Acceptable Losses Level

[Wiggum]

Hi !

This is from the COTA manual:

The Acceptable Losses level determines how many casualties your force will take before it warns you.
Your units will continue to attempt to carry out their orders even after reaching this threshold, so in
effect it is a reminder to you to consider changing your plan and issuing new (less costly) orders. One
exception to this rule is the Probe order – units engaged in a Probe will Bunker Down ( see Launch a
Probe ) if they assess the opposition is too great and setting a low Acceptable Losses level will cause
them to do this sooner.

Only a reminder ?

If you want your blocking force to offer stiff resistance then:
Increase the Losses setting
and/or
Increase the Aggro setting

Or will a higher acceptable losses level make my troops hold out longer without retreating ?
So, whats the difference between LOW and MAX ?
And Aggro should only make the unit more trigger happy at long distance or is this wrong ?

[Wiggum]

Sorry for pushing but this is kind of important for me before playing another Scenario.
I think i did some mistakes with this command already...

[wodin]

If I wanted my troops to get from A to B and not stop to fight I issue a high loss and low aggro...that way they keep going and wont fight....For a major assault I give high and high....if it's defence and I dont wont them to shift I give mediuma aggro and high loss....

The above works fine for me...

[Lieste]

Yes, losses definitely seems to alter the staying power/determination of the force, much earlier than the reports of excessive casualties for even the low losses option.

Aggro controls likelihood of deploying instead of moving. Particularly armour seems to make little or no progress with high aggro, and requires medium or low to close decisively. Important to set high where much of your fire-power requires deployment before use and you want to fire direct fires - with sufficient artillery/light support, this can be set lower and the threats neutralised by other means.

Lower aggro seems to still adversely influence the probability and severity of retreat/rout results, but this is most likely due to terrain protection effects on stationary/deployed/dug-in units.

[OlegHasky]

Yes, losses definitely seems to alter the staying power/determination of the force, much earlier than the reports of excessive casualties for even the low losses option.

I would hold the horses here with word "definitely".. The case was a big problem since COTA.. Was altered in bftb, but still, as someone pointed on the forum, not enogh alltered.
Still there is no good option for hardcore defending, and to little fire causing units to flee from their entrenched positions.

[OlegHasky]

...And were talking about COTA here i see,

Well Wiggum, I think that you know the game well enough allready, to realize that in COTA you have to be ready for some grande suprises rearding the losses settings / entrench effectivness etc.

COTA is a great game, some great scenarios, historical background and design. but an alkoholic[;)]... and sometimes she just doesnt realize what she is doing . In PantherGames fashion she didnt ever recieved enough updates/patches to pull her out from the prototyp phase ( by the way looks like the same fate could be with bftb sady.)

Ive posted a clear example of this on COTA forum, but now i see it was removed as not confy for the image of the game. Arjuna couldnt explain it, as the stone entrenched coy at the rear retreated , after reciving 2 shoths of Apers without no reason. Not cool...