Please lower the number of casualties

[IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot]

Hi all,

as the title says. I haven't purchased UG:CW yet but I've watched some YT videos of it and it seems to me like the casualty rates are way off.

For example, in a couple of 1st Bull Run battles the casualties for each side (player and AI) ranged from 10k to 12k (circa). The historical battle saw some 2k casualties for the CSA and less than 3k for the USA, so 20-25% of what one can achieve in UG:CW.

It would also be cool if a percentage of those casualties were actually able to get to fight again on the next battle (i.e. being considered just as light wounded).

I'm overall loving what I'm seeing so far, though. Keep up the great work, guys!

[Skaman1978]

I do believe that you are dealing with more units in the game then IRL. More troops engaged= more lives lost

[A. P. Hill]

Not long ago, and for other reasons, I too was curious about casualties during the ACW.

Here is a link (hope it works,) to a chart that I made from a sampling of various ACW battles.

Not really sure how this could ever be implemented,  but I feel comes close to answering the O.P.s concern.

Granted this is a game, I don't recall any claims by the developers to state anything near realistic experiences etc., and it may be that the mechanics of the game might have to be revisited.

 

[IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot]

21 hours ago, Skaman1978 said:

I do believe that you are dealing with more units in the game then IRL. More troops engaged= more lives lost

Only by a slight margin. In the battles I've seen the forces ranged between 20.000 and 21.500 troops on each side. In real life, both armies committed about 18.000 soldiers each.

So, the RL battle had about 18.000 troops engaged and 2-3.000 casualties (not meaning by that dead men; those were about 4-500 on each side).

The UG battle sees some more men but around 11.000 casualties on each side.

A quick math shows us that, while in the real battle there had been a casualty rate of about 16%, in the game that value skyrockets to a whopping 50% or more.

 

TL,DR: no, it has nothing to do with that.

 

8 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Not long ago, and for other reasons, I too was curious about casualties during the ACW.

Here is a link (hope it works,) to a chart that I made from a sampling of various ACW battles.

Not really sure how this could ever be implemented,  but I feel comes close to answering the O.P.s concern.

Granted this is a game, I don't recall any claims by the developers to state anything near realistic experiences etc., and it may be that the mechanics of the game might have to be revisited.

 

I can't access the link, Ambrose - however, I agree that something should be done to at least come closer to more realistic casualtiy rates (16% vs 50% is a bit extreme).

Edited November 22, 2016 by IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

I think this is an interesting comment by OP.  I see value in what OP is saying.  Here is my suggestion. 

Wounded officers are unavailable for a while until they heal, right.  I think it would be cool to also make it so that your wounded soldiers are available again after a time.  Perhaps there is a HOSPITAL that could be added to the game, of varying size and rehabilitation speed depending on medicine or organization skills.  This would also mean that instead of there being 20,000 casualties, all of which must be replaced (minus medicine skill's impact) you could pull off having, you know, 5,000 killed and 15,000 wounded, and some (or most, or all?) of those 15,000 wounded would go into your HOSPITAL, and be released over time throughout the game, either back into your recruit pool or even better, available as veteran (or perhaps a third class, "regular") troops to add to your units.   

 

So two suggestions here

1) Add a hospital where (some/half/most/all) wounded men can recover and re-join your army 

2) Add a third class of troop beyond Rookie and Veteran, perhaps called "regular" or whatever, to signify these wounded troops

Respectfully submitted 

[Koro]

I think it would be near impossible to replicate actual civil war casualties and still have scaling on weapons and a sense of having power in your brigades. It would be a long, slow grind and very boring to see hardly any casualties, and also have your own units break after maybe just 50-60 deaths which is what would be necessary to have any possibility of pushing back either side.

With lower casualties, obviously comes more melee if the mechanics are not completely overhauled to a point where we probably wouldn't recognize the game at all.

 

[Studwick]

I have always taken "casualties" to also simulate men who simply decided "enough was enough" and left their units for the rear lines until the battle was over, of which apparently there was a fair few of according to Shelby Foote's history. Stragglers, rather than deserters. Perhaps the high casualty number in battle could be fixed by a larger return of those men to the various Brigades in the army management screen (thinking purely campaign here).

 

EDIT: Also, @Koro nice picture. Perhaps we will get an Ultimate General: German Wars next?  

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

11 hours ago, Koro said:

I think it would be near impossible to replicate actual civil war casualties and still have scaling on weapons and a sense of having power in your brigades. It would be a long, slow grind and very boring to see hardly any casualties, and also have your own units break after maybe just 50-60 deaths which is what would be necessary to have any possibility of pushing back either side.

With lower casualties, obviously comes more melee if the mechanics are not completely overhauled to a point where we probably wouldn't recognize the game at all.

 

Without having the played the game more it is impossible for me to understand what you are saying here without more information.  

I don't think replicating actual civil war casualties is the ask from where I sit, at least in terms of volume of casualties.  I think it is more a question of type of casualties

 

 

[Grognard_JC]

I'm fine with casualties in the current mechanics of fight. Melee and firing is very good, and one can see the devs learnt a lot from UG:G. It feels real.

 

However, I think having a more dynamic battles (like in UG:G) where the casualties counter-weight your fulfilment of the objectives could adress the problem of casualties.

In the current version, the only reason you don't send the whole army in all-out assault each time is that you must think about the long-term campaign, that's all.

With dynamic battles, you'd have to save your men to win too.

[IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot]

8 hours ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:

Without having the played the game more it is impossible for me to understand what you are saying here without more information.  

I don't think replicating actual civil war casualties is the ask from where I sit, at least in terms of volume of casualties.  I think it is more a question of type of casualties

 

 

Well, it is also a matter of volume (I think everybody would agree that ca. 50% in game vs ca. 16% in real life is too big a difference).

However, having different types of casualties i.e. dead, severely wounded and lightly wounded, with the latter coming back to active duty after a while (just like it was in the old Close Combat series) would be a very welcome addition and another step into reaching a better level of realism and immersion, IMHO.

[CSA Watkins]

OP n Others do indeed raise some interesting questions...(Dead //Wounded //Able to return to Duty.)

** After Gettysburg:Casualties, 7,058 were fatalities (3,155 Union, 3,903 Confederate). 
Another 33,264 had been wounded (14,529 Union, 18,735 Confederate) and 10,790 were missing (5,365 Union, 5,425 Confederate).
http://www.historynet.com/gettysburg-casualties

****I agree also with Koro, Lowering the Causalities would be very hard.
All assemble/reflection of casualties of the Real Battle goes out the window as soon as the player starts his battle.

If the Battle in question was ever Fought again IRL,
No two battles would ever play out the same.
Casualties., places were heavy engagements took place, numbers would be different....greater/smaller who knows.

Realism for me is,,,'Places // ~ 'Numbers/ Units / Combatants  involved// ~ Weapon Ballistics(Ranges,Hitting power etc)

Edited November 24, 2016 by CSA Watkins

[Koro]

17 hours ago, Don't Escrow Taxes said:

Without having the played the game more it is impossible for me to understand what you are saying here without more information.  

I don't think replicating actual civil war casualties is the ask from where I sit, at least in terms of volume of casualties.  I think it is more a question of type of casualties

 

 

The original poster directly asks for lower casualties not kills in particular thought that is of course part of it. I understand his point and addressed it accordingly I think.

 

On 22/11/2016 at 1:29 AM, IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot said:

as the title says. I haven't purchased UG:CW yet but I've watched some YT videos of it and it seems to me like the casualty rates are way off.

 

[dsfgsdfgsdfgdsfgsdf3q4]

On 11/22/2016 at 2:16 AM, Skaman1978 said:

I do believe that you are dealing with more units in the game then IRL. More troops engaged= more lives lost

2nd Battle of Bull Run, in the real battle there was a total of 125k soldiers on both sides and around 25k dead and wounded. In my battle there was a total of 75k soldier but 43+ casualties. I do find it overwelming that such huge numbers of men die and that i have to spend almost all the money i received after winning the battle on replenishing my troops. Keep in mind this is in easy difficulty as its my first playthrough.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Acika011
grammar

[IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot]

4 hours ago, Acika011 said:

2nd Battle of Bull Run, in the real battle there was a total of 125k soldiers on both sides and around 25k dead and wounded. In my battle there was a total of 75k soldier but 43+ casualties. I do find it overwelming that such huge numbers of men die and that i have to spend almost all the money i received after winning the battle on replenishing my troops. Keep in mind this is in easy difficulty as its my first playthrough.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. In UG:G (which I own) and in UG:CW again (which I don't own yet) the casualties seem to be more or less inevitably around 50% every time one plays a battle or a part of it, as in UG:G.

