anibal barca
Lieutenant
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:55 pm

battle casualties

Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:39 pm

the losses that occur in the battles seem disproportionate and exaggerated,comparing historical losses data in battle of the napoleonic epoch.
the results of casualties that occur in most of the battles of the game,it is unrealistic,because in the battles both armies are exterminated,in bloodiest battles like borodino or waterloo there were no losses as high.
hopefully this will be corrected in some patch update of historical and realistic parameters of losses in battle and give required immersion.

monniker
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:06 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:13 am

Out of curiosity, do you have an example with leaders and nations? In my game, the casualties seem to be pretty reasonable factoring in that most of mine come after seiges against low cohesion and supply units that I imagine my troops are massacring.

The highest casualties from any single combat I was involved in had about 14k losses for the enemy and 4k for myself, I believe. Which seems acceptable, but I play Spain and they don't have heavy hitters.

Drake001
Sergeant
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:38 am

Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:37 am

This has been brought up in a couple other threads as well with others verifying. I have had MANY obliteration battles with normal settings/posture...ie not assault.

User avatar
Sir Garnet
Posts: 935
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:00 am

These armies are not as efficient at slaughter as mechanical science allowed those a century later to be. Trapped forces or those grealy outnumbered or overrun can easily lose heavily. Even though a portion (1/3?) of losses are returned to the player (as manpower rather than replacements?) casualty percentages of the respective armies from the battle reports (can see the AARs) may still tend too high although the overall battle outcomes may fit well - many unable to continue the fight might rally or be gathered and reformed in the following hours, or days.

Could I ask for an design explanation of the losses and what they mean in WON's release version?

monniker
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:06 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:27 am

Well, to clarify the only comments about high casualties I have found appear to be related to France; either fighting as them or against them. I am curious if it's related to France's better leaders or a more general problem. As Spain, most of my battles were not battles of extermination, but I did have battles where I lost a lot of my force.

anibal barca
Lieutenant
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:55 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:56 am

ninety percent casualties in both armies had in several battles.

monniker
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:06 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:04 am

If you don't mind me asking, who were the belligerents? Was one of them France? In the scenarios as France I was able to maul my enemies and myself with high casualties, but as Spain in the GC fighting minor nations I find it takes time for a decisive battle.

anibal barca
Lieutenant
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:55 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:19 am

i play with france and the enemy are austrian,but both armies fight a battle of aniquilation,the two armies being decimated and this is not realistic.
i understand that ever happens as at borodino and finds no clear winner in the battle,but not in so many battles continuously.
i understand that the loser army may have also more losses due to the persecution,depending on various factors,fresh units are there in the victorious army,if there is cavalry available,the skill of the commanding general,among other factors.

monniker
Private
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:06 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:33 am

I myself am inclined to agree that something is off with the casualties. I do love having decisive battles now and again, but I am curious if something is making the French force bloodier battles on themselves and others. I'm no expert at the game and so I may be wrong, but I have not heard of such casualties with other nations yet, pre or post reform. I suspect we'll get a clearer picture of what exactly the cause of the losses is as more people play further.

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:53 am

Casualties are too high in my experience too. I'm seeing victors with 60+% casualties.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1226
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:21 am

What has been said so far is logical, but I am no so sure that something is wrong.

First, I have read somewhere on this forum that one third of the casualties in each battle are returned to the replacement pool, and one third are considered captured, if I am remembering it correctly. If this is the case, then only one third of the losses represent killed or seriously wounded.

I also believe that cavalry pursuit may play a big part in the losers heavy losses.

One of the biggest problems I had with Napoleon's Campaigns was that you never saw a large army destroyed. Armies would get beaten and suffer relatively heavy losses, but were still able to recover and fight.

But many of the big battles during the Napoleonic wars resulted in the destruction of an entire army. Now this does not mean that everyone was killed, but that the army was shattered as a fighting force, unable to reform. Many of the men in the army fled, many were captured, especially if there was a cavalry pursuit, such as Murat's pursuit of the beaten Prussians after Jena and Auerstadt.

