Battle Casualties still too high

[vicberg]

Here is second battle of war. Higher than bloodiest in entire war. Nappy and everything directly under his command was decimated.

[ATTACH]36278[/ATTACH]

[Technopiper]

That, too me, is unacceptable. I am not playing until there are major improvements.

[vicberg]

Go to c:\program files (x86)\matrix games\wars of napoleon\ngc\settings
- open GameLogic.opt with notepad
- find cbtHitCoef
- Reduce number from 400 to 200 and rerun your battle
- If casualties still too high, reduce down to 100

Post your results so devs can get a sense of what's going on.

[vicberg]

Here's a combat at 200 cbtHitCoef. Outnumbered 2-1, with Nappy and much better overall leadership, losses are still high, IMO, for a single battle and French take 50% more than Austrians.

The greater French losses are due to Austrians having the initiative and getting their to hit (which is normally low as a result of comparisons to French Leaders) and being multiplied by 2. They are doing damage first, causing cohesion and the results are higher French losses.

[ATTACH]36291[/ATTACH]

[dpt24]

If you think about casualties as killed, wounded, and deserted the causalities really are not that much higher than reality.

[Pocus]

and that's the case because part of your casualties are returned in your conscript pool, and I can assure you no one is reanimating corpses here!

[veji1]

I must say that in 1.00 when i brought the tohitcoeff all the way down to 100 it worked better because initial fire made less of a difference and stats and numbers where more brought to bear during a longish battle, leading to good casualties, which could still be heavy !

[TC271]

I set my modifier to 100 and it feels much more 'natural'.

The only problem is that the causalties are often concentrated heavily on one division corps - I know this may be a natural result of the battle and the games battle frontage mechnics but it does seem to happen every time.

[veji1]

I set my modifier to 100 and it feels much more 'natural'.

The only problem is that the causalties are often concentrated heavily on one division corps - I know this may be a natural result of the battle and the games battle frontage mechnics but it does seem to happen every time.

It feels like the issue is that fire is just too devastating too quickly : basically some units get completely shot up after the first ennemy fire phase and are basically unable to counter fire (because the cohesion is too low already) BUT the unit can't seem to be able or willing to get out of the line of fire and keeps getting obliterated, even though its side might be winning the battle handsomely.. it feels a bit like right at the beginning of the battle some units become dead in the water, too shot up to fight or move away until they get sunk by concentrated fire. Rotation of units in the frontline seems not to work as it should right now.

But fear not, it will get sorted : AACW and CW2 had after a while pretty stable and efficient battle models where losses were better shared between participating units.

[TC271]

Good to know - interestingly I have found if I get a freak result reverting the turn and running it again sometimes results in a much more plausable result.

[vicberg]

Yes, right now, Austrian troops have the same initiative as French (both around 9). Take into account terrain or a defensive modifier to initiative and Austrians are firing first.

It's very important to understand that the base to hit is very low (around 15-20%). Leaders are them compared, both at corp and then at division/brigade level. The differences in strat ratings is compared with the corp leader getting 5% x strat rating and unit level leaders getting 1% x strat rating (something like that).

For the side with the better leaders, the difference is added to the to hit. For the side with the worse leaders, the to hit isn't modified (up or down).

Then the coefficient comes into play. At 200, it's doubling the to hit. At 100, it isn't.

So higher coefficients reduce leader abilities, giving the side with the poor leaders better chances to hit, and if that side has first shot, then causing higher damage, cohesion, etc.

[veji1]

Yes, right now, Austrian troops have the same initiative as French (both around 9). Take into account terrain or a defensive modifier to initiative and Austrians are firing first.

It's very important to understand that the base to hit is very low (around 15-20%). Leaders are them compared, both at corp and then at division/brigade level. The differences in strat ratings is compared with the corp leader getting 5% x strat rating and unit level leaders getting 1% x strat rating (something like that).

For the side with the better leaders, the difference is added to the to hit. For the side with the worse leaders, the to hit isn't modified (up or down).

Then the coefficient comes into play. At 200, it's doubling the to hit. At 100, it isn't.

