Body count question from noob

[blackbird]

I am in late 61' in the full campaign playing as the CSA. Considering that the CSA does not have the resources to win a war of attrition on a 1 to 1 casualty basis, what would you consider an acceptable loss ratio CSA/USA, 1 to 3?...1 to 4? I realise that other factors such as national morale and strategic cities and victory points are also big factors in winning, so thanks in advance to all who point out that those factors play as big or a bigger role. I've not yet been able to achieve anything big in those strategic areas. I have been able to take minor goals Bowling Green and Cairo though.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Casualty rates aren't as important as preserving your force. You can have a 1:1 casualty rate if the numbers are low and you haven't lost many elements. Also, Athena doesn't do the best job of maximizing her manpower advantage. Units starving to death don't show up in the casualties, so if you can block enemy attacking stacks out of depots and towns then you can win the war of attrition. When you get good at the game, you can place Athena in passive mode to make the game harder/more realistic.

As for your screenshot, I'd say your doing very well. The only time I could get those kind of casualty rates was when I played on easy with most of the AI assists off. Playing on Normal with all the AI assists on, I'm usually lucky to be above 1:1 until late 1862/1863.

[Jim-NC]

The higher the ratio the better for you. Against a human player, 1:1 is just devasting (or even worse 1 union for 2 rebs). The union manpower is just too much. But as Pat says, it's not just the casualty rate that is important, it is NM. You need a high NM to win. It doesn't matter how many casaulties you took, as long as your NM gets high enough, or your opponents gets low enough. On a side note, the number of subelements destroyed helps NM, not how many men die. So a battle with 20,000 in casualties, but no subelements destroyed gives 0 NM, while a battle with 2,000 in casualties and 10 subelements destroyed will give 3-5 NM points.

Always remember to keep that NM high, and the enemies low.

[blackbird]

Casualty rates aren't as important as preserving your force.

Great advice. Thanks for that. I have been focusing heavily on preserving my forces. I've done okay in that respect, especially once I get divisional command for Jackson and Longstreet. My biggest losses have come from those fixed militias. I can't figure out how to keep them from being annihilated! I can't seem to get adequate support to all of them in time to save them The only thing that I've found to do with them is have them to dig graves, er, I mean entrenchments, and then die in them.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

The militia losses are unimportant. They're job is to slow the enemy down. Make him take an extra turn or 2 (or more early on when forces are small) to capture towns. They will keep you from getting your casualty rates up above 4 or 5 to 1 though. I think in my game where I conquered the entire north my casualty rate was only like 2 to 1.

[arsan]

If you don't have any hope of successfully defending the region with the militia you can try to drag the locked militia out of the structure, put them in the "Retreat when engaged" posture and hope they may be able to retreat from battle before being completely eliminated.
Once they are attacked they unlock and can retreat to other region unless they are inside a structure. They will be damaged, but if you are a little lucky, not completely destroyed, so they can be used once they get some re emplacements back.

[enf91]

If you're really concerned about militia garrisons, take a few groups of medium-sized brigades and place them in such regions as a reaction force (northern MO or central AL, for example). The casualty numbers aren't as important (as Gray will tell you over and over and over and over); they reflect the number of "hits", which are important in terms of replacements. High casualties force you to buy more replacements to fill out the ranks. That's important, but remember the Seven Days' Battles: Lee took more casualties to a smalller force than McClellan did, but he gained positional and strategic advantages. In the long run, yes, casualties will drag down your army, but on a case-by-case basis, they're not so important.
Am I rambling?

[pesec]

Well, I think 1:2 should be more than enough for CSA to stay even with USA, but against human opponent good luck getting that

Once again, battle losses are only part of the picture. Starving can lead to enormous losses, but those will not be registered. Soldiers lost with elements remaining intact are "cheaper" to replace than the same number of soldiers with their elements completely annihilated. Fixed units are more acceptable losses than ones you can move. Losing some soldiers in the field is better than, say losing an important fort.

As CSA, unless you are dominating your opponent, you are on the defensive, taking offensive only in order to prevent enemy from concentrating his forces and crushing you or to exploit opportunities that arize (sudden death due to capturing Washington :thumbsup Ratio of 2:1 in USA favour, but overall losses being small and strategic cities remaining in CSA hands is far better than 1:1 ratio with massive magnitude of losses.