This is way more of what happened in real life, and it applies not just to the ACW.

Edited November 25, 2016 by IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot
clarification

[Lincolns Mullet]

Speaking purely through game theory, if the devs lowered the number of casualties suffered by 20% (through any combination of things, but probably by lowering rifle lethality), then current morale levels would also need to be reduced by 20%.  The game would then focus more on how to break/fold enemy lines and force morale to drop across the entire enemy army enough to send them all running (Ie, roll up the flanks).  Currently, the way you get the enemy to "run for the hills" is to inflict massive casualties upon them.

I think lowering casualty rates is doable but would require a lot of testing and balance changes to the game to get it right.  Melee, for example, would need to be toned down and not so easily engaged.  It should be high-risk/high-reward that is used sparingly.  Morale indicators would need to be readily visible for all brigades, ala SMG.  Since morale would be the most critical factor in holding/attacking positions, brigade size wouldn't be as important as it is now (as a visual indicator).  When we see multiple 2500 man enemy brigades, we worry because we know they WILL cause massive casualties in a single volley. I don't necessarily think "Oh, well maybe their morale is low and they'll break easier" because morale isn't something the game makes you worry about on a regular basis.  If morale was a greater concern, we would need to know, at quick glance, which brigades have low morale and need shoring up (bringing more brigades to support their flanks, putting them in cover, General unit nearby, etc).

Let's be honest, when you're fighting a battle you are heavily focused on watching those numbers tick down when your brigade is being fired on, or when you're firing on a brigade.  The faster those numbers drop, the better. Visceral casualties is how we measure success. Morale, for me, seems to be a secondary issue and probably because there is little feedback on the battlefield without individually selecting each brigade.

[Smedley]

I haven't purchased or played UG:CW yet but I have played UG:G. In that game, high casualties have a very significant negative effect on "victory" even if the player thinks they have done very well. I'm assuming this is due to an abstraction of the "political" cost. So, not to question anyone's generalship, I have to ask whether, in UG:CW where casualties/politics/cost are all less abstract, are players who think casualties are too high and expensive actually employing battle strategies to keep those numbers low or is the fault in their own overly aggressive play style? Put another way, has anyone tried to win but with low casualties as a high priority?

[Don't Escrow Taxes]

2 hours ago, Lincolns Mullet said:

let's be honest, when you're fighting a battle you are heavily focused on watching those numbers tick down when your brigade is being fired on, or when you're firing on a brigade.  The faster those numbers drop, the better. Visceral casualties is how we measure success. Morale, for me, seems to be a secondary issue and probably because there is little feedback on the battlefield without individually selecting each brigade.

This is a thoughtful post, I enjoyed it.  I agree that morale vs. casualties are different mechanics.

 

The problem is, at the end of the day, it is hard to feel like you are accomplishing anything by racking up victory after victory in the campaign.  This is because the AI army scales with you and the very large casualty rates make me feel like i am not making any progress.   It is hard to feel like power is growing and resistance is overcome.  Hopefully this can be addressed.  My suggestion is, if the casualty rates aren't going to change, at least make some of those casualties wounded men who can heal over time and be added back into your recruitment pool or army directly.  As for the AI scaling, my suggestion is if you (or the AI) is not doing so great, it should hurt your side's ability to produce weapons and recruit men, meaning these things become more expensive.  

 

Thanks again for a very thoughtful post It definitely helped me understand the other side of this discussion better. 

[Lincolns Mullet]

Anytime! I love talking about design/game theory. In fact I have a youtube video going up soon with an idea on how a dynamic campaign might be implemented into the existing game engine.  It's just for fun, and maybe useful (hopefully useful lol), and maybe gets a discussion going.

