Nate Ellefson on Mon, 22 Nov 2004 13:19:59 -0600 (CST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
RE: [eia] Second Battle of Dresden, summary |
> Thus spake "Nate Ellefson": > > > > Anyway, we suffered a combined 63 casualties and tied. As Sherman > > said, "This is a hell of a war!" Or wait, no, that was Dan > Quayle... > > Each factor is 1000-2000 men. There were only about 110k > combined casualties at the historical Battle of Leipzig in > 1813, so on the high end of the range your absolute > casualties exceeded those at Leipzig. Additionally, there > were about 500k troops at Leipzig, and you guys had 177 > factors, for at most 354k troops, making your casualty rate > far higher. I'd add that this is on top of 67 factors lost the turn before. Casualty rates for the two Battles of Dresden: First: 27.5% (67/244) Second: 33.7% (63/187) By contrast, the Battle of Gettysburg witnessed about a 32% casualty rate, but that took three days. Antietam had about 18% and Chickamauga 26%, both single day battles. Perhaps the combat model in this game shades a bit on the harsh side. :) I'd also correct one thing you said, Joel: France had 85 factors, since Jim's first statement missed one corps of 10I. _______________________________________________ eia mailing list eia@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia