Absurd Casualty Rates

[ringhloth]

It seems like casualties are way too high, especially among retreating troops. Not only that, troops with low morale get it back pretty quickly when they're out of combat, leading to many devastated units merrily running into battle. Just ran through Shiloh, and the Confederate AI lost 75% of its army. That's insane, and every officer that was within 100 miles of the battle would have been fired, perhaps hung for incompetence. Perhaps units should shatter more often, but shattered units shouldn't be considered dead, and should return to fight the next battle. Cavalry units also shouldn't be butchers running around killing retreating units.

[Redmarkus4]

I agree, although this hasn't really impacted my overall enjoyment of the game. However, I'd like to see these things fixed too.

[diam0ndice9]

Also agreed. If you compare the actual figures to the corresponding historical battles you'll find that this game inflates casualty rates quite a bit. Also hasn't impacted my enjoyment of the game, but I'd like to see some sort of balancing act. Either slow down the rate by which brigades take casualties or have them automatically fall back a bit under withering fire.

[Sagit84]

As far as realism is concerned you guys are right.But gameplaywise: I think such changes will break it. Less casualties per salvo means more ammunition consumed.This leads to more expenses on supply. More morale damage leads to units routing too easily. Less casualties overall means bigger armies. This leads to more scaling which can make many battles unwinnable.
See where I'm going with all this?
And naturally fear leads to nager. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering ;)))

[Pohjanmaalainen]

Higher battle casualties just accounts for the lack of camp diseases. Might actually even out the books quite well, thnking like that.

[bradford174]

Actually, I'm finding that the casualty rates are not too dissimilar. The important thing to remember is that the number doesn't mean 'dead', but also includes 'wounded'. The historical battle of Silhoh had about 24,000 'casualties' - basically what I've had every playthrough.

The main problem is the scaling, although you also have to do that so you have a playable game.

[Hoodycn]

I personally think devs should lower the AI's intention of launching frontal attacks against well-defended posistions, because it seems now the AI will just charge your line at all cost utill they are totally destroyed, and when human player is sitting in good defensive terrain plus efficient arty support(eg. Shiloh, Malvern Hill, Fredericksburg, Stones river), it will only be a simple butcher.

[Volodio]

Originally posted by bradford174:

Actually, I'm finding that the casualty rates are not too dissimilar. The important thing to remember is that the number doesn't mean 'dead', but also includes 'wounded'. The historical battle of Silhoh had about 24,000 'casualties' - basically what I've had every playthrough.

The main problem is the scaling, although you also have to do that so you have a playable game.

I aggree. But for some battles it's still an issue, like for the 1st battle of Bull Run. There was less than 5 000 losses historically while in the game there is 15 000 casualities.

[bradford174]

Originally posted by Volodio:

I aggree. But for some battles it's still an issue, like for the 1st battle of Bull Run. There was less than 5 000 losses historically while in the game there is 15 000 casualities.

Yeah, although I'm willing to give them a pass. 1st Bull Run was two sides who really had no experience, all kinds of mistakes being made. It's very hard to simulate that. If the battle were fought with similar sides a few years later, it would have had much higher casualty rates.

[ringhloth]

Originally posted by bradford174:

Actually, I'm finding that the casualty rates are not too dissimilar. The important thing to remember is that the number doesn't mean 'dead', but also includes 'wounded'. The historical battle of Silhoh had about 24,000 'casualties' - basically what I've had every playthrough.

The main problem is the scaling, although you also have to do that so you have a playable game.

It's completely unreasonable that an army would tke 75% casualties, though. That's not reasonable at all. You goal in many battles where you are explicitly trying to preserve your force is losing not more than 40 or 50% of it. Those would be some of the bloodiest battles in the civil war, not a battle where your army came out unscathed.

Originally posted by Sagit84:

As far as realism is concerned you guys are right.But gameplaywise: I think such changes will break it. Less casualties per salvo means more ammunition consumed.This leads to more expenses on supply. More morale damage leads to units routing too easily. Less casualties overall means bigger armies. This leads to more scaling which can make many battles unwinnable.
See where I'm going with all this?
And naturally fear leads to nager. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering ;)))

Not really. Just make people shatter more often, and allow units that shattered to reform as brigades after the battle.

[✿♥‿♥✿海洋は大好]

Originally posted by bradford174:

Originally posted by Volodio:

I aggree. But for some battles it's still an issue, like for the 1st battle of Bull Run. There was less than 5 000 losses historically while in the game there is 15 000 casualities.

Yeah, although I'm willing to give them a pass. 1st Bull Run was two sides who really had no experience, all kinds of mistakes being made. It's very hard to simulate that. If the battle were fought with similar sides a few years later, it would have had much higher casualty rates.

I think it's this. I remember reading about a foreign observer commenting on the Battle of Bull Run (I think he was a Prussian) and he said it was a "music hall farce." By comparison, the Prussian called Antietam “One of the bloodiest, blackest fields I have ever had the misfortune to observe.”

[dezzzr]

I like it to be honest.

[reddragon052]

I think one of the issues is that a broken unit is counted as a 100% casualty rate, even though some men survived they are counted as lost. Im not sure on this but this would inflate the number quite a bit.

[[TFM]bobcat]

Originally posted by reddragon052:

I think one of the issues is that a broken unit is counted as a 100% casualty rate, even though some men survived they are counted as lost. Im not sure on this but this would inflate the number quite a bit.

I dont think they are counted as 100% lost because I have had battles where I completely wiped out the enemy and the losses did not add up to those who should all have died or been captured

[CrashToDesktop]

Originally posted by reddragon052:

I think one of the issues is that a broken unit is counted as a 100% casualty rate, even though some men survived they are counted as lost. Im not sure on this but this would inflate the number quite a bit.

No, because if you check the after-battle report, you can see all units that participated in the battle - and if they Shattered, you'll see they still had X amount of men left, usually around 1/3 to 1/4 of the original force.

[ringhloth]

Originally posted by The Soldier:

Originally posted by reddragon052:

I think one of the issues is that a broken unit is counted as a 100% casualty rate, even though some men survived they are counted as lost. Im not sure on this but this would inflate the number quite a bit.

No, because if you check the after-battle report, you can see all units that participated in the battle - and if they Shattered, you'll see they still had X amount of men left, usually around 1/3 to 1/4 of the original force.

This is also a little misleading, though, because shattered units don't go back into your army, and are as good as dead.