Is high mortality compared to history the norm?

[tripax]

I just finished a game and am curious if my results are normal. I, the union, had about 300,000 casualties and the confederates had over 500,000. We ended in Early January 1864. I don't think these numbers count deaths from sickness or attrition, (maybe I'm wrong). So they seem a bit high, especially as we ended early. Are these numbers typical? Also, is there any way to see how many soldiers are in my army (and the rebel army)? [ATTACH]26900[/ATTACH]

[pgr]

My understanding is that the lost number represents killed, attrition (which would model sickness etc) and prisoners. (So that 85400 you have in prison camps is showing up in the confederacy lost men total I think). Of course, I can't point to a line of code that confirms this....

[minipol]

I had similar results at the end of the war. I have asked to include the casualties from attrition and sickness to get a clear view of all casualties. We have to buy replacements for these losses too, so we should be able to track them.
As for casualties per battle, it depends. My opinion is that casualties for forces attacking entrenched positions (level 6 or more) are to low. I've had smaller forces with lesser generals and fewer guns attack me. My forces were level 8 entrenched and the enemy needed to cross a river. Result was less then 3 to 1 casualty rate. I have had this happen several times. Far to low. The effect should be that in such cases you need to dislog the enemy by manouevering.

[Highlandcharge]

Hi guys, I was wondering the same when I see this thread, I then done a Google search and found this article on the BBC website...

Here is a link... it says the death toll may have been as high as 750,000 according to a new study...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17604991

[GraniteStater]

My understanding is that the lost number represents killed, attrition (which would model sickness etc) and prisoners. (So that 85400 you have in prison camps is showing up in the confederacy lost men total I think). Of course, I can't point to a line of code that confirms this....

I'm pretty sure you're correct. If you're trying to see how you're doing in the Kill 'Em All sweepstakes, His Lost includes the POW figure, so don't add them.

In AACW, I had a Hi Difficulty game as the Union where Athena was doing good on the map, but I was just absolutely wading thru digital CSA corpses - she surrendered in '63 after 350,000 gone, IIRC, with Richmond taken but lately and Petersburg stoutly defended.

[tripax]

My understanding is that the lost number represents killed, attrition (which would model sickness etc) and prisoners. (So that 85400 you have in prison camps is showing up in the confederacy lost men total I think). Of course, I can't point to a line of code that confirms this....

Checking the Confederacy, they show 531236 lost (so their losses don't include the 185,400 prisoners of theirs I hold). Is there any way I can see how many prisoners I've lost without looking at their screen? And obviously, I agree that attrition and sickness casualties would be nice to see broken out.

[GraniteStater]

Checking the Confederacy, they show 531236 lost (so their losses don't include the 185,400 prisoners of theirs I hold). Is there any way I can see how many prisoners I've lost without looking at their screen? And obviously, I agree that attrition and sickness casualties would be nice to see broken out.

It does include the POWs, I believe.

[tripax]

Here is the screen for the Confederates. Based in which numbers match which, mortality doesn't include POW's. [ATTACH]26901[/ATTACH]

[tripax]

Unless I'm wrong...

[GraniteStater]

I thought pgr was saying POW included in Enemy Loss figure & I was agreeing. I haven't opened the Other Side in weeks,so...

[pgr]

Well the two screens clearly show that PoW numbers are not included in the "Lost Men" number. Just from a coding standpoint, a hit by a battle and a hit by attrition are effectively the same thing. So I would assume the lost men are deaths from all causes. PoW's must be accounted for differently because of the prisoner exchange decisions. (And I think the manual says that PoWs can die in captivity... so there is the possibility for men to go from the PoW column to the Lost column)

From my non-scientifc memory, Athena had me nearly beat in September 61, when Joe Johnston decided to deep raid into Pa in the middle of winter with no wagons. I didn't move a thing and watched as winter worked its magic, and I could have sworn that the men lost number for the CSA just kept climbing. Are you playing with historical attrition? If it includes 800,000, that seems reasonable to me.

I'd also say most players tend to have a higher than historical tempo of operations. It's pretty easy for the Union to start a grinding overland campaign as early as the summer of 62. In reality, following most battles up until the summer of 64, armies would break contact, regroup and reorganize for long periods of time. In this game, you can loose a battle, have max cohesion within 30 days, and be back battering away. Tends to inflate the numbers.

[minipol]

To my knowledge, the prisoners are included in the lost men.
I tought Pocus said something about it a while back

[minipol]

And here is the quote of Pocus

POW should be a subset of losses...

[pgr]

Result was less then 3 to 1 casualty rate. I have had this happen several times. Far to low. The effect should be that in such cases you need to dislog the enemy by manouevering.

I'm not actually sure that the casualty rate is too low, compared to historical experience. We all tend to think that attacking intrenched positions was bloody suicide, but the numbers don't necessarily bear that out. It's wiki, but two big illustrative examples of Cold Harbor and Fredrecksburg both have ratios of a bit more than 2-1 but significantly less than 3-1. If you think about it, moral is going to break well before the last man is shot down, which as a tendency to stop an attack.

My question is when these folks attacked your entrenched position, how hard did they press the attack? I'm guessing that it only lasted a few rounds and then the attacker broke off the attack. I'd expect certain elements to get mauled or destroyed, but 3-1 for the total force would be hard to do.