But I agree, the current casualty rate is only useful in a particular battle.  You suffer losses that carry to the next battle but the AI does not.  One suggestion I had is possibly adding some sort of bonus to winning "side battles" that would affect the grand battle.  If I win at Newport News as CSA, for example, it lowers the total enemy strength at 1st Bull Run by 10% or something to that effect (or reduce the scaling multiplier by a certain amount).  It wouldn't be a direct correlation between enemy losses from one map to another, but you'd have some type of impact on enemy forces at the Grand Battle that would help you.  Although with that, there would need to be greater uncertainty with fighting the side battles...they shouldn't be automatic wins, or that even if you do win, maybe you've lost 20% of your army so that 10% reduction in theirs won't help as much as you first thought.

[Gen. Briggs]

To address the problem of unbeleivable casualties without too much rebalancing, I think one solution could be to rebrand the current number of men into some general term, like "fighting power". That would tick away during the battle and can be watched easily by the player. The acual number of men in the brigade can then be included into the game as a separate variable, same way as number of cannons in an artillery unit. It can then be damaged separately from the Fighting Power, in the same way that cannons are destroyed.

At the end of a battle the Fighting Power is recalculated back to the default value for any given unit, while lost men need to be replaced.

[IheardITthruTHEgrapeshot]

On 25/11/2016 at 4:28 AM, Lincolns Mullet said:

Speaking purely through game theory, if the devs lowered the number of casualties suffered by 20% (through any combination of things, but probably by lowering rifle lethality), then current morale levels would also need to be reduced by 20%.  The game would then focus more on how to break/fold enemy lines and force morale to drop across the entire enemy army enough to send them all running (Ie, roll up the flanks).  Currently, the way you get the enemy to "run for the hills" is to inflict massive casualties upon them.

 

This is exactly what I'd envision, actually. Lower the number of casualties but make rifles and artillery have a much bigger impact on morale.

This way battles would become even more tactical and would require and additional layer of thinking by the player.

[fallendown]

If Gettysburg is representative of Civil War Battles then it took 300 shots to cause 1 casualty. While this may seem strange, what you have to remember is that this is the age of black powder. Unless there was a breeze, the smoke from rifles and artillery quickly obscured vision on the battlefield. Also, the ranges were extremely short, while rifles then were easily capable of killing at 600 meters (yds)+ most engagements happened at 150m(yds) or less. 

 

[Grognard_JC]

39 minutes ago, fallendown said:

If Gettysburg is representative of Civil War Battles then it took 300 shots to cause 1 casualty. While this may seem strange, what you have to remember is that this is the age of black powder. Unless there was a breeze, the smoke from rifles and artillery quickly obscured vision on the battlefield. Also, the ranges were extremely short, while rifles then were easily capable of killing at 600 meters (yds)+ most engagements happened at 150m(yds) or less. 

 

It would be cool if the game could create "fields of smoke" that would make prolonged fire fights less lethal and reduce visibility.

[Caesar15]

Problem with lowering casualties is that it changes the game and creates giant balance issues..also can lead to the game being less "fun" as you go in, shoot some, rout, rinse, repeat. Sure it forces you to be more tactical but there has to be a limit to it. It's a game after all, and although realism is good it's already present in the game and at this point any sacrifices in game play for realism will not be worth it imo.

[Karri]

I'd like to see more casualties returned.The medic thing returns 2% at a time, but there should be some autorecovery to go with it(and it should be a bit higher in general). When units rout and lose cohesion they should see stragglers and what not.

[Koro]

On 24/11/2016 at 2:09 AM, Studwick said:

I have always taken "casualties" to also simulate men who simply decided "enough was enough" and left their units for the rear lines until the battle was over, of which apparently there was a fair few of according to Shelby Foote's history. Stragglers, rather than deserters. Perhaps the high casualty number in battle could be fixed by a larger return of those men to the various Brigades in the army management screen (thinking purely campaign here).

 

EDIT: Also, @Koro nice picture. Perhaps we will get an Ultimate General: German Wars next?  

I forgot where I saw this and forgot to respond. Hehe that would be awesome though it is rather small of scale it had a great impact on the unification of Germany and lead in some ways directly to WW1. 

It would be difficult to really give the Danish army a chance too given that they were greatly outnumbered, still used old muskets and most significantly perhaps, their artillery was not rifled and had much shorter range than their German counterparts.

Edit: Lol I just realized you are using the exact same picture. Ahahaha.