Durk wrote:Hmm, I am pretty sure an analysis which blames the player for poor play is totally off the mark on this question.
Because?...
Durk wrote:There is no game mechanism to 'protect' a leader from loss. To suggest this is possible is very silly.
Where please have I made any such assertion?
Durk wrote:Actually, holding at all costs has no correlation to leader death. I wonder why you think this is the case.
Holding at all costs extends the number of rounds a battle would otherwise last. The longer a battle lasts, the more chances a leader will be killed.
Now let's look at Phil's statement about defeat again, "The only thing that increases mortality is low rank and defeats". Unless the forces in the battle are fairly similar in strength, HAAC will not win you the battle. It will simply lengthen it and cause higher casualties.
Durk wrote:For this instance, I think you totally missed the mark about the relation of leader death to the success or failure of battles.
See PhilT's quote please.
Durk wrote:At worst, holding at all costs and losing the battle means you leader ends up injured in some city you control with a movement penalty of a few turns.
See my above statement. Also, wounded leaders are locked a number of turns, not slowed down.
Durk wrote:The original question is: why does the Ottoman power seem to suffer a disproportionate leader loss. The answer is not because the Ottomans have been using hold at all costs. The answer may be something more like, because they are more predisposed to loss.
I have never heard of a faction's leaders being "predisposed" to being killed. Unless you can show some evidence of that being a fact, I'm going to have to consider that simply a confirmation bias. Correlation does not imply causation.