Facing too many casualties on my side

[memoric]

Hi everyone

I have a problem, I'm playing as Union an in the last few battles since 2nd bull run, I'm facing high casualties on my side.

I have higher casualties than my enemy, but still won the battles. In the last battle (Antietam) i lost nearly 40% of my troops (32000 casualties),the enemy lost only 23000 units. Winning the battle gives you only 23000 manpower. So I have a problem refilling my brigades. Is this intended? Less manpower towards the end of the campaign? And what do i do wrong that the enemy has so much less casualties than me?

 

Also i have a high medicine stat (6 or 7) and politics (4).

 

Thanks for the help

regards memoric

Edited January 24, 2017 by memoric

[louis de la morliere]

i have the same problem in medium dificulty, i pay with my reputation to have more gold or troops

[Bill the Bold]

Try to preserve your forces better.  You simply can't take 40% loses every battle and expect to maintain an army, I believe this is intended. Generally speaking try to keep your guys in cover as much as possible, double team and flank enemy units when you can and don't hang around in front of cannons when they're firing canister.  Easier said than done though right haha.  

[Jamesk2]

Antietam is generally just a bloody hell hole. I'm one of the more cautious player, even in Malvern Hill - Confederate I only lose about 15% of my forces (while generally players on the forum lose about 20%). That said coming into Antietam I still lose 20k/73k infantry I brought into the battle, and 2k/8k cavalry. So it's not only you that are losing too much on this battle.

On your second question, it's impossible to answer if we don't see how you were playing and what kind of mistakes you made.

[Koro]

You're losing too many men but the decision to do so is still your own. You can choose not to press the attack if you feel like it is killing too many of your men. Otherwise, you are just repeating the mistakes of history that we like to discuss today.. generals who kept up an attack they could not sustain.

Anyways, it's possible to win Antietam with few casualties http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=845105146

Just don't go straight at them. If you make a deep flanking move around their left flank, you'll be virtually unopposed all the way to the city. Don't attack in the first phase, simply move forces, as much as 3 divisions of your strongest corps, down south over Nicodemus Hill. As the next phase opens up, you can start flanking in towards Dunker Church and the Sunken Road. Be sure to bring some artillery.

[memoric]

Thanks for your answers.

 

I have watched a youtube videos, and saw that the player had not refilled his brigades. That means he has per infantrybrigade among 1500 to 1000 soldiers. But he has more corpses.

I refilled my brigades to full strengh (2500 soldiers) after every battle. So my question is: do you face lesser casualties with more brigades but lesser men per brigade or is it the otherside? I mean for example: a canon can only fire at one brigade, if you have 2 brigades one will be untouched right? Or is it so that it kills the same amount of men? So what do you do with your brigades refill them to full power, or have more brigades with fewer men?

 

Thanks for your helping

 

memoric

Edited January 24, 2017 by memoric

[Aetius]

2 hours ago, memoric said:

I mean for example: a canon can only fire at one brigade, if you have 2 brigades one will be untouched right?

This is mostly, but not entirely true. If, for example, you have two brigades in the line of fire, both will get hit. The primary target will take more damage though. A single unit taking fire from two opposing units will rout more quickly, and flanking fire is more effective if you can get in that position with your second unit. That said, the effectiveness of the fire depends on the shooter, not the shootee - except perhaps for morale damage.

2 hours ago, memoric said:

So what do you do with your brigades refill them to full power, or have more brigades with fewer men?

I fill them full whenever possible. The reason is that on higher difficulty levels, smaller brigades are much more prone to simply getting blown away, which loses all of their experience.

[Fred Sanford]

On 1/24/2017 at 7:09 PM, Aetius said:

smaller brigades are much more prone to simply getting blown away, which loses all of their experience.

This is something that I don't really think is right.  In this game, and most other wargames as well, one effect of "Veteran" units is they take loads of casualties before breaking.  In reality, one of the hallmarks of veteran units was the ability to avoid casualties.  Either by finding/using cover more effectively, or avoiding hazardous situations in the first place.  Veterans know better than to just stand there and get the sh** shot out of them.  Also, IRL, "high morale" =/= "veteran".  Green units can have high morale, until they get the sh** shot out of them.  Then they become veteran, low morale units that are good at avoiding trouble.

