Page 1 of 1
KIA'S
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:06 pm
by Titanwarrior89
Why is it that one side can have - lets say 10'000 combat casualties and the other side zero. Isn't this off, or am I missing something. It would seem that at least someone would die on the other side.[:D]
RE: KIA'S
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:33 pm
by ahauschild
Would assume it is part of the abstract system you have to adopt in order to keep results simple. Of course in real live it would most likley never happen, unless you have stand off weapons. You most likley would never see less then 20 to 1 cassulties on a good day, ussuly more.
This means if one side has taken 10000 casulties (actuly large percentage of these are deserters and light wounds) the othe side should at a minimum take 500 guys, probl more.
In the big theme of things those 500 guys dont make a big diff.
RE: KIA'S
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:44 pm
by Titanwarrior89
Okie Doe ! Thanks for your repley.[;)]
RE: KIA'S
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:50 pm
by Naomi
Is Kia a Korean car maker Hyundai bought recently?
RE: KIA'S
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:43 am
by Hard Sarge
I wish the report would give the right number of losses
seems strange to see, say 12000 losses for this side and 3000 for that, and then see that 7 Divs were Captured, that really throws the losses to much higher levels (that Army really lost some 70-80,000 men)
HARD_Sarge
RE: KIA'S
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 7:33 pm
by Reg Pither
ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge
I wish the report would give the right number of losses
seems strange to see, say 12000 losses for this side and 3000 for that, and then see that 7 Divs were Captured, that really throws the losses to much higher levels (that Army really lost some 70-80,000 men)
HARD_Sarge
Good point. Not including POW's in the immediate reports is confusing. And I'd like to see separate casualty figures for infantry, cavalry and artillery.