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?
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.
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?
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"
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests