Battle Results Don't Make Sense

[tevans6220]

Don't know if it's just the Boer War scenario or all the scenarios but the battle results do not make any sense. Just had a battle where almost 11k British soldiers suffered 100% casualties against 712 Boers. That's nearly impossible odds. Almost like the stand of the 300 at Thermoplyae. Something is way off.

One other thing I've noticed is that there is no way to buy replacements. I have the money, the officers and the conscripts but nothing else. No goods. No steel. Are replacements automatic or am I supposed to be buying them and the thing is bugged?

[McNaughton]

Don't know if it's just the Boer War scenario or all the scenarios but the battle results do not make any sense. Just had a battle where almost 11k British soldiers suffered 100% casualties against 712 Boers. That's nearly impossible odds. Almost like the stand of the 300 at Thermoplyae. Something is way off.

One other thing I've noticed is that there is no way to buy replacements. I have the money, the officers and the conscripts but nothing else. No goods. No steel. Are replacements automatic or am I supposed to be buying them and the thing is bugged?

No bug here (replacements). It is designed to start off with the replacements you begin with, plus any via event. One thing the British really have going for them is the knowledge that they will be able to bleed out the Boers and win via pure numbers and weight of troops, so regardless of your casualties, eventually you will overwhelm them.

Possibly more replacements via event would be good, but, we do not want to allow for too easy casualty replacement (otherwize the steamroll would be too quick).

[von Sachsen]

Plus in terms of replacements the Brits already have a huge advantage, mostly because if a Boer unit is hit, it dies, whereas British regiments have a bit more durability and so can actually benefit from replacements.

[tevans6220]

The confusing part was that money and officers/conscripts show. I thought I was supposed to be purchasing replacements and was missing the other resources through a bug. Now I know. Thanks.

[Narwhal]

I had the same 100% casualties right against the Brits myself. Like 20 000 Boers meet 150 000 Brits. No more Brits now. They all died, except 1000 that were actually captured guns.

Casualties are way off in my opinion in general, and especially in this scenario.

Also, not being able to build ANYONE is frustrating as Boers. There should be limited option to build a few replacements, or at least events.

[McNaughton]

I had the same 100% casualties right against the Brits myself. Like 20 000 Boers meet 150 000 Brits. No more Brits now. They all died, except 1000 that were actually captured guns.

Casualties are way off in my opinion in general, and especially in this scenario.

Also, not being able to build ANYONE is frustrating as Boers. There should be limited option to build a few replacements, or at least events.

Actually, you have to read the stats carefully, check the victory point page and you will see how many prisoners you have captured, I bet that there are tens of thousands there. Captured weaponry is seen on map, captured soldiers are seen in events and your VP ledger. So no, those soldiers are not killed. There is nothing wrong with the causualties, the terrain and infrastructure does not breed to retreating forces, the troops were defeated, unable to quickly retreat, and were rounded up.

[tevans6220]

Actually, you have to read the stats carefully, check the victory point page and you will see how many prisoners you have captured, I bet that there are tens of thousands there. Captured weaponry is seen on map, captured soldiers are seen in events and your VP ledger. So no, those soldiers are not killed. There is nothing wrong with the causualties, the terrain and infrastructure does not breed to retreating forces, the troops were defeated, unable to quickly retreat, and were rounded up.

Sorry McNaughton but I believe you're wrong. Even looking at the stats carefully how can you justify 20,000 Boers defeating 150,000 British? Odds of over 7 to 1. You can say the numbers are just flavor all you want but what are those numbers actually based on? And using elements as a basis to justify a result like this doesn't make much sense either. Are all elements created equal? That's like saying a squad is equal to a division. Something is definitely off with the numbers. This same system works in all other Ageod games but in PoN battle results are problematic. They aren't believable or even in the realm of believability. Trying to explain it away with game mechanics isn't solving anything. I believe the stats need to be looked at and tweaked to reflect size difference in elements. This isn't user error or a misunderstanding of game mechanics. Something is definitely wrong.

[McNaughton]

Sorry McNaughton but I believe you're wrong. Even looking at the stats carefully how can you justify 20,000 Boers defeating 150,000 British? Odds of over 7 to 1. You can say the numbers are just flavor all you want but what are those numbers actually based on? And using elements as a basis to justify a result like this doesn't make much sense either. Are all elements created equal? That's like saying a squad is equal to a division. Something is definitely off with the numbers. This same system works in all other Ageod games but in PoN battle results are problematic. They aren't believable or even in the realm of believability. Trying to explain it away with game mechanics isn't solving anything. I believe the stats need to be looked at and tweaked to reflect size difference in elements. This isn't user error or a misunderstanding of game mechanics. Something is definitely wrong.

Well, if you would offer some proof that would be great. From what I have seen, the results are as I have said, that troops were captured, not killed as was claimed. Please provide a screenshot showing that the troops were killed.

The system is the way it is because they did test, they did actually do this in order to avoide problems that were experienced in NCP, where there were too many differences between elements that resulted in massive imbalance. So, actually you are incorrect stating that all AGEOD games have flawless combat, as PoN is designed to be an improvement.

Indeed, this is working as designed, maybe not to your liking, but as designed. How else could the Boers do anything if they are expected to never win a battle? Did the Boers win battles? Yes.

There are a lot of things being neglected in this discussion, there is more going on behind the scenes than just the elements. As I keep on saying, and am keep on being ignored upon, is the impact of leaders, their stats, abilities, and activity level, along with terrain, supply, infrastructure, frontage, etc.

A force of 150 000 sent to a territory does not guarantee that all 150 000 will be in the front lines and actively engage the enemy. 300 000 Italians were sent against 70 000 Austrians in 1866, but fewer than 80 000 ever actually engaged the Austrians. This was because the command of the 300 000 Italians was horrid, while the Austrians much more united (constant in-fighting and incompetence hindered the Italian cause, which meant that so many troops fled the field without even engaging the enemy as the rest of the force that did engage was beaten back).

Boer elements are not 1:1 with a British element (never claimed to be), but is rather 1:6 (for every 6 Boers, the combat power is 1 British). However, the Boer element has other neat bonus', such as the better ability to spot, hide, patrol and evade, along with retreat bonus, desert bonus, and movement bonus. This, when up against the British line infantry (British Colonial Infantry are in a better position, given that they handle being in rough terrain a lot better due to a Colonial ability), they have an advantage, which the existing Boers did (in tactics). So, for a Boer element to hold off a British element makes sense, but maybe the representation of the quantity of men in a Boer element is off rather than something wrong about its stats?

I just counted up all of the active Boers in the Scenario, it just breaks the 30 000 man mark, with the Bulk being found in a few militia brigades and two cavalry brigades (about 14 000) which are not of much service. About 40 000 Boers were in the field forces to start, meaning that 10 000 are actually missing.

Now, what I can see being done is to change the Boer Kommando to a 500 man unit (from a 50 man unit) by simply changing the men per hit from 10 to 100. This results in no change in OOB, or stats for individual elements, it is merely a paper number showing total men. This should probably make up the missing 10 000 Boers, and mean that the Kommando's are a bit larger when you count up the men (i.e., each element is the proper 1/6 strength of a 3000 man british element, instead of 1/60 that a 50 man element would be).

Realistically, what does this change? Nothing, other than the representation of the number of men in the scenario (given that the Boers are under-represented when you count troops). Therefore the 20 000 Boers (2/3 the entire Boer Army) would have been increased to 27 000 men defeating 150 000 men.

[tevans6220]

I have offered proof on the Paradox forums. I even posted a screenshot. You responded by trying to explain my results away through game mechanics. I'd post a link but I don't know how. My example showed 11,000 Britsh soliders being literally wiped out by 750 Boers. The British took 9500 casualties compared to 150 for the Boers. And the Boers captured 3200 prisoners.

First it was it was leadership, terrain etc. Then it was me not understanding the game mechanics. Now I'm being told that those numbers mean nothing. That it's just flavor. But if I click on an icon to an element I get info about manpower, supply, etc. Taking that element into battle then clicking on the icon will show losses by that element as well as supplies lost or used. So what are all the numbers based on? This system works well with ACW, BOA, ROP, RUS and NCP. Why isn't it working in PoN. Something isn't working correctly.

[tevans6220]

Well, if you would offer some proof that would be great. From what I have seen, the results are as I have said, that troops were captured, not killed as was claimed. Please provide a screenshot showing that the troops were killed.