Some of the battles that resulted in the effective destruction of an entire army, though not all of its men were killed, were Ulm, Austerlitz, Jena, Auerstadt, Friedland, Ocana, Salamanca, and Waterloo, and there were others.

there were also battles where both sides had whole corps destroyed as fighting units, and broken beyond repair, such as Eylau.

With this perspective, I think the current system may be the first Napoleonic game to recreate the classic Napoleonic battle of annihilation, which may make it more realistic than having Civil war type armies that always manage to retreat to fight another day. Not to say it may not need tweaking, but I like this new system, as it feels more Napoleonic.

Now it should not happen with every battle, and it does not happen with every battle I fight. But it happened often enough in the real Napoleonic wars that I consider the decisive battle of annihilation, at least as a fighting force, to be more realistic than what we had before.

I hope they do not change this, though maybe a little adjustment is in order.

Just my thoughts.

Drake001
Sergeant
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:38 am

Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:22 am

Disagree 100 percent. Casualties figures are easy to look up to get historical information...10, 20 occasionally 25 percent...what many of us are seeing 70, 80 or close to 100 percent. So I don' t agree with what you assert to be history.

What made the losses so devastating early on to the allies was their armies were precious commodities that they could not easily replace and their old style system of organization made them more fragile. For example, in 1809 the Austrian armies were more resilient and could continue to fight. What were the percentage of casualties at wagram? Jena?

User avatar
Sir Garnet
Posts: 935
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:44 am

Decimation (10%) would be fairly low end losses. The bloodbaths were casualties of around a third of one or both armies and involve intense engagement or fairly small forces. Prisoners are an artifact of suitable circumstances. Disintegration of armies basically means the survivors head home to the manpower pool and try to avoid being pulled back into service.

User avatar
JacquesDeLalaing
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
Location: Vienna (Austria)

Wed Dec 09, 2015 6:14 am

As it has been suggested, a loss of fighting power does not necessarily stem from casualties. What might be more relevant is the loss of organisation and control that comes with a badly or totally uncoordinated retreat. Parts of the army get captured, parts isolated, soldiers left their units, communication breaks down (also nightfall would play a part in this?), the C in C and the staff as the central operational brain has no chance to know where the individual parts of the army (and the opponent) are, not even to speak of giving new coordinated orders and identify new locations for camps and directing supply.

"There you go, courier, bring this order to corps xy!" - "Fine sir, where is corps xy?" - "Well i have no clue, really. The last message I have received dates from half an hour ago. They have been under heavy pressure at village x! Go and search there!" - "But sir, it's dark and the enemy is everywhere!" "Well f*** this just go and search for them (more precise and harder to find: their general)! And they need to report me their status and location! I will be here. Well at least probably. Unless the opponent shows up. Then I will be somewhere else"

50 000 men are no army if they lack an organisation of information that links them to the "brain". Reorganising and saving any kind of coordination under immediate enemy contact must have been nigh impossible. Losing men is not that bad, losing control means defeat.

However, the question rather seems to be whether "decisive" victories are represented in the game in an adequate way? Does it matter all that much if one turns an army into a casualty, or if one forces the army to stay immobile at 0 % cohesion?
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1226
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 7:56 am

Drake001 wrote:Disagree 100 percent. Casualties figures are easy to look up to get historical information...10, 20 occasionally 25 percent...what many of us are seeing 70, 80 or close to 100 percent. So I don' t agree with what you assert to be history.

What made the losses so devastating early on to the allies was their armies were precious commodities that they could not easily replace and their old style system of organization made them more fragile. For example, in 1809 the Austrian armies were more resilient and could continue to fight. What were the percentage of casualties at wagram? Jena?


I do not think the games definition of "casualties" are the same as the actual definition of casualties, so we are talking about two different things.

The historical casualty figures you refer to are actual killed and wounded. Given that one third of all battle losses in the game go directly to the replacement pool, it seems clear that "casualties" in the game just does not refer to killed and wounded only, but to other losses as well.

If another third of the casualties are prisoners, or prisoners and soldiers who fled the battlefield but did not return as replacements, then casualties of one hundred percent in the game would be casualties of only thirty three percent in terms of actual killed and wounded.

