact that is even worse, because you had the possibility to attack but instead you waited for us to come get you. We had no ladders, we even tried breaking down the gate.
What a surprise however, that there never was any talk of leaving the server, or kicking people when you guys we're doing it. Grey and DRZ do not have a single admin, so they took their loss, attacked you while you camped a favourable position as the attacking team. I am pretty sure you had an admin present for almost every siege that occured in, there were like 3 now, but no one was kicked for not attacking when you were doing it.
At least have the decency to apply the same standards to your own clan as the other side as an admin. We will try to get a Byzantium admin on next time you try to pull this shit, and I can hear the crying already. You should have jumped down and you should have killed us. You were jumping down fine for the entire duration of the battle, you destroyed the only ladder we had left yourselves, by jumping out of the castle. Besides the only attempt you did was done very poorly, with people almost intentionally missing the spikes. You guys jumped over the battlements instead of on it and then carefully dropping. All in all a clear attempt to pretend that you guys were in an impossible position, even though you jumping out worked fine earlier on. There were also better spots to jump down from.
I even bothered to siege the castle in a Native singleplayer game. Might be hard to see, but I can assure you that you would survive jumping down there in a non retard manner.
I just expect that you will kick yourselves too when you are not making any moves to attack in the next siege you do, you won't of course, but I will be noting the presence of Erzengel, Cyrus and Everkistus in those sieges and I hope one of you will find some objectivity in himself.
Now I fully agree that it is completely stupid that after retreat the defenders have to go hunt down the attackers. In my opinion when the attackers retreat the battle should end, right there. They don't however, so we have to deal with it.
Don't give me this hypocritical bullshit though.
'Attackers have to attack'
'Leave the server if you can't attack'
'If you don't attack you will get kicked'
'Stop delaying'
It's all true, but the defenders on this battle have done the exact same thing themselves half a dozen times that I witnessed alone.
Everytime you attacked any castle, you holed yourselves up in some tower after retreating with a bunch of great mauls and the defenders lost a 100 tickets trying to kill the last 30 of yours. Happened in Uxhal and Etrosq castle for example. In fact that is even worse, because you had the possibility to attack but instead you waited for us to come get you. We had no ladders, we even tried breaking down the gate.
What a surprise however, that there never was any talk of leaving the server, or kicking people when you guys we're doing it. Grey and DRZ do not have a single admin, so they took their loss, attacked you while you camped a favourable position as the attacking team. I am pretty sure you had an admin present for almost every siege that occured in, there were like 3 now, but no one was kicked for not attacking when you were doing it.
At least have the decency to apply the same standards to your own clan as the other side as an admin. We will try to get a Byzantium admin on next time you try to pull this shit, and I can hear the crying already. You should have jumped down and you should have killed us. You were jumping down fine for the entire duration of the battle, you destroyed the only ladder we had left yourselves, by jumping out of the castle. Besides the only attempt you did was done very poorly, with people almost intentionally missing the spikes. You guys jumped over the battlements instead of on it and then carefully dropping. All in all a clear attempt to pretend that you guys were in an impossible position, even though you jumping out worked fine earlier on. There were also better spots to jump down from.
I even bothered to siege the castle in a Native singleplayer game. Might be hard to see, but I can assure you that you would survive jumping down there in a non retard manner.
(click to show/hide)
I just expect that you will kick yourselves too when you are not making any moves to attack in the next siege you do, you won't of course, but I will be noting the presence of Erzengel, Cyrus and Everkistus in those sieges and I hope one of you will find some objectivity in himself.
29
General Discussion / Hoplite Gameplay Video
« on: February 26, 2013, 11:00:49 pm »
Turns out that with WSE 2 I can actually record gameplay of cRPG, which I did. I present thee, 9 fucking minutes of me playing this game this afternoon, filled solely with stabbing. Masterfully put together using Windows Movie Maker. I would have put some music in it, but I couldn't find 'Let the bodies hit the floor' on my computer and finding something else that is somewhat appropriate and not silly is hard. Camera work can be described as spastic at best, and sadly you can't really read all my e-peen scoreboards that I flash through out the video. I was too lazy to make proper fade ins and outs between clips.
Nevertheless enjoy, kudos if you make it all the way through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la1VK_w6CKU
Quality of what I recorded was a lot higher than what came out after I published it on youtube, is that always the case or did I fuck up somewhere?
Nevertheless enjoy, kudos if you make it all the way through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la1VK_w6CKU
Quality of what I recorded was a lot higher than what came out after I published it on youtube, is that always the case or did I fuck up somewhere?
30
Strategus General Discussion / The mysterious disappearance of 400 troops
« on: February 12, 2013, 02:28:24 pm »
Here is the battle overview screen for the Ottoman - Wolves battle just now. Even though almost everyone had a K/D of 2 or more, we somehow lost 856 troops to their 1150.
Here is the complete roster with all their deaths added up. Excuse me for the mild e-peen.
229 deaths
211 deaths
22 deaths
Which brings me to the grand total of 462 deaths. Where did those 394 troops disappear to?
Edit: Messed up the counting. Screens overlapped, the total is 462 deaths.
The entire battle scroll itself: http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battleroster&id=2377
(click to show/hide)
Here is the complete roster with all their deaths added up. Excuse me for the mild e-peen.
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Which brings me to the grand total of 462 deaths. Where did those 394 troops disappear to?
Edit: Messed up the counting. Screens overlapped, the total is 462 deaths.
The entire battle scroll itself: http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battleroster&id=2377