Casualties

[K-1stPennaRes]

I actually do consider this an AGEOD bug. I just fought "Jena," and as Napoleon, I suffered 936 casualties on the first day, while the Prussians lost 39,000 men. This is similar to results I have seen in the Civil War game, where one side will lose less than 1,000 men, will the other while lose 15,000 or more.

This just never happened, except maybe if you count the capitulation of Ulm, in which Napoleon lost essentially no men, and the unfortunate General Mack lost about 90,000. On the other hand, that wasn't really a battle.

Is this fixable? It sort of detracted from my enjoyment of the ACW game, as I know that even at places like Fredericksburg, Lee still lost about 5,000 men, and at his greatest victory (or one of them), Chancellorsville, the Army of Northern Virginia lost about 12,000. I was hoping this would be fixed in this game.

Would it not be possible to have some sort of minimum loss of, say, 5%, and then tie the victor's losses to the losers, in some fashion? The reason I suggest this is that in a time when you had to be pretty close to the enemy to inflict decisive casualties, there was always a chance that some of their men would hit some of yours. If your casualties would never be less than, say, 30% of the enemy's, that would be a lot more realistic than it is now, as I don't know of any battles in this period -- save perhaps in India, with Clive or Wellington fighting a native army -- when there would be such a lopsided ratio of casualties.

Otherwise, the game looks great, and I will definitely purchase it.

B.C. Milligan

[PhilThib]

I would really appreciate you send us the battle log..that would help us trace the "history" of the battle and see what happened...

[K-1stPennaRes]

I will try to do this tonight. I noticed that there is already a thread on this subject, which you have probably seen.

Merci,

B.C. Milligan

[veji1]

Indeed, reading Syt's AAR of the 1809 campaign there are already several instances of battles wher you have 9 casualties against 12 657....

In AACW this results happened less and less with the patches and some mods such as Clovis's managed to make them all disappear (or at least they don't happen to me anymore...).

We must not forget that in Napoleon Campaigns most casualties did not happen in the big battle but in the rag tag of little engagements that took place during the pursuit after that battle..

[K-1stPennaRes]

I am understanding of the fact that many casualties happened in a pursuit, but -- and I don't claim to be as expert as some -- I do not recall any historical battles of this period in which there was such a disparity. Perhaps someone can find some Napoleonic battles -- as opposed to sieges or Ulm -- where he lost less than 1,000 men, and his opponents suffered losses almost 40 times as great.

B.C. Milligan

[Syt]

Can anyone confirm what may just be a misperception by me?

I have a nagging feeling that grossly uneven losses (<1000 vs 10s of 1000s) only seem to happen with strong French commanders (i.e. Nappy) vs. sucky commanders; but it may well be that imagine that.

[Clovis]

I am understanding of the fact that many casualties happened in a pursuit, but -- and I don't claim to be as expert as some -- I do not recall any historical battles of this period in which there was such a disparity. Perhaps someone can find some Napoleonic battles -- as opposed to sieges or Ulm -- where he lost less than 1,000 men, and his opponents suffered losses almost 40 times as great.

B.C. Milligan

so in this case the problem would be tied to the units cohesion level I lowered in my mod.

[K-1stPennaRes]

When I was involved in the creation of a Napoleonic board game for Avalon Hill, ages and ages ago, we did something that was probably obvious, and which I am sure AGEOD has done as well -- we made a list of every battle we could find, its participants, and its casualties, as a percentage of the forces engaged. We then based our possible results on those numbers, and as such, didn't have to worry about the generation of unlikely, if not impossible, results. As I noted in my first post, even in a rout, the victor would lose something -- after all, Napoleon had almost 9,000 casualties at Austerlitz, often considered his greatest victory.

I don't think this would be difficult to do now, but perhaps the game engine might not support it.

B.C. Milligan

[Sol Invictus]

I think that having hard parameters for the casualties might be a good idea. In any major battle, even the winner would be assured of taking several thousand casualties. This same approach might also prevent weather conditions that are extremely unlikely. I think that it would not be unreasonable to make snow in June-August an absolute impossibility.

[Adlertag]

Can anyone confirm what may just be a misperception by me?

I have a nagging feeling that grossly uneven losses (<1000 vs 10s of 1000s) only seem to happen with strong French commanders (i.e. Nappy) vs. sucky commanders; but it may well be that imagine that.

It is true that good commanders have a significant advantage that sometimes may lead to an important loss differential.
Especially if they gain higher command bonuses when Napoleon in on vicinity, Davout for example may climb at 9-9 in off and def stats and when you think it gives +5% per point and you furthermore add some specific enhancing combat leader traits, you can imagine the losses a badly commanded ennemy force will suffer.

But here it needs maybe some finely tuned tweaks. Not easy to adjust wisely.

[Pocus]

Can anyone confirm what may just be a misperception by me?

I have a nagging feeling that grossly uneven losses (<1000 vs 10s of 1000s) only seem to happen with strong French commanders (i.e. Nappy) vs. sucky commanders; but it may well be that imagine that.

Clever remark! See the patch readme... .

[Syt]

Clever remark! See the patch readme... .

Just saw the patch, nice going.