AGEOD Forums

I was wondering what effect, if any, losses have on national morale. I would expect that this would be one of the main causes of decreases in NM, but I don't seem to see it having any effect. The turn-by-turn reports frequently show big battles with thousands of casualties having no effect on NM. Is there some effect that I'm not seeing? If there isn't anything, then this thread belongs in "help improve AACW".

I know that winning or losing a significant battle can cause you to gain or lose NM but I'm not sure if the number of casualties in and of themselves effect the NM gain/loss.

Also as I understand the rules the longer the war drags on general war weariness is supposed to begin to set in and effect NM negatively but again I'm not sure if total casualties affect this or not though I would think it should.

Mark

How big does a battle have to be for it to be significant?

I just fought a battle in my PBEM game with five or six thousand casualties on each side - similar to First Bull Run anyway, with no apparent NM loss for myself.

Just trading casualties won't normally give NM loss or gain- you need to destroy elements. The message dialogue window that tells you of battles won or lost also informs you of NM points gained or lost as well. I was luck this battle could have cost me lots more NM. Also any killed generals can count as NM losses.
I have occasionally lost a NM here or there when those pesky frozen units get left behind and completely wiped out.

BI

TheDoctorKing wrote:How big does a battle have to be for it to be significant?

I just fought a battle in my PBEM game with five or six thousand casualties on each side - similar to First Bull Run anyway, with no apparent NM loss for myself.

Ouch, I hope those weren't my guys :0

Like he said, elements have an assigned VP number for when destroyed and if enough are you also lose NM. Capture of important cities also effects NM.

That was the last big battle, Redeemer, down in west Florida. Seems like there were many thousands of casualties on your side, somewhat fewer on mine. I keep being surprised that Hooker still has anybody with him at all.

I think that accumulated casualties, even if they don't destroy elements, should have an NM effect. Especially since most casualties are actually from attrition and not battle anyway. The endless drip drip drip of death and disabling wounds was what wore down civilian morale. The big battles were actually not so bad, because they gave people hope that it might be over soon - never actually worked out that way, but hope springs eternal

A battle has an effect on NM only if some elements are destroyed, regardless of the number of losses.

The important thing to consider is the ealth condition of elements before the battle.
For instance, in a battle including equivalent strenght for each side (and in good condition), you often suffer big losses without loosing any element, the turnover of units involved avoiding destruction of any regiment.
The same battle against an bruised foe (wich some element already in partial or full red) could drive loss of some/lot elements, the units previously damaged being destroyed before the relief teams could arrive.

In my opinion, it makes us consider the vital importance of hounding a defeated foe.

Vegetius wrote:

In my opinion, it makes us consider the vital importance of hounding a defeated foe.

It should do but still, at least to me, it does seem a little odd that the national psyche is such that the loss of a couple of 3 element brigades - perhaps 6,000 is considered far worse than a crushing defeat of one of the main armies with say losses in excess of 20,000 merely because no actual elements were destroyed.

Mind you thats the way that the programme works

I agree Soundoff, my remark is only valuable in the game .

I guess this thread belongs in "improve AACW" as WAD is as Vegetius describes it but I'm arguing that the program _should_ take losses into account even if elements are not destroyed.

And attrition losses should count too.

Attrition losses may be difficult to take in account, because they are very variable and scattered.

In the other hand, it is beyond understanding that a entire division may be destroyed due to weather (especially in Arkansas and Missouri) without any consequence on national moral .

May we begin to resolve this particular case ?

Vegetius wrote:Attrition losses may be difficult to take in account, because they are very variable and scattered.

In the other hand, it is beyond understanding that a entire division may be destroyed due to weather (especially in Arkansas and Missouri) without any consequence on national moral .

Good point Vegetius. My suspicion would be though that we players have to live with it in the current game.

However I do so hope that if there ever is a AACWII that the whole issue of how NM and VP's are allocated is seriously overhauled. I also think that TheDoctorKing is right and that this thread more properly belongs in the 'Help to Improve AACW' section

Thanks Soudoff ! Sure we should debate in the appropriate section !