Game-Balance Improvements for Upcoming Patch

[Tom_Doc_Holliday]

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I hesitate to comment only because my experience thus far has been against the computer.  I am now in a PBEM game but it is too early for me to evaluate that.

My biggest balance concern is that camps seem too easy for the south to build.  Camps are essentially limited by the supply of horses, and horses are the one thing the south has in abundance. In a game on "Major" level, I had enough camps to get 20,000 reinforcements every 2 weeks by Feb 1863.  I think this is too much, especially for the south.  In my few games as the Union, it is much harder to build camps, resulting in the ahistrical pattern of the North having more trouble filling its brigades than the south does.  (This is offset somewhat by the much easier time the union has raising new brigades)

I think that adding a money cost  (10-20 or so) it would limit the south's ability to create camps and make a more realistic balance of force.  Again, this is just based on games against the computer, and I am interested to hear if others have this impression as well.

Alex

Would it be possible to change the cost of a camp based on the number of camps within a province.
Example:
for the first camp in a province the cost is 20xL and 100xH
for the second camp in a province the cost is 10xM, 30xL, and 125xH
for the third camp in a province the cost is 10xM, 40xL, 10xI, and 150xH
etc...
This would help replicate that the reinforcements did not all come from the same place. Understand that historically they came from more populated areas than rural, but the recruiting locations were spread around a State and not just located in the major cities, or key strategic locations.
It would also allow someone to build greater than historical reinforcements, but at a substantial cost. Thus a decision point for the leader of either side. If the CSA player wants to pay the lower cost and keep them dispersed, they will then be harder to protect than picking a couple of well-placed camps that the USA player is hard-pressed to capture.

Tom

[von Beanie]

As a veteran Union player versus the A.I., it is clear the south is much too strong. In my current game it is early 1863 and I'm just now clearing out central Tennessee. I haven't been able to move down the Mississippi River yet because each fort takes two or three turns to conquer, and then I have to defend each of them against repeated counterattacks. I haven't approached the north's strategic situation equivalent to when the battle of Shiloh was fought in April, 1862, and I'm already a year behind schedule.

Camps are much too hard for the Union to build (given they need to worry about their fleet, numerous governor requests and supplying their armies so that they can move south). Right now I've managed to get my replacements up to 6000 per turn. The border state governors continually ask for garrisons that I cannot fulfill if I want to move my armies south (I have started to ignore the neverending requests). Apparently, it is also much too easy for the south to replace their troops. I've won almost every battle so far (about 15 to 20), and the rebel armies in the west are still as strong as I am.

Assuming the Union is supposed to recreate its historical progress, here's what I would suggest:

1) Reduce the effectiveness of European diplomacy to make the shifts much harder to obtain--even if there's no funding. The north shouldn't have to invest 1/3 to 1/2 of its money there each turn.

2) Signifcantly reduce the numbers of governor requests, and eliminate the requests that make no sense (like a shipyard in Vermont). You could do this by limiting each governor to one construction request per year, or limit the combined annual requests to a specific amount of money or labor costs.

3) Make northern camps much easier to construct, and greatly reduce the ability of the south to create them (otherwise the north has no hope of operating in the eastern theatre of operations simply because of the periodic disease losses that cannot easily be replaced). At this point in the game most of my brigades are about 1000 men, and gradually getting weaker because I can't build enough camps to even replace the disease losses.

4) Since the north only has two 4 star generals at the beginning, only start them with two or three army containers. Make the other army containers corps containers so that they can be used effectively in the first few months of the campaign.

5) If you want to accelerate the campaign, randomly put some of the starting commanders in the western theatre of operations. Right now I waste two to three turns just to transfer and promote the commanders out west, and then to organize the forces. It would make much more sense to have a promotion routine before the game begins just to prepare and organize the starting forces for the campaign.

6) I'd also increase the starting railroad capacity for the north, as it is nearly impossible to expand it during the game, and it does greatly limit the speed at which reinforcements can be moved south, or from the eastern theatre of operations.

I guess that's enough suggestions for now. I'd like to see how these changes affect the game before making additional suggestions. Just giving the north the opportunity to spend more of their resources on the war effort (rather than all of the extraneous stuff) will help tremendously.