The system is the way it is because they did test, they did actually do this in order to avoide problems that were experienced in NCP, where there were too many differences between elements that resulted in massive imbalance. So, actually you are incorrect stating that all AGEOD games have flawless combat, as PoN is designed to be an improvement.

Indeed, this is working as designed, maybe not to your liking, but as designed. How else could the Boers do anything if they are expected to never win a battle? Did the Boers win battles? Yes.

There are a lot of things being neglected in this discussion, there is more going on behind the scenes than just the elements. As I keep on saying, and am keep on being ignored upon, is the impact of leaders, their stats, abilities, and activity level, along with terrain, supply, infrastructure, frontage, etc.

A force of 150 000 sent to a territory does not guarantee that all 150 000 will be in the front lines and actively engage the enemy. 300 000 Italians were sent against 70 000 Austrians in 1866, but fewer than 80 000 ever actually engaged the Austrians. This was because the command of the 300 000 Italians was horrid, while the Austrians much more united (constant in-fighting and incompetence hindered the Italian cause, which meant that so many troops fled the field without even engaging the enemy as the rest of the force that did engage was beaten back).

Boer elements are not 1:1 with a British element (never claimed to be), but is rather 1:6 (for every 6 Boers, the combat power is 1 British). However, the Boer element has other neat bonus', such as the better ability to spot, hide, patrol and evade, along with retreat bonus, desert bonus, and movement bonus. This, when up against the British line infantry (British Colonial Infantry are in a better position, given that they handle being in rough terrain a lot better due to a Colonial ability), they have an advantage, which the existing Boers did (in tactics). So, for a Boer element to hold off a British element makes sense, but maybe the representation of the quantity of men in a Boer element is off rather than something wrong about its stats?

I just counted up all of the active Boers in the Scenario, it just breaks the 30 000 man mark, with the Bulk being found in a few militia brigades and two cavalry brigades (about 14 000) which are not of much service. About 40 000 Boers were in the field forces to start, meaning that 10 000 are actually missing.

Now, what I can see being done is to change the Boer Kommando to a 500 man unit (from a 50 man unit) by simply changing the men per hit from 10 to 100. This results in no change in OOB, or stats for individual elements, it is merely a paper number showing total men. This should probably make up the missing 10 000 Boers, and mean that the Kommando's are a bit larger when you count up the men (i.e., each element is the proper 1/6 strength of a 3000 man british element, instead of 1/60 that a 50 man element would be).

Realistically, what does this change? Nothing, other than the representation of the number of men in the scenario (given that the Boers are under-represented when you count troops). Therefore the 20 000 Boers (2/3 the entire Boer Army) would have been increased to 27 000 men defeating 150 000 men.

I have offered proof on the Paradox forums by providing a screenshot. In that screenshot 11,000 British soldiers fought 750 Boers. The British casualty numbers were 9500 compared to the Boer loss of 150. The remaining 600 Boers took 3200 British prisoners. Prisoners outnumbered captors 5 to 1. You can try explaining that way with game mechanics but it doesn't make any sense. How is it that 11,000 British soldiers with 12 cannon can only hit 150 Boers while the Boers are able to severely punish the British and practically wipe out their whole force?

You say Boer elements are not 1:1 to British elements but are 1:6 instead. How am I supposed to know that? I only have the information the game presents to me. Which is numbers. Clicking on an icon element shows the manpower and supply situation of that element. Taking that element into battle then clicking on the icon will show losses of manpower and supply. So how do those numbers not mean anything?

Even in your Italy vs Austria example 70k vs 80k is practically even numberswise. Then it comes down to terrain, leadership and supply. In my example both sides were well armed and well supplied. Terrain was rolling countryside or hills. Leadership was almost equal with a slight advantage to the Boer. But leadership isn't going to mean much if you're outnumbered 10 to 1. Even if I could only feed 1000 troops into the battle at a time I should still win the battle by attrition. At some point the Boers should have been wiped out or run out of ammunition. These results don't make any sense.

[montgomeryjlion]

I have offered proof on the Paradox forums by providing a screenshot. In that screenshot 11,000 British soldiers fought 750 Boers. The British casualty numbers were 9500 compared to the Boer loss of 150. The remaining 600 Boers took 3200 British prisoners. Prisoners outnumbered captors 5 to 1. You can try explaining that way with game mechanics but it doesn't make any sense. How is it that 11,000 British soldiers with 12 cannon can only hit 150 Boers while the Boers are able to severely punish the British and practically wipe out their whole force?

You say Boer elements are not 1:1 to British elements but are 1:6 instead. How am I supposed to know that? I only have the information the game presents to me. Which is numbers. Clicking on an icon element shows the manpower and supply situation of that element. Taking that element into battle then clicking on the icon will show losses of manpower and supply. So how do those numbers not mean anything?

Even in your Italy vs Austria example 70k vs 80k is practically even numberswise. Then it comes down to terrain, leadership and supply. In my example both sides were well armed and well supplied. Terrain was rolling countryside or hills. Leadership was almost equal with a slight advantage to the Boer. But leadership isn't going to mean much if you're outnumbered 10 to 1. Even if I could only feed 1000 troops into the battle at a time I should still win the battle by attrition. At some point the Boers should have been wiped out or run out of ammunition. These results don't make any sense.

Agree 100%
I played through the first 4 turns of a game.
I lost every single battle as the British.
All at horrendous odds for.
Didn't matter which general, whether I was attacking.
I lost 4 Armies, including Bullers entire Corps (14000 men), fighting 3000 Boers.
The Boers overran most of South Africa.
Couldn't happen.
I'm from Southern Africa.
I've been studying the war for 30 years.
The Boers did as well as they did because they picked great defensive positions and the British Generals were idiots.
Even then, the Boers couldn't take Kimberley or Mafeking or Ladysmith.
They never caused more than about 1500 casualties in one battle.
They certainly never could have and never intended to attack any further than they did.
Yes, I know it's a game.
But it's supposed to be believable and feasible.
It's not.
I'm playing a PBEM game of AACW as the South and if it acted like the Boer War, I'd be besieging Boston by the end of 1861.
It needs to be fixed.
Flame over.

But, thanks for the tremendous game anyway.
I believe it will be fixed.

[von Sachsen]

Actually I think the biggest problem with this scenario is not the troop numbers (at least with the Kommandos changed to 500) but that the map has huge provinces that can be held by relatively small amounts of troops. There is very little room for maneuver for the Boers, the one thing they had to their advantage. As a result, the British can simply hold on for the first few months and then crush the Boers by the net summer by just forcing everything they have up one or two routes. A couple of cavalry brigades on the flanks are sufficient to stop and attempts to get around to destroy dumps and rails.

[montgomeryjlion]

History disagrees with you...
The Boers KNEW the British had to come up those two ways as they were the only ways to supply the British Army.
That's why all the Kommandos gathered to defend those two routes.
The Boers figured it if they wiped out the isolated outposts of Kimberley, Ladysmith and Mafeking and dug in on the Tugela and Modder Rivers, they could defeat the British Army and inflict enough casualties to make the British give up.
It almost worked.

[theonlystd]

I to have to wonder about battle results


I outnumbered the natives 22k to 6k .. Had more elements.. Arty.. On defense 5 of my units had favorable ground ect ect. Battle results thing said they had Supply and Ammo


I lost 6000 Prussians to kill 50 Natives.........


Really if the Prussians were half starved and having to use there guns as a clubs.. They should of taken more Natives with them than that ..

[McNaughton]

I to have to wonder about battle results


I outnumbered the natives 22k to 6k .. Had more elements.. Arty.. On defense 5 of my units had favorable ground ect ect. Battle results thing said they had Supply and Ammo


I lost 6000 Prussians to kill 50 Natives.........


Really if the Prussians were half starved and having to use there guns as a clubs.. They should of taken more Natives with them than that ..

Were these colonial troops? Were they fully supplied? If you send metropolitan troops to colonial areas, even with a lot of supply wagons, expect them to fall apart fast. This is a design to keep players from sending their entire army to squish a small native force.

[montgomeryjlion]

Were these colonial troops? Were they fully supplied? If you send metropolitan troops to colonial areas, even with a lot of supply wagons, expect them to fall apart fast. This is a design to keep players from sending their entire army to squish a small native force.

