Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:54 pm
A few things on historical attrition as i see them.
First yes Cav should take less hits IMO than inf so yes ur results but as u say its a pretty small base seems to be a bit off. So ofc any arguments has to be seen in that light. Seemingly biasing tho prolly randomly so in hitting the cav. It should have less of a chance hitting cav IMO and it might actually have.
While the corps might have only marched 3 days the turn is 7 so the attrition rate should be checked against that and not 3 days. Attrition is higher when marching, but not exclusiv to that.
Does 200 men right of the bat seems high for a 16k corps marching some of the 7 days, no not to me.
It should be noted that the march in ur example is in own territory and that reduce attrition rates significantly. Using an example of marching through enemy controlled provinces would give another result. In the game is easy to make such an distingtion, less so at times in real life. So using results for tests of attrition rates through enemy territory might be better in terms of showing potential losses.
I've studied effects and casulty rates of attrition, generally called strategic consumption alot. That said mostly for the later campaigns, '09 and on.
While i have looked at both '06 and '05 i cant say i have all the numbers in my head.
Attrition rates do vary alot in the campaigns the quality of the '05 and '06 french army is alot better than some of the later ones. That is ofc one factor in reducing strategic consumption.
Two other factors that plays heavily in are.
1. Faster campaigns and the fact that troops doesnt stay in general long in the same area which means the doesnt exhaust the forage options.
2. Smaller armies that is(can be) better supplied via the organized supply system. U do marching "better" on a full stomach.
All that said the strategic consumption in '06 is far from insignificant.
If u look at later campaigns, '12-'14, 200 men in 7 days would be nothing for a 16k men corps. Especially marching in "enemy" territory.
I "" enemy territory cuz its easier to make the distingtion in '12 than in '13 and '14. While in game it matters much.
Consider that, from the 24th of June to the 7 of Sep. 1812 a mere 10 weeks. The strategic consumption in several of the corps of the Gran Armé reaches as high as near 50% of original infantry strength in a fair number of its bde's. There hasnt been alot of battle casulties up too then. Near 5 % of original strength lost per week in all. Higher in actuality cuz of law of diminishing returns.
If u look at 2nd corps on the 15th of Sep ofc after the battle and those casulties. Finding a bde with more than 50%+ is near impossible. I can only find 1 regiment in 1 of the bdes where that is true. Yes the thruth is that Napoleons armies lost more going into Russia, than comming out of it.
U see corps in both fall and spring of '13 having same or higher strategic consumption rates. % losses are actually higher per week, but u also have more battles in '13. The duration of the campaigns are not as long, so even if u have corps comming out the fall campaign with 100% losses overall losses arent quite as high % wise as '12, tho close. In the weeks leading up too Leipzig up too 2000 men are lost per day. Close to 1% of the entire army, non garrison part, per day from purely strategic consumption reasons. This in supposedly sorta "friendly" territory. Judging what is what in '13 is alot more shades of grey in historic terms IMO. Plus alot more battles and attrition rates are alot higher after those. This is to some extent shown as retreat losses in game.
200 out of 16k is only 1,25% in a week. Again i stress that the example isnt directly transfereble as in the in game modifiers would be different for the march from Niemen to Borodino, than the one used.
Still 1,25 % in a week even in friendly territory doesnt seem particular high to me. If any thing i'd say its on the low to mid end. This being '06 french that isnt totally unexpected. I could state tons of examples in "friendly" territory of strategic consumption in a week for 16k men that far excedes that.
I agree with u that IMO the attrition should be in general leveled out of the units of the corps and not be focused on single units. Its prolly alot harder to program tho.
Giving alot of judgement of the fairly small sample u have and no samples of in enemy controlled territory doesnt, at leased to me, give enough to make "final" opinion on. So what ever i've said about it should be taken in that light.
Non the less you raise an interesting question.
Kind regards,
Rasmus