Bloodless victory leveling town

[alenalenalen]

Urban fighting leads to civilian casualties, I get this. But I'm seeing the highest civilian casualties in battles where the enemy retreated without a fight and 0 soldiers were hurt on either side. Is this intentional? It happens every time I play this turn when I take La Zaida-Sastago.

[RangerJoe]

So the Republicans razed the town and slaughtered the inhabitants. So what is new?

[alenalenalen]

So the Republicans razed the town and slaughtered the inhabitants. So what is new?

Let's not get jokey jokey about war crimes.

What is new is that this is not typical behavior I see when taking a town. None of the other battles taking place in light urban areas this turn cause near as many civilian casualties, and the only previous battle that came close was another instance about two or three turns earlier where I also took a town without any military casualties but over a thousand civilian casualties. If it was just a one-off and wasn't repeatable I would just presume this is modeling the unfortunate realty of war, but I ran this turn five times (including swapping between cautious, deliberate, and shock for the attacking unit) and each time La Zaida-Sastago fell with 0 military and over 1000 civilian casualties, plus damage to the city's industry. To me that indicates something unusual is going on.

[RangerJoe]

So the Republicans razed the town and slaughtered the inhabitants. So what is new?

Let's not get jokey jokey about war crimes.

What is new is that this is not typical behavior I see when taking a town. None of the other battles taking place in light urban areas this turn cause near as many civilian casualties, and the only previous battle that came close was another instance about two or three turns earlier where I also took a town without any military casualties but over a thousand civilian casualties. If it was just a one-off and wasn't repeatable I would just presume this is modeling the unfortunate realty of war, but I ran this turn five times (including swapping between cautious, deliberate, and shock for the attacking unit) and each time La Zaida-Sastago fell with 0 military and over 1000 civilian casualties, plus damage to the city's industry. To me that indicates something unusual is going on.

I am not nor was not joking.

I have had it happen in my game.

The only way to change the outcome would be to change something other than this combat so that other thing happens before this battle. The random number is saved and the outcome will be the same for every turn unless something is changed.

Actually, the casualties may not mean deaths, it may mean wounded.

[alenalenalen]

So the Republicans razed the town and slaughtered the inhabitants. So what is new?

Let's not get jokey jokey about war crimes.

What is new is that this is not typical behavior I see when taking a town. None of the other battles taking place in light urban areas this turn cause near as many civilian casualties, and the only previous battle that came close was another instance about two or three turns earlier where I also took a town without any military casualties but over a thousand civilian casualties. If it was just a one-off and wasn't repeatable I would just presume this is modeling the unfortunate realty of war, but I ran this turn five times (including swapping between cautious, deliberate, and shock for the attacking unit) and each time La Zaida-Sastago fell with 0 military and over 1000 civilian casualties, plus damage to the city's industry. To me that indicates something unusual is going on.

I am not nor was not joking.

I have had it happen in my game.

The only way to change the outcome would be to change something other than this combat so that other thing happens before this battle. The random number is saved and the outcome will be the same for every turn unless something is changed.

Actually, the casualties may not mean deaths, it may mean wounded.

It still happens if I load up the turn and cancel literally every other attack I'm making.

[RangerJoe]

Let's not get jokey jokey about war crimes.

What is new is that this is not typical behavior I see when taking a town. None of the other battles taking place in light urban areas this turn cause near as many civilian casualties, and the only previous battle that came close was another instance about two or three turns earlier where I also took a town without any military casualties but over a thousand civilian casualties. If it was just a one-off and wasn't repeatable I would just presume this is modeling the unfortunate realty of war, but I ran this turn five times (including swapping between cautious, deliberate, and shock for the attacking unit) and each time La Zaida-Sastago fell with 0 military and over 1000 civilian casualties, plus damage to the city's industry. To me that indicates something unusual is going on.

I am not nor was not joking.

I have had it happen in my game.

The only way to change the outcome would be to change something other than this combat so that other thing happens before this battle. The random number is saved and the outcome will be the same for every turn unless something is changed.

Actually, the casualties may not mean deaths, it may mean wounded.

It still happens if I load up the turn and cancel literally every other attack I'm making.

Then try just canceling that attack and doing it the next turn. Or have units move differently. Something other than the actual combats need to be changed. If the enemy units move out before the actual combat, then you only need one small unit attacking to capture the town.

The problem is, there is no context about the attack on this town. Was there combat before?

[alenalenalen]

I am not nor was not joking.

I have had it happen in my game.

The only way to change the outcome would be to change something other than this combat so that other thing happens before this battle. The random number is saved and the outcome will be the same for every turn unless something is changed.

Actually, the casualties may not mean deaths, it may mean wounded.

It still happens if I load up the turn and cancel literally every other attack I'm making.

Then try just canceling that attack and doing it the next turn. Or have units move differently. Something other than the actual combats need to be changed. If the enemy units move out before the actual combat, then you only need one small unit attacking to capture the town.

The problem is, there is no context about the attack on this town. Was there combat before?

I've already played several days past this, so I'm not going back to attack the town on a different day. Context was I attacked this town as part of my early push to surround Zaragoza (The AI has left this area hideously vulnerable). Loading up the turn as the Nationalists shows that there's a logistics company and an infantry battalion unit in the town at the turn start (433 men), and the CR seems to indicate the AI moved them out after detaching the single disabled squad between them (1 support squad). I'm attacking with a single infantry regiment (855 militiamen with no weapons heavier than HMG's and a single armored car). The only previous fighting for the city was when the AI bloodlessly took it from me a week earlier (which did 0 damage to the city).

[Alessandro S.]

I think you're onto something. I will check the spot in the code where I think that might happen.