This I have noticed and agree with.
Send good colonial troops and handling natives is easy.
Send normal troops and they die like flies, and lose the battles.
That's good game design IMHO.
The majority of African conquests by ALL countries was done by African troops under European leadership.
I think, btw, that the Prussians and Italians shouldn't be able to buy colonial troops until they get the colonial buildings.
That will help slow them down and is very realistic.

[theonlystd]

Were these colonial troops? Were they fully supplied? If you send metropolitan troops to colonial areas, even with a lot of supply wagons, expect them to fall apart fast. This is a design to keep players from sending their entire army to squish a small native force.

They were not colonial troops

Tis something that should really be said in the abilities part when looking at an element ..


I assumed they would die at a much higher rate attrition wise .

I didnt know they'd become so indept as to lose to natives even with outnumbering them heavily and on defense ..

[McNaughton]

They were not colonial troops

Tis something that should really be said in the abilities part when looking at an element ..


I assumed they would die at a much higher rate attrition wise .

I didnt know they'd become so indept as to lose to natives even with outnumbering them heavily and on defense ..

One of the big problems we encountered when developing PoN was effective documentation. There is just such detail everywhere, that for things we take for granted (i.e., developed colonial troops to have special success in colonial fighting) things were not explained as well as they could have been. It may be good to create a compilation thread of 'unexplained' things that can be done to help the beta-directed updated manual (which itself is obsolete given the changes and updating the game is constantly going through!).

[Franciscus]

Agree 100%
I played through the first 4 turns of a game.
I lost every single battle as the British.
All at horrendous odds for.
Didn't matter which general, whether I was attacking.
I lost 4 Armies, including Bullers entire Corps (14000 men), fighting 3000 Boers.
The Boers overran most of South Africa.
Couldn't happen.
I'm from Southern Africa.
I've been studying the war for 30 years.
The Boers did as well as they did because they picked great defensive positions and the British Generals were idiots.
Even then, the Boers couldn't take Kimberley or Mafeking or Ladysmith.
They never caused more than about 1500 casualties in one battle.
They certainly never could have and never intended to attack any further than they did.
Yes, I know it's a game.
But it's supposed to be believable and feasible.
It's not.
I'm playing a PBEM game of AACW as the South and if it acted like the Boer War, I'd be besieging Boston by the end of 1861.
It needs to be fixed.
Flame over.

But, thanks for the tremendous game anyway.
I believe it will be fixed.

I must say I do not understand your experience with this scenario. I just finished it, and won easily playing the Brits. Surely I lost a few batles, but in the end my numbers were obviously overwhelming. Also, I did not experience the absurd losses in specific battles you guys report - although there were a couple of battles with 100% casualties (which is almost never realistic), and I lost globally more men than the Boers (see pic - this in December 1900, after prolonging the game until every Boer army was wiped out. Brits ~ 120.000 losses, Boers ~ 45.000, including prisioners).

The AI Boer armies actually pulled off capturing East London and Port Elizabeth (which actually was a dumb move, because they were isolated and besieged :neener .

As to my armies, knowing that regular Brit infantry suffers tremenduous attrition inside Africa, I took care to build depots wherever I went, and stop at least one turn between moves, to recover cohesion. With these obvious precautions, it is just too easy.

Regards

[tevans6220]

I must say I do not understand your experience with this scenario. I just finished it, and won easily playing the Brits. Surely I lost a few batles, but in the end my numbers were obviously overwhelming. Also, I did not experience the absurd losses in specific battles you guys report - although there were a couple of battles with 100% casualties (which is almost never realistic), and I lost globally more men than the Boers (see pic - this in December 1900, after prolonging the game until every Boer army was wiped out. Brits ~ 120.000 losses, Boers ~ 45.000, including prisioners).

The AI Boer armies actually pulled off capturing East London and Port Elizabeth (which actually was a dumb move, because they were isolated and besieged :neener .

As to my armies, knowing that regular Brit infantry suffers tremenduous attrition inside Africa, I took care to build depots wherever I went, and stop at least one turn between moves, to recover cohesion. With these obvious precautions, it is just too easy.

Regards

What version are you playing because in my version 1.01f there isn't an option or any way to build depots. I get a build fort option that takes 120 days or 8 turns but that's it. Where is it documented about Brits suffering attrition in Africa? I don't remember reading that anywhere. Never said I couldn't win the scenario. I said the battle results don't make sense and they don't. The scenario is easily won even with the high losses by waiting for reinforcements and then doing an all out blitz. It doesn't even take 25 turns to do that. This scenario is supposed to last 78 turns. How? It doesn't even come close. I know about cohesion recovery and I do that. But nowhere do I see how to build a depot. It just isn't there.

Correction: Just tried another Boer War scenario. This time even though the tooltip for forts says 120 days, forts are actually built in 1 turn. And this time there is a build depot option that is actually lit and usuable. It never appeared lit or usuable in any other Boer game I played. I actually thought the only depots permitted were the depots already on the map. I know I definately checked because I'm very methodical about using depots to maintain supply. Possibly a bug? Also until this current game I never had White actually removed when Buller appeared to take command. White always stuck around but in this game when Buller appears, White is gone. That never happened before either. What is going on? I'm using the 1.02f beta.

[Franciscus]

What version are you playing because in my version 1.01f there isn't an option or any way to build depots. I get a build fort option that takes 120 days or 8 turns but that's it. Where is it documented about Brits suffering attrition in Africa? I don't remember reading that anywhere. Never said I couldn't win the scenario. I said the battle results don't make sense and they don't. The scenario is easily won even with the high losses by waiting for reinforcements and then doing an all out blitz. It doesn't even take 25 turns to do that. This scenario is supposed to last 78 turns. How? It doesn't even come close. I know about cohesion recovery and I do that. But nowhere do I see how to build a depot. It just isn't there.

Correction: Just tried another Boer War scenario. This time even though the tooltip for forts says 120 days, forts are actually built in 1 turn. And this time there is a build depot option that is actually lit and usuable. It never appeared lit or usuable in any other Boer game I played. I actually thought the only depots permitted were the depots already on the map. I know I definately checked because I'm very methodical about using depots to maintain supply. Possibly a bug? Also until this current game I never had White actually removed when Buller appeared to take command. White always stuck around but in this game when Buller appears, White is gone. That never happened before either. What is going on? I'm using the 1.02f beta.

I am in 1.01f.
Build depot options are not available if your force has no sufficient supply elements to build them (which by the way is not a good idea in Africa )

(PS: indeed forts are built in just one turn...bug ? I will have to check it out)

Regards

[caranorn]

Yesterday I briefly looked at the 2nd Boer War scenario from one of the Boer factions' point of view. I believe those commando units were indeed never intended to have 50 flavour troops, the commando units are described as "250 mn" and some more text (where other units are described as 2 battalion regiments and the like). I expect what happened is that somewhere along the lines someone mistook 5 hits of 50 men (250 men) for 50 men in 5 hits (50 men)...

But again, this is just flavour. The Boer units are rather powerful, but very brittle too. And it's not a good idea to move out against them before at least some of the colonial infantry brigades have arrived...

[tevans6220]

I am in 1.01f.
Build depot options are not available if your force has no sufficient supply elements to build them (which by the way is not a good idea in Africa )

(PS: indeed forts are built in just one turn...bug ? I will have to check it out)

Regards

Thanks for responding. I understand needing supply elements but the option never showed at all even with sufficient supply elements. It was always grayed out no matter how many elements or the region. I honestly thought it was a design feature of the scenario and that the only depots available were those presented on the map.

My current Boer game is the first time the build depot actually ever appeared lit and ready for use. As I said. The tooltip for build fort says 120 days (8 turns) but you can build a fort in 1 turn. Also White is actually removed from the board when Buller arrives. That never happened before. I was always able to use Buller and White (if he survived) before. Seems to me something is very wrong with this scenario

[Spruce]

I recall during ACW I had Leonidas Polk's Corps on very agressive when he smashed the Yankee troops and then he broke trough and was threathening Ohio and India. The problem was that he had to cross a river were he encountered a smaller Yankee Corps (or perhaps more or less a corps).

The battle results were staggering, Polks entire corps was lost (21.000 men) because I gave them orders to do some "Picketts charge" deep in enemy territory at river crossing penalty, and having bad luck to cross (an unforseen) an enemy corps. I remember the enemy had casualties like 4000... I must say that at first I was also enraged by such results. Then afterwards I reconsidered them to be my own fault.