Norm

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: steveuk

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

How does one try to change history when , in effect, a game is designed to give one side more than it had and the other side less than it had in advantages?

I'm not sure I totally understand your question in relation to what I said in my post.

As for FOF given one side or the other an advantage, I have no comment because the ACW is not my pet subject so I have no idea on starting compositions for the two sides involved.
My only interest in playing this game is to try to change history by playing the CSA. If the game designers make that difficult to do, then that would improve my game experience as long as I had available what the CSA had available at war start....no more, no less. And this is a notible and worthwhile goal as a player. And the main reason so many of us are trying to get the game to a more historically realistic state. I'd love the challange of trying to "pull it off" as the Confederacy as much as the next person---but what "challange" is it if the designers have "leveled the playing field" to the point that it's easy to do so?Playing wargames give us a chance to change what historically happened. We all know that Germany could have won WWII if certain things were/were not done. Likewise I guess it was possible for the CSA to win the ACW if certain things were/were not done.

When playing HPS Panzer Campaigns, I normally play Germany as to me the challenge is to win and change history. To play the allies imo is pointless as historically they did win so I see no point. But if the designer gave the German's nothing but Tigers, and total air superiority, and unlimited supply, would you still want to play them? Trying to "do it better" with what was actually available is a challange as a player...., but doing it using a ton of ahistoric "freebies" is just "self-abuse".
I just hope the game designers can bring out a more 'historical' mod/patch for the wargame grognards but still keep simple options for the more beer and pizza community.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tom_Doc_Holliday

ORIGINAL: Alex Gilbert

I hesitate to comment only because my experience thus far has been against the computer.  I am now in a PBEM game but it is too early for me to evaluate that.

My biggest balance concern is that camps seem too easy for the south to build.  Camps are essentially limited by the supply of horses, and horses are the one thing the south has in abundance. In a game on "Major" level, I had enough camps to get 20,000 reinforcements every 2 weeks by Feb 1863.  I think this is too much, especially for the south.  In my few games as the Union, it is much harder to build camps, resulting in the ahistrical pattern of the North having more trouble filling its brigades than the south does.  (This is offset somewhat by the much easier time the union has raising new brigades)

I think that adding a money cost  (10-20 or so) it would limit the south's ability to create camps and make a more realistic balance of force.  Again, this is just based on games against the computer, and I am interested to hear if others have this impression as well. Wouldn't this purpose be achieved much more simply by reducing the South's supply of "horses" to something like 30?
Alex

Would it be possible to change the cost of a camp based on the number of camps within a province.
Example:
for the first camp in a province the cost is 20xL and 100xH
for the second camp in a province the cost is 10xM, 30xL, and 125xH
for the third camp in a province the cost is 10xM, 40xL, 10xI, and 150xH
etc...
This would help replicate that the reinforcements did not all come from the same place. Understand that historically they came from more populated areas than rural, but the recruiting locations were spread around a State and not just located in the major cities, or key strategic locations. This would call for a lot more re-programming than simply reducing the enormous number of "horses" the South is being given.
It would also allow someone to build greater than historical reinforcements, but at a substantial cost. Thus a decision point for the leader of either side. If the CSA player wants to pay the lower cost and keep them dispersed, they will then be harder to protect than picking a couple of well-placed camps that the USA player is hard-pressed to capture.

Tom

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Gil R.

...

Also, of particular importance is the issue of economic balance (or imbalance). Even before “Forge of Freedom” was released, there were a host of comments on this forum and other war-gaming sites criticizing the economic system for insufficiently penalizing the South or boosting the North. Now that people have actually played the game (or, for that matter, followed the ongoing PBEM game and seen how hard-pressed I’ve been to purchase units or weapons on par with the North), are there still concerns about this? If so, what concrete suggestions do you have?

...

I am still early in my first game against the AI and have not started, much less finished, even one PBEM game against an experienced opponent. So I will not presume to tell you how to balance the economics or whether any rebalancing is needed. Based solely on following your PBEM game I'd say the economics look prety well balanced if the goal is to provide a fun game for both sides. That is not to say both sides are equal as it does look like you are having the tougher time when it comes to production decisions. I am not a Civil War historian and can't comment on whether the game economics rigidly reflect the situation from ~140 years ago. Nor am I that worried if they don't as this is first and foremost a game.

My only suggestion would be to be very wary of many well intentioned comments to cripple the Southern economy and/or strengthen the North. It's unlikely anyone but your testers have played the game all the way out more than once so most people will not have seen the effects of any advantage for the North played out over a number of games that make it into the late stages. Significant economic changes to the current economic models could result in the North rapidly overwhelming the South in games between experienced players.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Kind of an odd "mythology" isn't it. "Our men were superior, our Generals all Napoleons: but a bunch of sub-human goons in blue commanded by incompetent, bumbling, cretins beat the crap out of us..." Maybe I'm missing something.....

You and others might be missing the possibility that the South had beter Generals and better soldiers (at least initially) but still lost the war for other reasons.

As an analogy, many would argue the Germans had better Generals and better troops (certainly better trained and more experienced troops initially) in the war on the Eastern Front yet they eventually lost to the Soviets for other reasons.

[Twotribes]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Kind of an odd "mythology" isn't it. "Our men were superior, our Generals all Napoleons: but a bunch of sub-human goons in blue commanded by incompetent, bumbling, cretins beat the crap out of us..." Maybe I'm missing something.....

You and others might be missing the possibility that the South had beter Generals and better soldiers (at least initially) but still lost the war for other reasons.

As an analogy, many would argue the Germans had better Generals and better troops (certainly better trained and more experienced troops initially) in the war on the Eastern Front yet they eventually lost to the Soviets for other reasons.

In one post you caution against giving the North and the South realistic economies based on historical fact, prefering that this just remain a fun balanced game,then you post this.... how exactly does the North win using its historical advantages that allowed it to do so when the "game" takes those historical advantages away?

I have played the Union almost exclusively in at least 20 starts... I have yet to take much along the Mississipi River past Paducah by even mid 1863. And I am completely incapable of moving from any coastal Invasion.

I have turned OFF disease not because I dont like the feature but because it invariably ends in the Union losing half its army if it invades anywhere ( in the first 2 weeks I might add) I also turn off upkeep because there is NOT enough of anything in the economies of the North to justify it at all. Build anywhere ( if you can) near the size military the North had and you wont have any economy at all, because you will have no manpower to run your cities and no money or commodities to build anything new, much less pay to appease the Europeans.

To recap I turn off manpower problems with city production, I turn off Upkeep... these two make no sense as currently employed based on the avaialble resources. I turn off disease , not because I dont want the feature, but because it costs WAY to much to anyone forced to conduct offensive operations in enemy territory. Building hospitals and gaining tech advances dont help a lot ( not to mention the more efficient tech is not available for quite some time). I WANT to use this feature but simply cant considering the results I have seen using it.

The manpower levels are way to low for both sides if one wants a reasonable fascimile of the war and the costs for raising each of the units to high. They are fine if one wants a balanced game that bears little resemblence to the actual war... Thus I will continue to make my own changes in this regard.

The comment about Germany would, in this case, be that the game provides Germany with the manpower and economy well passed its real conditions to "balance" the game.

[nmleague]

Just a note on quick battles.   I have watched many of them playing as the North vs the South (computer), and watched the summary of each volley/attack along the bottom.  As I watch those results, out of the volleys/attacks on Southern units propbably 90% result in zero causualties, on the other hand almost every volley/attack on Northen units result in anywhere from small losses to losses of hundreds.  I under stand that the CSA had better quality troops and generals but this unevenness in losses is extreme.
 
An example, last night this happened.  CSA troops moved to wheeling to siege it.  Two of the AOP groups moved in to same area with a 2-1 manpower advantage.  The North had a fort and terrrian bonus as the defender, each side had 3 generals.   The result, USA causualties over 12,000 CSA about 300.   Moved the remaing AOP group over and all three moved in to the section, again with over a 2-1 advantage, same bonuses, same result, over 12,000 losses for the USA less than 1,000 for the CSA.   Most of the AOP troops had decent weapons and most attributes added.
 
There may be battles with lopsided results from time to time, but at this time with the fire power and weapons quaility available both sides should be well bloodied.
 
It would be interesting to see a summary of  many of the civil war battles to make a comparison of total losses for each side to see how lopesided they were.

[ericbabe]

Comments
--------
On Economy: It's important to note that a lot of economic balance varies by (1) game options and (2) difficulty level. The AI does get significant economic bonuses at harder levels: this is necessary to make the AI more challenging and the game more enjoyable.

(In regard to this, I know some people don't want to believe that this is true, but there are many decisions I had to make while designing the game between "fun" and "realism"; material bonuses for the AI at harder levels is an excellent example of such a choice.)

Keep in mind that there are options to adjust the economies of both sides up or down, so players have a lot of control customizing this. I personally prefer playing the CS with a reduced economy against an AI with an increased economy... I think it's more historical, harder, and more enjoyable; game options let me do this.


Weapons: Haven't seen much consensus on the costs of weapons. Some people (on the main forum) want them to cost much less, others want them to cost more. Maybe we can increase the US's gun production a bit and increase the weapon costs slightly... make everybody happy (ha ha ha...)?


Reading through this thread three times, here are some ideas for changes that popped out at me. Please comment.

Ideas/Proposals for Changes
---------------------------
1) Reduce pursuit casualties after QB (by 75%? more?)

2) Progressive monetary costs for camps by province. +$30 per camp already there?

3) Add victory point requirement for emancipation. For US only? Need perhaps +7 VPs'?

4) Randomly start some generals in western theater...alternately, we could identify some generals to start in the western theater?

5) Easier for blockade runners to be damaged

6) Mints take longer to build. (Progressive cost, ala camps in #2?)

7) Fewer horses for the CSA? from Plantations?

8) Reduce research from Europe (by 25%? 50%?)

9) Reduce ship costs.

10) Make some US armies into corps (in Potomac) at start of scenario?

11) Minimum casualties in QB salvos?

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Twotribes



In one post you caution against giving the North and the South realistic economies based on historical fact, prefering that this just remain a fun balanced game,then you post this.... how exactly does the North win using its historical advantages that allowed it to do so when the "game" takes those historical advantages away?
...

I cautioned against crippling the South or strengthening the North based on comments from people who have probably not played even one game all the way through.

I never posted ".... how exactly does the North win using its historical advantages that allowed it to do so when the "game" takes those historical advantages away?" You might have me confused with someone else.

With all due respect, just because you can't duplicate what happend historically does not necessarily mean the game is broken or that others have not been able to do what you could not.

Anyway, this thread is about game balance and I expressed my opinion as others are free to do as well.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: Twotribes



In one post you caution against giving the North and the South realistic economies based on historical fact, prefering that this just remain a fun balanced game,then you post this.... how exactly does the North win using its historical advantages that allowed it to do so when the "game" takes those historical advantages away?
...

I cautioned against crippling the South or strengthening the North based on comments from people who have probably not played even one game all the way through.

I never posted ".... how exactly does the North win using its historical advantages that allowed it to do so when the "game" takes those historical advantages away?" You might have me confused with someone else.

With all due respect, just because you can't duplicate what happend historically does not necessarily mean the game is broken or that others have not been able to do what you could not.

Anyway, this thread is about game balance and I expressed my opinion as others are free to do as well.

Just curious, elmo. How many games have you played (for at least one year) as the Union? Not singling you out, but there are lots of opinions about "game balance" being tossed about..., and I wonder how many come from players who have played BOTH sides? I'm willing to admit that I've only played a half-dozen turns as the South a couple of times (never could get over having a "Fleet" and an "Economy".)

[steveuk]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: steveuk

ORIGINAL: Twotribes

How does one try to change history when , in effect, a game is designed to give one side more than it had and the other side less than it had in advantages?

I'm not sure I totally understand your question in relation to what I said in my post.

As for FOF given one side or the other an advantage, I have no comment because the ACW is not my pet subject so I have no idea on starting compositions for the two sides involved.
My only interest in playing this game is to try to change history by playing the CSA. If the game designers make that difficult to do, then that would improve my game experience as long as I had available what the CSA had available at war start....no more, no less. And this is a notible and worthwhile goal as a player. And the main reason so many of us are trying to get the game to a more historically realistic state. I'd love the challange of trying to "pull it off" as the Confederacy as much as the next person---but what "challange" is it if the designers have "leveled the playing field" to the point that it's easy to do so?Playing wargames give us a chance to change what historically happened. We all know that Germany could have won WWII if certain things were/were not done. Likewise I guess it was possible for the CSA to win the ACW if certain things were/were not done.