At Auerstadt, for example, fifteen thousand of the fifty thousand Prussians who took part in the battle were killed and wounded. thirty percent of the total. But the rest remained combat ineffective, and offered no effective resistance during the rest of the campaign, Though Blucher held together a small rear guard..

If my view is correct, this would be represented in the game as casualties of ninety percent, in game terms, keeping in mind that casualties in the game represent not only killed and wounded, but also soldiers who fled but later returned to duty, prisoners, and soldiers who fled and never returned to duty.

But I am speculating to a degree, and only the developers know for sure.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1226
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:07 am

Sir Garnet wrote:Decimation (10%) would be fairly low end losses. The bloodbaths were casualties of around a third of one or both armies and involve intense engagement or fairly small forces. Prisoners are an artifact of suitable circumstances. Disintegration of armies basically means the survivors head home to the manpower pool and try to avoid being pulled back into service.


Sir Garnet, I essentially agree.

My speculation is that one third of the total described as casualties in the battle are actual killed and wounded, one third we know are men who left the field and returned to the replacement pool, and the remaining third are men who fled the field but continued to avoid service, and prisoners.

vaalen
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1226
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 8:48 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:16 am

JacquesDeLalaing wrote:As it has been suggested, a loss of fighting power does not necessarily stem from casualties. What might be more relevant is the loss of organisation and control that comes with a badly or totally uncoordinated retreat. Parts of the army get captured, parts isolated, soldiers left their units, communication breaks down (also nightfall would play a part in this?), the C in C and the staff as the central operational brain has no chance to know where the individual parts of the army (and the opponent) are, not even to speak of giving new coordinated orders and identify new locations for camps and directing supply.

"There you go, courier, bring this order to corps xy!" - "Fine sir, where is corps xy?" - "Well i have no clue, really. The last message I have received dates from half an hour ago. They have been under heavy pressure at village x! Go and search there!" - "But sir, it's dark and the enemy is everywhere!" "Well f*** this just go and search for them (more precise and harder to find: their general)! And they need to report me their status and location! I will be here. Well at least probably. Unless the opponent shows up. Then I will be somewhere else"

50 000 men are no army if they lack an organisation of information that links them to the "brain". Reorganising and saving any kind of coordination under immediate enemy contact must have been nigh impossible. Losing men is not that bad, losing control means defeat.

However, the question rather seems to be whether "decisive" victories are represented in the game in an adequate way? Does it matter all that much if one turns an army into a casualty, or if one forces the army to stay immobile at 0 % cohesion?


Well said, and i agree.

Taillebois
General
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:00 am

JacquesDeLalaing wrote:

"There you go, courier, bring this order to corps xy!" - "Fine sir, where is corps xy?" - "Well i have no clue, really. The last message I have received dates from half an hour ago. They have been under heavy pressure at village x! Go and search there!" - "But sir, it's dark and the enemy is everywhere!" "Well f*** this just go and search for them (more precise and harder to find: their general)! And they need to report me their status and location! I will be here. Well at least probably. Unless the opponent shows up. Then I will be somewhere else"



This is why you should take a look at Campaigns On The Danube (COTD) - only about 10 bucks in the Matrix sale now on.

I happened to read a paragraph in Jomini's book about Napoleon playing with colored pins on his maps that got me thinking about which games are near reality for commanders.

In fact, now I've started I'll quote from Chapter 6 of Jomini's "The Art Of War":

"The emperor was his own chief staff officer. Provided with a pair of dividers opened to a distance by the scale of from seventeen to twenty miles (which made from twenty-two to twenty-five miles, taking into account the windings of the roads,) bending over and at sometimes stretched at full length upon his map, where the positions of his corps and the supposed positions of the enemy were marked by pins of different colors, he was able to give orders for extensive movements with a certainty and precision which were astonishing."


In COTD turns are one day, three hexes are a days march. It is not as beautiful as AGEOD's games but has just received a patch. It also runs better on my laptop which is struggling with WON.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:24 am

Taillebois wrote:This is why you should take a look at Campaigns On The Danube (COTD) - only about 10 bucks in the Matrix sale now on.