The point = the same losses you describe in the game Pride of Nations.

by the way = it's a different game so this remark can be pointless, bu always be carefull to pick aggresiveness stance with AGEOD game engines.

[tevans6220]

I recall during ACW I had Leonidas Polk's Corps on very agressive when he smashed the Yankee troops and then he broke trough and was threathening Ohio and India. The problem was that he had to cross a river were he encountered a smaller Yankee Corps (or perhaps more or less a corps).

The battle results were staggering, Polks entire corps was lost (21.000 men) because I gave them orders to do some "Picketts charge" deep in enemy territory at river crossing penalty, and having bad luck to cross (an unforseen) an enemy corps. I remember the enemy had casualties like 4000... I must say that at first I was also enraged by such results. Then afterwards I reconsidered them to be my own fault.

The point = the same losses you describe in the game Pride of Nations.

by the way = it's a different game so this remark can be pointless, bu always be carefull to pick aggresiveness stance with AGEOD game engines.

Thanks for your comment. I can understand bad luck. The problem I have is when 750 men can practically destroy an 11,000 man unit causing 9500 total casualties, capturing 3200 prisoners in the process and lose only 150 men doing it. I have a screenshot that I posted at Paradox showing exactly that situation. To me that just shouldn't be possible. How are 600 men going to take 3200 prisoners when they're outnumbered 5 to 1? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It's definitely a winnable scenario though. As the Brits, I win easily within 20 turns just by waiting for reinforcements then blitzing the Boers. Up until my recent Boer game I couldn't even build depots. It didn't matter. Just wait and do a full out blitz. The Boer AI can't handle it. Those first 2 turns are murder though. No matter the odds the Boers seem to attack and do heavy damage sometimes wiping out whole Brit armies. At least most of the situations in the other Ageod were sort of believable. I think there's something wrong in PoN. Something isn't working right.

[tux]

I found some more battle results that don' make sense:

490 BC 10000 Greek vs 50000 Persians (Marathon)
332 BC 40000 Macedon vs 200000 Persians (Gaugamela)
50 BC 40000 Romans vs 200000 Gauls (Alesia)
1522 500 Spains vs 20000 Atztecs (Tenochitlan)
1532 200 Spains vs 8000 Incas (Cajamarca)
1757 2000 Brits vs 34000 Indians (Plassey)
1796 60000 French vs 240000 Austrians/Piedmonts (Italy)
1940 Germany 3000 Tanks + 3M Soldiers + 3000 Arty vs French/Brits 4500 Tanks + 3.5M Soldiers + 6000 Arty (Western Front WWII)

[McNaughton]

I am sure about finding examples will be relatively easy, but maybe it is designed too much to prove a certain point. Are casualties too high? Yes, they probably are. Should forces be annihilated in the field like this? Not really, was a very rare situation. But, keep in mind if you have a reckless/hothead leader in command, they will not be able to retreat for a certain number of hours of battle, which is possilby one of the reasons for this annihilation being somewhat frequent (I am revamping all leader abilities actually, am in the midst of it and it is a lot of work, but one thing is a big reduction of hothead and reckless). This may serve to help things.

[caranorn]

I am sure about finding examples will be relatively easy, but maybe it is designed too much to prove a certain point. Are casualties too high? Yes, they probably are. Should forces be annihilated in the field like this? Not really, was a very rare situation. But, keep in mind if you have a reckless/hothead leader in command, they will not be able to retreat for a certain number of hours of battle, which is possilby one of the reasons for this annihilation being somewhat frequent (I am revamping all leader abilities actually, am in the midst of it and it is a lot of work, but one thing is a big reduction of hothead and reckless). This may serve to help things.

Yes, that could be useful. So far I've seen astonishing numbers of generals in PoN with those two traits...

[jimwinsor]

The Boers are tough, they win their battles on the first turns, yep. I wonder if maybe the scenario gives them a surprise bonus or something?

Because yes, I too managed to win the scenario fairly easily once the British Empire sent what seemed like half it's world forces there. Just gotta keep attritioning those Kommandos ...

[montgomeryjlion]

Gee, I've won it too.
Isn't that difficult.
That totally avoids the OPs point however which, once again, is how can 1000 men totally destroy an army of 14000 and take them all prisoner.

I think we've all agreed that it needs some work.

So, can we move on now?