When playing HPS Panzer Campaigns, I normally play Germany as to me the challenge is to win and change history. To play the allies imo is pointless as historically they did win so I see no point. But if the designer gave the German's nothing but Tigers, and total air superiority, and unlimited supply, would you still want to play them? Trying to "do it better" with what was actually available is a challange as a player...., but doing it using a ton of ahistoric "freebies" is just "self-abuse".
I just hope the game designers can bring out a more 'historical' mod/patch for the wargame grognards but still keep simple options for the more beer and pizza community.

I think we are both on the same wavelength Mike, but on the WWII subject, I would take a Panther over a Tiger any day [:'(]

[Mike Scholl]

Ideas/Proposals for Changes
---------------------------
1) Reduce pursuit casualties after QB (by 75%? more?) I think more "balance" is the key. A big success in the ACW might produce casualties in the 3:1 range. The game kicks out 10:1 and more. Needs a "reality check"

2) Progressive monetary costs for camps by province. +$30 per camp already there? Easier and more accurate to simply reduce the South's "horse" supply"

3) Add victory point requirement for emancipation. For US only? Need perhaps +7 VPs'? I'd go along with this if the game's Diplomatic System worked better. I've just HAD to Emancipate in January of 1862 for the second game in a row because in spite of spending the maximum every turn since July on both England and France, the CSA has climbed to +6 in one and +5 in the other. This didn't happen in any of my games before the "patch"..., is there any chance the "law of unintended consequences" may have come into play when those "fixes" were implemented? Given that it's a "bribery contest", it doesn't seem right that the other side should be making any progress as long as you are spending the maximum.

4) Randomly start some generals in western theater...alternately, we could identify some generals to start in the western theater? You can move them there quick enough, but it would be a nice "touch"

5) Easier for blockade runners to be damaged

6) Mints take longer to build. (Progressive cost, ala camps in #2?)

7) Fewer horses for the CSA? from Plantations? I don't mind them getting what they spend resources to produce..., but the initial amount recieved is way out of line. The South was Agrarian..., but so was much of the much larger North (which also had the resources of the West). Giving both sides the same amount of this resource would still be an advantage for the South, but much more accurate

8) Reduce research from Europe (by 25%? 50%?) Reduce the upper limits at least. I just had England give the South 84 Naval Research Points twice in a row---the North has to make major investments to get 168 Naval Research in 10 turns, let alone two.

9) Reduce ship costs. More a matter of rationalizing them. How can a "riverine ironclad" (gunboat) require virtually no iron when compared to a sea-going Ironclad? And yet cost more money? Much of what is in the current structure makes no sense in comparison to each other. And why are "Fleet Containers" so expensive? How much are they paying that Admiral and his staff?

10) Make some US armies into corps (in Potomac) at start of scenario?

11) Minimum casualties in QB salvos?

[jonreb31]

I would like to see better balance in the Quick Battle casualties. In most of the fights I have fought it's either a decisive victory for one side or the other. Sometimes there are ridiculous battles in which one side might take 2,000 casualties while the other takes 0.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl





Just curious, elmo. How many games have you played (for at least one year) as the Union? Not singling you out, but there are lots of opinions about "game balance" being tossed about..., and I wonder how many come from players who have played BOTH sides? I'm willing to admit that I've only played a half-dozen turns as the South a couple of times (never could get over having a "Fleet" and an "Economy".)

None for a full year, hence my comment about not presuming to tell WCS how to redesign the economy.

Edit - ...or if it even needs any redesign.

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: spruce

I played one long game as CSA (nov. scenario - 2'nd lt) - this is what I find =
- as the CSA - I hadn't much problems at developing a stable base economy - I invested heavely in plantations, which in fact is a life saver for the CSA together with mints. I agree that plantations bring in bonuses - but the amount of bonus should be reflected in the bigger picture. My feeling was that the CSA can have a very nice money surplus (+100 gold a turn) from late 1864 on ... I don't think this is valid - as the CSA was struggling more and more to become self sustaining. In my game I prove the opposite - I became more and more self-sustaining - to such a degree I was doing as good (or even better) then the Union ...

Spruce Have you played the game as the Union? You're comments seem to indicate that you were happily doing well as the South..., a lot better than the real South ever did. Have you looked at the "other side of the fence"?

