tripax wrote:I agree that battles resulting in complete destruction should be rare, especially when the two forces were large (even when there is a significant size imballance).
I'm trying to think what large battles had more than 30% losses for either side. The Union had a few successful large sieges (Island 10, Donelson, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Petersburg) and Forrest captured a number of smaller garrisons (some which had greater number of men than he had). Bull Nelson failed at Richmond Kentucky losing about 7,000 - his entire force - to about 7,000 under Kirby Smith, but otherwise, even routes like the Battle of Okolona (7,000 Union vs 2,500 Confederate, Union was routed but only lost 350 men), and Nashville (Thomas' 55,000 routes Hoods 30,000, Hood losing 6,000 men), Sheridan's victories in the Valley against Early and Picket usually saw under 25% losses on either side (Opequon saw 30% losses by the confederates). Bloodbaths such as Shiloh, Gettysburg, Stones River, Chickamagua, Spotsylvania, and The Wilderness saw at most 28% (Confederates lost 28% under Bragg at Chickamagua, Union lost 30% under Rosencrans and the Confederates lost 34% under Bragg at Stones River, Lee lost 32% at Gettysburg).
The table, here, has a bit more. That list has the 33 costliest battles, the average losses in those battles are 17% for the Union and 21% for the Confederates. I think these numbers are a bit high because they include Port Hudson where the Confederates surrendered and count only the corps involved in some battles during the siege of Petersburg such as at Fort Stedman and at the Crater.
Note, all my estimates are from Wikipedia articles on the battle and include killed, wounded, and captured as casualties.
minipol wrote:The advantage of his new rule is that smaller forces attacked by a lot larger forces, now tend to be annihilated, which should be the case...
Barca wrote:Others may disagree, but here is a good quote from the Rules of Play of "The Civil War" by Victory Games, the classic Civil War boardgame:
tripax wrote:I disagree, this should not be the case. Even in Opequan (and Fisher's Hill a couple days later, which should be included for comparison to this game) where Early made some mistakes and against a brilliant Sheridan 40,000 Union troops defeated 12,000 Confederates, both losing about 5,000 across the two battles and Early having time to regroup and consolidate with other forces to fight lose at Cedar Creek a month later (and at Cedar Creek Sheridan's 31,600 lost another 5,000 while Early's 21,000 lost 3,000). In neither case were any entire regiments destroyed, I think.
pgr wrote:Armchair, I'd say it's premature to say the 1.05 development is a situation where "the cure is worse than the disease." the first RC had battle instability, but subsiquent versions seemed to have addressed the issue.
ArmChairGeneral wrote:(At the risk of sounding like too much of a fanboy, the care and attention that is being put into this issue by the developers and the community as a whole is really impressive!)
minipol wrote:See my original message, I was talking about forces at least 5 times the size of the other force. And capture or annihilation should not happen everytime but at least there should be a chance for it to happen.
Also, the number of total cavalry on both ends should play an importent role in deciding wether a force is surrounded and subsequently captured or destroyed or not (=able to escape)
Captain_Orso wrote:I can't think of an actual battle in which the losing side directly retreated across a major river.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests