Guns quasi invulnerability

[The Guru]

Guns seem to incur very few losses, if any, even in battles with zillions of them on each side! Checking the AARs and battle screen captures available on the internet, this seems to be a generalized trend...
This is far from realistic. Large battles very often featured prolonged counterbattery duels, and guns were as vulnerable as everything else to exposure to regular enemy bombardment, capture, breakdown, etc...

[Kensai]

Yes, I think as well that guns should get more damage in a conflict where both sides have guns, thus, they are within range. We should NOT go the other way too much though...

[Pocus]

This exists with the battle planner. Some battle plans allow you to inflict hits directly on the artillery. Guess how they are named

[Highlandcharge]

What about in pbem games where you cant select those option though?

[The Guru]

What about in pbem games where you cant select those option though?

Precisely...

In addition, even if the tactical posture doesn't specifically focus on counterbattery, eventually some guns still end up getting lost, overrun, captured, destroyed by direct hit or area bombardment, etc.
A strict 0% (!) loss rate on a total force of more than a thousand guns engaged in battle probably never happened in real life. In TEAW it tends to happen a lot

[Pocus]

Yes, this makes sense. I'll add that to the to do list. The good thing is that thanks to the battle plans code, we can have support elements targeted before all lines elements are routed, I 'll make use of that...

[The Guru]

Well, even the winning side can suffer gun losses. They're not only a function of defeat.

But yes, there should be a higher loss rate for guns, aggravated by:

retreat/routs
enemy cavalry superiority
enemy wave assault tactics (if victorious)

And actually, I noticed horses seem to be pretty untouchable as well. In battles with thousands of human casualties, chances are not a single horse will get a stray bullet or shell...