Well, what do you want to know - I didn't reload as the Union - I'm not aware this can be done ...

What I observed was the Union going into Virginia with 3 armies and was building fortresses in Grafton - due to strategical brilliant moves [;)] - I whacked the Union - I chased his armies and took his fortresses. Around the same period I went for the counterfeit upgrade ...

from that moment on - I never spotted the Union doing any major attack - only some small brigade incursions ... I think his money balance was screwed ...

I don't know if you can reload as the Union if you have a CSA game ? [&:]

[Mike Scholl]

"Well, what do you want to know - I didn't reload as the Union - I'm not aware this can be done ... "


Sorry..., you're misunderstanding the question. You were basing your comments on a long game you had played as the South, and I was asking if you had ever played the game as the North (for any reasonable period, like 25 turns or so). More of a "Do you have any experiance playing the other side?" question. I think it would be great IF you could jump back and forth and find out what the AI was really doing..., but as far as I know, you are right that it can't be done.

[spruce]

to get to the major points - looked from the CSA vision, and I take an accountant stance in many topics =
 
- I'm firmly against capping the amount of reinforcments received by camps. I do however support toning down a little bit the camp cost (should cost more horses). Making the CSA have less horses is no solution - cause the player will go for more iron and more blockade runners on horses - not a good solution imho. Make camps somewhat more costly ...
 
- I'm firmly against chopping the CSA in having less camps - I think it's more a fundamental choice between fewer and bigger brigades (CSA vision) and more but smaller brigades (Union vision). This is also reflected historically by the fact that the Union regiments were newly created and less reinforced. I think the freedom of choice should be there ...
 
- I'm firmly in favour of rethinking the blockade runner thingy - the income for the South is too secure here. The runners should be more doing repairs. However losing the runners early game - a stroke a bad luck - might kill the CSA on the long run. Solution = less damage to runners and higher chance of getting "some damage" and more chances at unsuccesfull runner missions,
 
- I think tech support from Europe is too unbalanced - in my CSA game - the CSA is ahead of Union naval research ?!? I was getting 105 naval research points during some turns ...
 
- about the CSA and container development = the South should have one extra barrack in Richmond, so it can build more easely corps and army containers. It should be lured to build more historical armies - with more coverage - more containers ... now the player is easelty tempted at building super brigade armies that have a low upkeep cost.
 
The "lure" to the super big brigade armies is just too tempting - any accountant will see that an army made out of 2.000 K brigades and an army made out of 4.000 K brigades will consume the same amount of supply - yet their battle readyness is totally different. Chances are that the 4.000 K brigade armies will grow better in disposition and again get a supply bonus.
 
The CSA can develop an army - with super sized brigades - with very few containers - that are costing much less resources based on supply. If you use this weapon offensively - the Union will crumble ... in the end I had a good income as the CSA and was taking Union city after Union city.
 
So make those camps a little more expensive, make the containers cheaper and make the blocade runner income more variable ...

[spruce]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

"Well, what do you want to know - I didn't reload as the Union - I'm not aware this can be done ... "


Sorry..., you're misunderstanding the question. You were basing your comments on a long game you had played as the South, and I was asking if you had ever played the game as the North (for any reasonable period, like 25 turns or so). More of a "Do you have any experiance playing the other side?" question. I think it would be great IF you could jump back and forth and find out what the AI was really doing..., but as far as I know, you are right that it can't be done.

ah, ok - that's your point - I was impressed by the fact the Unions "will" to fight was literally over when I had damaged his (West-Virginian armies - and had taken his fortresses. I dunno if it was due to the AI - or due to the fact that his economical base was shattered ... well assumptions don't make up for facts ... [:)]

[ericbabe]

ORIGINAL: JonReb
I would like to see better balance in the Quick Battle casualties. In most of the fights I have fought it's either a decisive victory for one side or the other. Sometimes there are ridiculous battles in which one side might take 2,000 casualties while the other takes 0.

As we've been explaining elsewhere, this happens when there is no actual battle but one side simply flees the province -- the reported numbers are the "pursuit casualties", losses due to stragglers and similar. This seems to be confusing and upsetting people though, so perhaps it'd be better to cut the pursuit losses, or else move them to a separate report.