As an aside, I don't know what the play experience is, but the bloodiest battles of the Civil War were open field battles Gettysburg for the biggest total, Sharpsburg for the single day, and Stone's River for the highest % of forces engaged. If anything, digging deep saved lives on both sides. The 9 months of Petersburg only produced 20,000 more K/W/M than the three days of Gettysburg.

[pgr]

To my knowledge, the prisoners are included in the lost men.
I thought Pocus said something about it a while back

And lost men also include attrition hits?

[tripax]

Yes, historical attrition is on. Your point about the faster pace is a good one. I'd love it if at the end of the game I could have a ledger of all of the battles I fought with the leader(s), size of both forces, losses, and nm change.

The attrition question is a good one, its common to have a turn with no battles (and no sea battles) in the winter, I'll check if deaths goes up in those cases for myself, but I think you are right that attrition must be counted (and thus my numbers aren't high compared to history).

[minipol]

I'm not sure about the attrition, I asked if they could be included but I haven't gotten an answer

[aariediger]

I'm pretty sure it's a total of all battle casualties, meaning killed, wounded, and missing/captured. I have no idea what the actual 'in battle' casualties were in the Civil War, as most people are quoting the 600,000 dead total, the vast majority of whom are from non-battle causes. Remember, Gettysburg may have had over 50,000 casualties, but only around 6,000 dead. The Army of the Potomac probably lost more men killed by disease the winter of '63-'64 following, than in the battle itself.

[pgr]

I'm pretty sure it's a total of all battle casualties, meaning killed, wounded, and missing/captured. I have no idea what the actual 'in battle' casualties were in the Civil War, as most people are quoting the 600,000 dead total, the vast majority of whom are from non-battle causes. Remember, Gettysburg may have had over 50,000 casualties, but only around 6,000 dead. The Army of the Potomac probably lost more men killed by disease the winter of '63-'64 following, than in the battle itself.

Well in terms of the historical number, it's a bit of a mess. Most estimates I've seen have combat deaths accounting for a third of Union deaths, and a smaller % of Confederate dead (but the Confederate records are very poor.)

In terms of the game though, all you have are "hits." Hits from combat, and attrition. In terms of game programming, I can't imagine they would go to the trouble of sorting out the "dead" hits from the "wounded" hits. Especially sense hits have to be repaired by replacement chits, so they are effectively permanent losses. That is why I suspect that "men lost" represents all hits suffered from the start of the game.

[GraniteStater]

Well in terms of the historical number, it's a bit of a mess. Most estimates I've seen have combat deaths accounting for a third of Union deaths, and a smaller % of Confederate dead (but the Confederate records are very poor.)

In terms of the game though, all you have are "hits." Hits from combat, and attrition. In terms of game programming, I can't imagine they would go to the trouble of sorting out the "dead" hits from the "wounded" hits. Especially sense hits have to be repaired by replacement chits, so they are effectively permanent losses. That is why I suspect that "men lost" represents all hits suffered from the start of the game.

Your last I think is right, although there might be a fudge factor in the code, etc.

Look, as someone who documents applications & has seen a lot of UIs, in all states of assembly:

* Even without looking at the Other Side, as I was getting along in the only CW2 game I've played to completion, I just sat there saying to myself, "That can't be right." If I had been adding POW to EnLost, I would have been zapping 2:1 or more - from what had been happening in game, that just didn't seem right. So I peeked. Compare only Lost:Lost, that's it, that's what I concluded from that only peek. If I saw the code, I'm not sure that the POW figures after exchanges are that big a deal or yardstick - informative but not that rigorous.

* And why do you care, really? Against Athena, you want to know to get an Idea of Surrender Horizon. I would say when you get to 300K AI Enemy Lost (for CSA opponent), start blending that in to the NM, territory, FI, VP, and the date to get a feel for towel time.

* Against wetware, it's a different story for Surrender, of course and Losses are always a contribution to how many left he can raise, etc., but making your opponent quit is s. t. different.

[tripax]

* And why do you care, really? Against Athena, you want to know to get an Idea of Surrender Horizon. I would say when you get to 300K AI Enemy Lost (for CSA opponent), start blending that in to the NM, territory, FI, VP, and the date to get a feel for towel time.

Because I don't play to get to surrender. I play to feel like I'm retelling the history. So I like to play to finish, and compare my final days to Appomattox. And I like to think about my Shiloh and my Gettysburg. And I want to know how disease and attrition affected my Camden Expedition, my Siege of Vicksburg, and my Chattanooga. One of my favorites (because it is easy to figure out) is my tragedy at Palmetto Ranch, the small battle that happens on the last turn that didn't really matter because some large city just fell finishing off opposition moral (sometimes my Palmetto Ranch is more like New Orleans in 1815, even).

[GraniteStater]

It wasn't meant literally. That's called a "figure of speech". I was just saying, in my experience with AACW/CW2, there's a certain point where I believe certain factors come together & the app says 'enuff'.

Are you playing a strategy game that happens to model the ACW or trying to experience a simulation? The latter - well, it ain't CW2. CW2 is a strategic level game. Grognards should scope out WitP:AE if you like the setting. And even the WitP community leans towards game, 'cuz, by 1944, the Allies can kick IJ brass right off the UI.

It's your game, though - far be it from me to tell anyone anything.