Over-powerful Baltic Army - SOW

[Metalist]

In a pbem Sons of War game I encounter the following Baltic army with 4800 CP. But I just can't explain how it is so strong. Their infantry consists of militias, and they are not like that numerous. The turn is run twice to see if it was one time thing, but no. Is this a bug or is there something I'm missing?

[Nikel]

May you upload the save?

[Metalist]

Hello.

Here is the turn file just before it is processed to give the result: https://easyupload.io/vjalx4

And in the attachment you can find the Red files after the turn processed.

Thanks.

[Nikel]

I get the same result.

I think it is the combined combat strength of the Latvian and Lithuanian National armies, you engage both and your red army is destroyed and captured, there are a lot of prisoners.

Even though for some reason, the second army is not displayed as a reinforcement during the battle or in the battle report, both are there.

You see both (one or the other) in the two battle reports in your screenshots.

And also displayed here:

Lat.png (164.16 KiB) Viewed 2046 times

Lith.png (150.06 KiB) Viewed 2046 times

[Metalist]

Hmm, that's odd. So the reinforcement does not appear numerically at the battle screen, but its combat power is included in the total sum of the combat power? It does not make much sense to me But thanks, I will look a bit more.

[Nikel]

Well, you are engaging both in the same region as you can see in the screenshots I posted.

This game is very complex indeed with so many factions, there is one Baltic? Or they are two, Lithuanian and Latvians? And the Estonians that missed the battle

May it be the reason? A limitation of the engine?


If you load the save as the W Whites, you can see the Latvian Army and the CP is 2151, I would bet the rest is due to the Lithuanian army, though I cannot see it.

L2.png (2.24 MiB) Viewed 2031 times

[Zenvaro]

In addition to all of the above, I would like to add that the enemy has at least twice as much artillery and quite a lot of machine guns, while the Reds have no machine guns at all. This could also play a role. In fact, there are many factors such as the weather, the chosen battle tactics, enemy fortifications. I will never forget how I played about 12 years ago in the usual RUS without mods. In Narva, only Tonisson's division was entrenched, that is, about 4 regiments of regular infantry and an artillery detachment. A total of about 5,000 people. In the depths of winter, I confidently struck Narva with my Tukhachevsky army, which had about 50,000 people. Mostly recruits, but not militia. There was a lot of cavalry and artillery among them. As a result, for several turns in a row, I suffered losses of 10,000-15,000 people. In the end, the army commander was killed, I retreated in disgrace, and Tonisson's total losses were about 2,000. Things like that happen.

[ERISS]

Tonisson's division was about 5,000 people.
my Tukhachevsky army had about 50,000 people. I suffered losses of 10,000-15,000 people.
In the end, the army commander was killed, I retreated in disgrace,
and Tonisson's total losses were about 2,000.

[EDIT: My quote was 'false' not complete, see the answer next post]
Without the killing of the general, it was a tactical victory for the reds, as they had less than 40% losses (20,000), what had the White. So if the general survived, without counting morale, continuing the battle would bring the victory.

[Zenvaro]

Tonisson's division was about 5,000 people.
my Tukhachevsky army had about 50,000 people. I suffered losses of 10,000-15,000 people.
In the end, the army commander was killed, I retreated in disgrace,
and Tonisson's total losses were about 2,000.

Without the killing of the general, it was a tactical victory for the reds, as they had less than 40% losses (20,000), what had the White. So if the general survived, without counting morale, continuing the battle would bring the victory.

No, no. I lost 10,000-15,000 every turn. That is, there were 2-3 turns and I lost that much every turn. So, in the end, I lost about 60-70%. And with each new turn, my losses were increasing. Perhaps the last blow would have brought me victory, but it would have been an absolutely Pyrrhic victory. I would have lost many experienced regiments irretrievably, without the possibility of replenishing them. After the retreat, at least I managed to replenish the troops and strike at a more opportune moment, taking siege artillery with me.

[ERISS]

Okay, I had misread "for several turns in a row," as I had found it so huge loss,
so you should have add "every turn" to the sentance to ensure the point
So, sorry for my uncomplete quote (I edited).