Edited January 27, 2017 by Fred Sanford

[Aetius]

I think it's a side effect of the high lethality in this game. A brigade caught in a bad position can take 300-400 casualties in just a few seconds, regardless of their experience, and that's often enough to shatter them if they are small. A low-skill, high morale unit is even worse, which is why I never take the 1-star morale perk for infantry brigades - I've had bad experiences with low-skill high-morale units standing and fighting when they should be running.

[Lif]

Well, I also have problems in the newest Missions to hold my army standard. All my troops are 1-2 stars and the rewards hardly can compensate my losses without losing experience (while the enemy units get stronger and more experienced in each battle).

[waldopbarnstormer]

I think either the casualties should be toned down a bit or the medicine trait boosted to reflect that not all casualties died and some where able to return to their units. I read that at gaines' mill only 1/6 of union casualties were fatalities, the rest were wounded or missing. Now admittedly not all those wounded could return to their units, some would die of their injuries or disease and others would be incapacitated by their wounds but I still think the attrition rate is high.

It might also be high because the ai can't withdraw units from the map when the situation is lost and doesn't care about preserving units to fight another day so battles are more vicious.

Sometimes it is better to withdraw and preserve your troops than slogging it out.

[Fred Sanford]

I agree that casualties are too high.  IRL, units would refuse to keep fighting after suffering the casualties seen here.  I think the 'shatter' threshold should be higher (say 50%), BUT the units would reappear in the camp, and not be lost entirely.  Maybe with a morale hit.  

Routing off the map edge should be allowed also, so units don't get trapped by the 'edge of the universe'.  Have them come back in either next phase of a battle, or back in camp.

[waldopbarnstormer]

I have found units being trapped against the map edges annoying and exploited  to my advantage and disadvantage. It allows you to corner units and catch them in a cycle of routing, morale recovery then another volley makes them rout again until they shatter or surrender, but I have also had skirmishers and cavalry stuck against the boundary because of their retreat mechanic and slowly annihilated because you can't order them to move away before they rout again. I agree all units that are routing when they reach the map edge should be removed from battle but be recovered on the camp screen.

[Twosp]

Interesting I was playing only on normal, just not as good as some of you lol, and it seems I faced quite a few more confederate troops than you did Koro based on your screen shot. I brought 108,000 and was facing about 72,000 I wonder how the scaling worked in this situation? I was actually a little surprised it was even this close.

[Koro]

4 hours ago, Twosp said:

Interesting I was playing only on normal, just not as good as some of you lol, and it seems I faced quite a few more confederate troops than you did Koro based on your screen shot. I brought 108,000 and was facing about 72,000 I wonder how the scaling worked in this situation? I was actually a little surprised it was even this close.

The last CSA reinforcements had not arrived at this point where I won the battle, that counts for quite a few men. Perhaps they arrived in yours. Also, did you win the battles prior? That can give the enemy less troops as well. 

[vren55]

On 1/24/2017 at 8:40 AM, memoric said:

Also i have a high medicine stat (6 or 7) and politics (4).

 

That explains part of it. You want to max Politics first with some army organisation (about level 6 when you get 5 divisions and 2000 men brigades should be sufficient). Indeed, Union troops suffer from low morale, but that can be adjusted for with your personal general and sheer numbers. Moreover, max politics allows you to cash reputation in for MOREEE MEEEENNNN... basically allowing more flexibility against your opponent.  Yes you could max medicine, but politics allows for a bit more flexibility (since you can cash rep in for better generals, equipment... and men XD)

Secondly, I don't think its intended for you to recover ALL of your men after grand battles. You need to slowly recover them by playing the smaller battles. 

I won Antietam with 70K men, taking 24k losses against CSA of 46K and them taking 28k losses. I suggest trying to ensure your brigades stay at about 2000-1500 men level... in particular, make sure your elite brigades are 2000 as well as brigades with crap equipment (they can serve as cannon fodder/ensure that these brigades will gain some experience not just get destroyed). 

Moreover, don't be afraid to save and then reload it with a different troop placement. For Antietam... i took terrible losses on my first try. Then I reorganized my men, weighting most of them in my 1st Corps attacking Lee's Left.. (The northern flank) as well as my 2nd Corps.... that basically did the ticket, allowing me to punch RIGHT through the Confederates and pushing them all the way to Sharpesburg with little difficulty. 