I happened to read a paragraph in Jomini's book about Napoleon playing with colored pins on his maps that got me thinking about which games are near reality for commanders.

In fact, now I've started I'll quote from Chapter 6 of Jomini's "The Art Of War":

"The emperor was his own chief staff officer. Provided with a pair of dividers opened to a distance by the scale of from seventeen to twenty miles (which made from twenty-two to twenty-five miles, taking into account the windings of the roads,) bending over and at sometimes stretched at full length upon his map, where the positions of his corps and the supposed positions of the enemy were marked by pins of different colors, he was able to give orders for extensive movements with a certainty and precision which were astonishing."


In COTD turns are one day, three hexes are a days march. It is not as beautiful as AGEOD's games but has just received a patch. It also runs better on my laptop which is struggling with WON.


I loved the old battleground games, my main problem with the John Tiller ones is cosmetic : I just long for the lovely graphics of the ol' battleground games and can't fathom playing 2D....

Anyway, on my side i've had normalish losses in my constant drubbing of the Austrians, but since it was so unbalanced, It's probably meaningless.

User avatar
Montbrun
Major
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 9:27 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:07 pm

A good source is Digby Smith's "The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book." It has data on units involved, types of units, numbers of men engaged, and numbers and types of casualties for each major skirmish and battle from 1792 to 1815.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:23 pm

Right out of the gate, 1 French Corp destroyed

anibal barca
Lieutenant
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:55 pm

Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:22 pm

in any case the game should clarify in the part of losses that number of troops have died in combat,how many wounded are useless for combat and how many wounded not are useless for combat,how many soldiers have deserted after the battle and may not be used,how many soldiers have been taken prisoner and how many soldiers have dispersed after the battle and return to the replacement pool.the player would know how many soldiers have really fallen in battle.

User avatar
Highlandcharge
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:44 am

Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:59 pm

It tells you how many were captured in the message log just right before the red battle entry...

jmscar
Private
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 3:51 am

Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:17 am

anibal barca wrote:the losses that occur in the battles seem disproportionate and exaggerated,comparing historical losses data in battle of the napoleonic epoch.
the results of casualties that occur in most of the battles of the game,it is unrealistic,because in the battles both armies are exterminated,in bloodiest battles like borodino or waterloo there were no losses as high.
hopefully this will be corrected in some patch update of historical and realistic parameters of losses in battle and give required immersion.


I have also seen odd reporting. A couple battles it has told me my force lost 4-5k of troops, yet they all appear at full strength except for one battalion or so might have lost 50% (ie in red). Additionally, I have also seen this disproportionate losses issue. A brit division lost close to 80% fighting Morrocans 300-400 strength versus 240 or so.

User avatar
JacquesDeLalaing
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
Location: Vienna (Austria)

Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:17 am

Taillebois wrote:This is why you should take a look at Campaigns On The Danube (COTD) - only about 10 bucks in the Matrix sale now on.

In COTD turns are one day, three hexes are a days march. It is not as beautiful as AGEOD's games but has just received a patch. It also runs better on my laptop which is struggling with WON.


Thanks, I've been given this advice before, so now I've finally bought it. I just had time to take a quick peek at the game and the manual. Sounds very interesting indeed! I like the scale and also that so much emphasis has been put on "information". This is indeed one of the few weak and points of ageod's engine: information on the opponent (reconaissance features don't seem to have been treated with a lot of love)* and delay of information and orders (unless you say it's abstracted into "activation status"), but well, ageod seems to be aiming to go larger and more abstract and political, not smaller and more operational and more military. COTD seems to be a very sophisticated approach, even though UI and aesthetics are well ... let's say not up to date anymore. ;)

* e.g. enemy units may be sighted during the turn-resolution, and unless you watch the replay, you don't notice that they have been sighted; also only one enemy stack is shown in detail if there are several of them in one region - way as inteded?
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]

- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]

Return to “Wars of Napoleon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests