Weird Battle Results

[kev9000]

Getting some strange battle results. For example a large Prussian stack attacks a small French one and sustains 35000+ casulaties while the French one sustains 35 - thirty five - and thus we have a Coalition defeat.

Seen a couple of these, will start saving games to get some data together. Anybody else seeing results like this?

[Clovis]

Getting some strange battle results. For example a large Prussian stack attacks a small French one and sustains 35000+ casulaties while the French one sustains 35 - thirty five - and thus we have a Coalition defeat.

Seen a couple of these, will start saving games to get some data together. Anybody else seeing results like this?

yes. Sometimes. reserving my jugement on the causes of such odd results ( after all, I could be myself not a military genius) but there's rarely results I can't explain.

[aristoteles]

I have noticed the same odd battle results, when a huge stack attacks a garrison or some militia units, I don´t understand why it happens that way but suspected that could be related with frontage...

[IronX]

Ditto. 1100 vs 48000 (eh, it was Napoleon commanding after all). But then he was defeated after taking only 250 casualties and inflicting 3800.

I recall the same anomalies occurring with AACW.

[kev9000]

I would think there's an issue with battle resolution. Question now is to help Pocus track it down, so keep you savegames and note these anomalous results...

[tevans6220]

The same thing has been happening to me. I'm beginning to think that maybe it's due to leader ratings. The French leaders may be rated a bit too high in attack/defense and it gives such a huge bonus that Coalition leaders can't match up with them. One scenario I played had Davout with attack/defense ratings of something like 8 or 9 on attack and a 10 for defense. From what I've seen of the Coalition leaders, there aren't many if any that can match up to that. Not knowing much about Napoleonic history I wasn't sure if the French were indeed that good or if something needed to be tweaked. I would venture to say now that some adjustments need to be made.

[Sol Invictus]

Davout was that good, but I agree, he shouldn't be able to swat the Coalition Forces away effortlessly. Might need some tweaking. I haven't played enought to be sure yet.

[Le Tondu]

I too saw a strange result. The French fought Wellington in the 1815 scenario and they lost 21,000 while the Brits only lost 492.

I simply chalked it up to my inexperience with the game.

[Big Muddy]

I too saw a strange result. The French fought Wellington in the 1815 scenario and they lost 21,000 while the Brits only lost 492.

I simply chalked it up to my inexperience with the game.

When AACW came out the same thing happened, once in a while I still get odd results. Ageod will improve over time, the Brits put a whipping on ya

[FatalMad]

I agree these one sided combat results are happening way too often.

[PhilThib]

We are running numerous tests to balance things continuously...

[Adlertag]

Ditto. 1100 vs 48000 (eh, it was Napoleon commanding after all). But then he was defeated after taking only 250 casualties and inflicting 3800.

I recall the same anomalies occurring with AACW.

Here battle result is very weird !
Maybe Napoleon Genius trait is too strong and gives too much bonuses...

[stagira]

i found that in every battle, losses reported at the bottom of battle window are usually halved, compared either to involved units at turn end, either to loss summary in Objective panel (F5). What's the wrong number?
(my suggestion is to think upon it, because the same loss rate of AACW - 100men per "shot" would n't be historically correct)

[kev9000]

It's very hard to have confidence in any battle result now, even the ones that appear reasonable... I am going back to BOA until we have a fix, but am more than happy to test patches, which I know will be coming quickly thanks to Pocus and the great team of AGEOD!

[Clovis]

It's very hard to have confidence in any battle result now, even the ones that appear reasonable... I am going back to BOA until we have a fix, but am more than happy to test patches, which I know will be coming quickly thanks to Pocus and the great team of AGEOD!

hum...patch is yet here. Download the 1.0b

[DON]

This is why I didn't report the strange battle results, which I have also experienced, since I knew that Ageod would have a patch out promptly after the initial report. However I did not expect one as swiftly as today! Other companies could draw good lessons in customer service from the example of Ageod!

[kev9000]

Didn't see battle result fix in the readme.
Always have faith in Pocus and friends!!!!!

[Sol Invictus]

Pocus continues to amaze.

[Noelopan Fan]

Getting some strange battle results. For example a large Prussian stack attacks a small French one and sustains 35000+ casulaties while the French one sustains 35 - thirty five - and thus we have a Coalition defeat.

Seen a couple of these, will start saving games to get some data together. Anybody else seeing results like this?

Hi, I think there should be some reasons for your defeat. First, it might be due to strategic ratings (as tevans6220 had mentioned). Second, it might be due to the lack of supplys and ammunition in for your army. Soldiers cannot fight properly without supplys and ammunition,so that might be one reason. Next, it might be that your army used an all out attack, wihich means that you will have more casualties. Next, your army might have forced marched, or the National Morale points is very low, which makes the troops lose cohesion, move, fight or retreat slowly. Also, it might depend on frontage (as aristoteles had mentioned), which meant that most of the units in the army is unfit to fight in the terrain of the battlefield. The French might have took advangage of that.

I have not seen results like that - 35 vs 35000 casualties! My worst defeat was losing some 35000 men, but Napoleon himself lost 5000 troops.

Good luck.