Discordance between numbers

[Ethan]

Hi guys!

I know that generally the number of prisoners added to the number of casualties usually coincides with the initial number of enemy troops. But in this case I think there is a big discordance between the numbers... What do you think?

Really, this is not too important but just out of curiosity I wonder if something similar happened to you.

Greetings!

[charlesonmission]

Well the 6,000 prisoners do coincide with the number of companies taken (60). However, I've also noticed that the number of total casualties doesn't always coincide with the number of total troops, even when completely destroyed? Perhaps a few always leave and don't fight??

Charles

Hi guys!

I know that generally the number of prisoners added to the number of casualties usually coincides with the initial number of enemy troops. But in this case I think there is a big discordance between the numbers... What do you think?

Really, this is not too important but just out of curiosity I wonder if something similar happened to you.

Greetings!

[Ethan]

As you know, normally, the total number of enemy troops does not coincide 100% with the number of casualties added to the number of prisoners. That is something known by all. But IMHO this is too uneven (15.000 men =? 14.603 casualties + 6.000 prisoners). According to this, 20.600 men would have intervened in the battle...

[Ol' Choctaw]

As you know, normally, the total number of enemy troops does not coincide 100% with the number of casualties added to the number of prisoners. That is something known by all. But IMHO this is too uneven (15.000 men =? 14.603 casualties + 6.000 prisoners). According to this, 20.600 men would have intervened in the battle...

I guess you captured a lot of wounded prisoners.

Casualties don’t always mean dead.

[Ethan]

Hi Ol' Choctaw!

You may be right. It's something that I had not thought.

Thanks for your remark.

Greetings!

[Stauffenberg]

On this topic I would like to make sure I understand overall losses as given in the Objectives screen.
I am playing the CSA vs Athena, it's Late June 1863 and losses are listed as:

Prisoners of war: USA 49800

Total Combat Losses: 136414 (enemy 114892)

Questions:

1) is the number of prisoners a completely separate figure from USA losses of 114892? I assume it is.

2) Why are CSA prisoner of war totals not given?

3) Having selected to allow for prisoners of war to be exchanged why are there no figures given on trades every turn? Are these factored into conscript companies available?

4) Why are my CSA games vs Athena invariably showing the CSA taking more losses than the USA? Perhaps it is my game playing style or the fact that I am still very much on the learning curve to master this game, but the gap between loss amounts is ever-increasing (in favour of the USA) no matter how defensively I play.

5) Are losses from men disappearing from lack of supply or weather effects simply factored in and counted on a turn by turn basis?

Thanks,
Stauf

[JKM]

I'm as unsure as you as to what exactly the balance is..are prisoners partly or wholely drawn from the casualties figure at the bottom of the battle report?
which also, as i understand, doesn't include any further losses' in pursuit '..
maybe as someone has said previously it's partially including some of the casualties from the battlescreen..'wounded prisoners..etc" I'm sure someone far more knowledgeable will explain..
but with the actual balkance of losses, i was much the same in my first two campaigns..seemingly no matter what i did, the enemy always lost fewer than i did.
Now, a couple of months on, things have swung quite a bit the other way..( not to the extent that i see in some peoples AAR's tho..some of their armies must be made up of bulletproof arnold schwarzenneger clones..)
Thats come about by learning not to attack in mud..or at low cohesion..or at less than two to one odds..getting my high offensive generals in action early..
and ganging up on isolated enemy units to up experience.
that in turn leads to higher NM , which, if you can maintain a healthy lead over the opposition, in turn leads to better battle results..
so easy when you say it quickly.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Winning battles and gaining experience for your troops and generals is a big part of who takes the most casualties.

When attacking try to have 3 to 1 or greater odds. Force the enemy to attack well entrenched defenders and with lower odds. Have supporting corps near by.

Some generals take more casualties. Try to avoid using them until the troops have good experience.

I try to watch the casualty rates. Less than three to one is not good for me. So up the odds if you can. Keep your troops as well rested and up to strength as you can. The best place to rest them is in depots and larger cities and on passive mode if you can.

Even on the front lines every unit need not be in offensive posture. You can rest the better part of a corps with one division on watch.

I have inflicted casualties in excess of 100 to 1 in some massive battles against what should have been better generals but this is often with 10 to 1 odds in my favor.

Fight smart and avoid risky attacks.

[Ethan]

I would not have explained it better!

I agree with you. Very good advices.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Just to check the theory I expressed about the original post, in my first attack of a game vs. the AI I took a town. I had 0 losses and the enemy lost 450. From that I checked to see how many prisoners I had taken. There were 200 captured from the 450, so I guess I killed 250 and the rest surrendered.

[caranorn]

Just to check the theory I expressed about the original post, in my first attack of a game vs. the AI I took a town. I had 0 losses and the enemy lost 450. From that I checked to see how many prisoners I had taken. There were 200 captured from the 450, so I guess I killed 250 and the rest surrendered.

Killed/wounded/temporarily_awol etc.

[Ol' Choctaw]

Prisoners are a part of total casualties for the enemy. They had losses listed as the full 450.

I don't know how this would be affected with prisoner exchange but I don't guess it matters much, most of the time.