Battlefield reports

[nevada73]

It is turn 1 of my historical campaign as the Eastern Entente. The Austrians got a little frisky and crossed the Drina attacking my army at Uzice. The III Serbian Army heard the commotion and marched to the guns. Here is the result of my very first battle-



Either the Austrians forgot to bring ammunition and shells or whoever wrote this report needs a job at CNN doing some "accurate" reporting. 12,000 Austrian casualties to ZERO Serbian casualties. So I guess my question is are these after action reports actual compiled statistical data figuring in all the calculations and formulas or is this just an overall first hand estimation formulated by "the staffs" in the field?

Anyways GO SERBIA GO!!!! ompom:

[Lynxyonok]

Check the icons below each unit. Serb artillery fired and hit, Austrian artillery missed. Resulting strength losses led to some Austrian troops showing cowardice. The unit retreated.

[Lynxyonok]

On the funny side, note how every sixth Serb got scared even though no shell landed, and no Austrian got close enough for hand-to-hand combat

[Kensai]

Tried to cross a river against a bigger, entrenched army on hilly terrain, which targeted you with artillery. You should be pleased it did not go worse.

[fred zeppelin]

The zero casualties is hard to justify. Light casualties maybe. But none is a bit hard to swallow.

I think that result is more of an aberration than a reflection of how the game generally works. I certainly wouldn't try to defend it as being anything else.

[Taciturn Scot]

The zero casualties is hard to justify. Light casualties maybe. But none is a bit hard to swallow.

I think that result is more of an aberration than a reflection of how the game generally works. I certainly wouldn't try to defend it as being anything else.

here's a quote for you

"On 26 September 1915 twelve British battalions - a strength of almost 10,000 men -were ordered to attack German positions at Loos in north-east France. In the three-and-a-half hours of the actual battle, they sustained 8,246 casualties. The Germans suffered no casualties at all."

[Reiryc]

it's an odd report to be sure...

I can't recall ever having seen that kind of a report. I wouldn't worry about it being common at all.

[fred zeppelin]

here's a quote for you

"On 26 September 1915 twelve British battalions - a strength of almost 10,000 men -were ordered to attack German positions at Loos in north-east France. In the three-and-a-half hours of the actual battle, they sustained 8,246 casualties. The Germans suffered no casualties at all."

That is an interesting quote. If only it were accurate. German casualties in that attack, while certainly light, were not non-existent. Some of the British units actually made it to the German trenches, where they fought the Germans hand to hand.

Another factor at the battle of Loos was that the planned British artillery barrage never really materialized because the batteries had difficulty advancing to within range of the German's second trench line (where the infantry fighting took place.). In the battle reported in the game, the attacker had 204 artillery pieces - and I don't think the game models them firing at the wrong objective.

I'm not complaining about the game. But I think would be wiser, in this instance, to examine why the game produced that result than to try to defend it.

[nevada73]

The nice round numbers just seem very simple and computerized for a game that is very in depth and detailed. Also I took 10,000 prisoners in that battle which the AAR did not tell me about. It showed up in the messages for the next turn. So is that calculated into the 12,000 or added? I realize you cannot ever get accurate battle reports but taking 10,000 prisoners is something my field commander would happily tell me in his after action report.

Next turn my Russians take the offensive across the whole front. Time for the Green machine to earn its combat pay. Will surely be some interesting battle reports coming into GHQ next turn. The Serbians are quite content watching the Austrians retreat as we acquire their rifles littered all over the south bank of the Drina. Never been fired and only dropped once.

[fred zeppelin]

The nice round numbers just seem very simple and computerized for a game that is very in depth and detailed. Also I took 10,000 prisoners in that battle which the AAR did not tell me about. It showed up in the messages for the next turn. So is that calculated into the 12,000 or added? I realize you cannot ever get accurate battle reports but taking 10,000 prisoners is something my field commander would happily tell me in his after action report.

Next turn my Russians take the offensive across the whole front. Time for the Green machine to earn its combat pay. Will surely be some interesting battle reports coming into GHQ next turn. The Serbians are quite content watching the Austrians retreat as we acquire their rifles littered all over the south bank of the Drina. Never been fired and only dropped once.

That report is an aberration. You won't see other reports like it. My guess if someone could be convinced to actually look into it, they'd find some easily tweaked reporting error.

[Taciturn Scot]

That is an interesting quote. If only it were accurate. German casualties in that attack, while certainly light, were not non-existent. Some of the British units actually made it to the German trenches, where they fought the Germans hand to hand.

Another factor at the battle of Loos was that the planned British artillery barrage never really materialized because the batteries had difficulty advancing to within range of the German's second trench line (where the infantry fighting took place.). In the battle reported in the game, the attacker had 204 artillery pieces - and I don't think the game models them firing at the wrong objective.

I'm not complaining about the game. But I think would be wiser, in this instance, to examine why the game produced that result than to try to defend it.

Of course it's not a fact but that was the reported result for a number of years. In the game, only hits and elements really matter.

I'm not defending the result though. It's certainly unusual but I've also seen this happen a couple of times already in my Russian game with Austrians attacking Serbians early in the war. In both cases, the attackers were attacking across a river against entrenched Serbian forces and the combat was over in one round. But the casualties were not as high as that. I just interepreted the result that the Austrian attack was broken up and failed due to defending artillery.

[Shri]

Some reasons already stated by KENSAI for the results-
Attacking across river
Low supply/ammo in army
Entrenched opponent
Inferior troops- quantity and quality.
Inferior General.
Weather.

In general- Follow a 'rule of thumb' as attacker-
If Weather is pleasant and you have a decent general and not attacking across rivers or into mountains/hills, then-
Try to have at least 1.5 times the men and guns. Only then you can be sure of victory.
If it is a big enemy stack, then either flank attack or out-manoeuvre or use' GAS' to weaken the enemy stack.
Use your 'RECON/FIGHTER' to get idea of big enemy stacks, see to it your army has optimal supply and ammo and also WAGONS of Supply and Ammo.
Heavy Artillery helps a lot for attacker, if not- have MEDIUM at least.