So higher coefficients reduce leader abilities, giving the side with the poor leaders better chances to hit, and if that side has first shot, then causing higher damage, cohesion, etc.

This issue is compounded by a lack of force circulation during the battles, ie forces leaving the line because they are beat up to be replaced by another division for example, that "dead in the water in the middle of the battle syndrome" leads to some units being destroyed even in a winning battle with many more forces involved.

[Taillebois]

I posted some of my casualty results in the poll thread where I got variously 100% and 0% casualties in quite large battles. I thought 1.011 was supposed to lessen this.

This was playing with all settings on default against the AI on the 1815 Last Flight of the Eagle scenario. I would be interested to know if you get similar results - I simply made no moves, just waited to be attacked. I probably played about 15 times (actually Rowland Hill got wiped out 2x; Wellington had a victory with no casualties once).

[vicberg]

Look above in thread. To Hit Coefficient is still at 200. Meaning double chance to hit.

[Taillebois]

Look above in thread. To Hit Coefficient is still at 200. Meaning double chance to hit.

Are you now playing with 100 and happy with the outcomes?

I wonder if there is a way to get a 105% casualties. I once got a 105% in a maths exam, but that was a long time ago before age and alcohol took their toll.





Answer: There were 7 questions of 15 marks each so they just called each mark 1% - they never expected anybody to get them all right but two of us did!

[Taillebois]

Supplementary question:

Is it possible to change the hit coefficient for just the human or just the AI? In Hearts Of Iron 3 I think the difficulty levels had about 20% difference in casualties - so normal was 0% hard was -20% and easy was +20% against the AI - so, if you wanted super easy you could change it to +40%. Has anybody tried changing the To Hit Coefficient in AGEOD games to, say, 50% ?

[Scottus]

Battle casualties too high? CTD's are too high as well even after the latest patch.. (which broke my in game updater). I will kindly slide this to the side for awhile and wait for some patches.

[Aurelin]

Napoleon: "The Russians have done us great harm,"

Marshal Soult: "And we them, our bullets were not made of cotton."

After Eylau

[Drake001]

The percentage casualties at Eylau were 75% for the French and 99.973459 for the Russians.

[Montbrun]

The percentage casualties at Eylau were 75% for the French and 99.973459 for the Russians.

Battle of Preussisch-Eylau - 7 and 8 February 1807

French Forces Engaged: ~75,000 men
French Casualties: ~2000 Killed, 15-16,000 Wounded

Russian Forces Engaged: ~58,000 men
Russian Casualties: ~18,000 Killed and Wounded, ~3,000 Captured

Prussian Forces Engaged: ~5600 men
Prussian Casualties: ~800 Killed, Wounded, Missing

SOURCE:
Smith, Digby, "The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book," Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA, 1998.

[Taillebois]

I am happy now that I can change the hit % figure, battles take longer it seems but the results are not as wild as when I had been getting both 100% and 0% results before.

[lycortas2]

Montbrun, Greenhill is not reputable as source material.
Essentially all historians put Napoleon's casualties at Eylau at around 25,000
In the French army correspondence after the battle the totals come to 25,000-26,000, however Nappy released an 'official' casualty figure of 15,000 total.

[veji1]

Montbrun, Greenhill is not reputable as source material.
Essentially all historians put Napoleon's casualties at Eylau at around 25,000
In the French army correspondence after the battle the totals come to 25,000-26,000, however Nappy released an 'official' casualty figure of 15,000 total.

Yeah, Augereau's corps of 3 division was effectively wiped out. in Ageod terms Eylau would see you get those dreaded "Augereau and x and x general are recuperating from their wounds in city y". + the horrible winter conditions make it probably the most "morbid" battle in the whole Napoleonic era in the sense that the percentage of dead compared to injured was after 24 hours completely and utterly abominably high.

Eylau is really a unique battle in the whole era.

[Montbrun]

Montbrun, Greenhill is not reputable as source material.
Essentially all historians put Napoleon's casualties at Eylau at around 25,000
In the French army correspondence after the battle the totals come to 25,000-26,000, however Nappy released an 'official' casualty figure of 15,000 total.

Thanks, I'll remember that.