I might add that the abstraction of losing a, vaguely defined, single Strength Point deals in a rough sort of way with the question: What is a loss? Is it, does it represent
[*]a KIA?
[*]a serious, incapacitating wound?
[*]the two stretcher bearers carrying the seriously wounded soldier back to the aid station?
[*]a superficial (or possibly self-inflicted) wound ginned up to justify inaction?
[*]hiding off to the side, or running away in fear?
[*]"getting lost" along the way, lurking?
[*]and so on
Not to mention
[*]seriously wounded soldiers who fight on regardless
[*]runaways who, on second thought, return to the fray (think
The Red Badge of Courage)
[*]and so on
To this day, historians cannot agree on the "losses" in many battles, some of them well known, carefully documented, and deeply studied.
It is understandable wanting to know battle losses (and unit strengths) "exactly" in numbers of men. But when depicting the chaos of battle, that has always seemed to me to be faux, unattainable precision.
You can think of the Strength Point abstraction to be an average of "losses", whatever that means, over a (also vaguely defined) period of time. It gets the job done.