[Keepbro]

What's wrong with 40% casualties anyway? And also what do you care? You're the general giving orders whilst sipping cocktails inside a giant beautiful silk tent. You lose half your army but who cares as the enemy lost and the president is going to get a report saying how amazing you are which in turn means celebrations and parades and you getting fame and recognition and even possibly a presidential nomination. Just fill your ranks with more chaff and remind yourself that human wave tactics are hilariously funny and after multiple horrific battles the survivors will be suitably mean enough to kill anything. The only thing to worry about is being shot by your own side. 

[waldopbarnstormer]

Problem comes when you run out of meat for the meat grinder. In my first union play through of Fredericksburg I lost so many troops in winning I emptied the reserves pool and had to disband some units to be able to field 2 1/2 decent sized corps. It made stones river and chancellorsville much harder. I had to throw my green troops at jackson and bolster them with a few vet brigades to halt the charge at chancellorsville. At this rate my army at Gettysburg will be at most 2 corps.

[MikeK]

On 1/24/2017 at 8:08 AM, Koro said:

You're losing too many men but the decision to do so is still your own. You can choose not to press the attack if you feel like it is killing too many of your men. Otherwise, you are just repeating the mistakes of history that we like to discuss today.. generals who kept up an attack they could not sustain.

Anyways, it's possible to win Antietam with few casualties http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=845105146

Just don't go straight at them. If you make a deep flanking move around their left flank, you'll be virtually unopposed all the way to the city. Don't attack in the first phase, simply move forces, as much as 3 divisions of your strongest corps, down south over Nicodemus Hill. As the next phase opens up, you can start flanking in towards Dunker Church and the Sunken Road. Be sure to bring some artillery.

I think it can't be emphasized enough that players should emulate the professional soldiers in the ACW who systematically sought to outflank their enemy on the grand tactical and strategic as well as tactical levels, seeking the same sort of decisive results witnessed in the preceding century by great captains, Napoleon I most of all. As the ACW reference book I cite in my signature discusses,these were men sharing the same or a similar education, similar weapons of war, similar logistic methods, similar methods of tactical maneuver, and similar troop quality. That they were able so often to mind their flanks and counter their opponents' flanking attempts is to be expected in such circumstances.  

 

 

[memoric]

17 hours ago, Keepbro said:

What's wrong with 40% casualties anyway? And also what do you care? You're the general giving orders whilst sipping cocktails inside a giant beautiful silk tent. You lose half your army but who cares as the enemy lost and the president is going to get a report saying how amazing you are which in turn means celebrations and parades and you getting fame and recognition and even possibly a presidential nomination. Just fill your ranks with more chaff and remind yourself that human wave tactics are hilariously funny and after multiple horrific battles the survivors will be suitably mean enough to kill anything. The only thing to worry about is being shot by your own side. 

No need to be so sarcastic... i simply asked a question about a video game dude... don't take this too seriously

 

regards memoric

[Keepbro]

On 01/02/2017 at 4:55 PM, memoric said:

No need to be so sarcastic... i simply asked a question about a video game dude... don't take this too seriously

 

regards memoric

I have informed the military police. Wait there soldier until the MPs have you flogged for the heinous crime of "caring about your men."

[Koro]

On 1/2/2017 at 5:10 AM, MikeK said:

I think it can't be emphasized enough that players should emulate the professional soldiers in the ACW who systematically sought to outflank their enemy on the grand tactical and strategic as well as tactical levels, seeking the same sort of decisive results witnessed in the preceding century by great captains, Napoleon I most of all. As the ACW reference book I cite in my signature discusses,these were men sharing the same or a similar education, similar weapons of war, similar logistic methods, similar methods of tactical maneuver, and similar troop quality. That they were able so often to mind their flanks and counter their opponents' flanking attempts is to be expected in such circumstances.  

 

 

It's possible to surround and destroy the entire confederate army this way and not suffer many casualties like I did. I just didn't manage to block their retreat to the south in time and they all slipped through the gap in my surrounding forces.

[Col_Kelly]

33 minutes ago, Koro said:

It's possible to surround and destroy the entire confederate army this way and not suffer many casualties like I did. I just didn't manage to block their retreat to the south in time and they all slipped through the gap in my surrounding forces.

It might be better sometimes to let them run, these rebs can get pretty nasty and charge you like demons when they realize they're cut off. In a way it's kinda awesome that the game make them react like this  

I like to do that agst the Union at Stones River however because there you can literraly destroy their right wing before going to take the Pike.