KIA'S

[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]

[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.

[Titanwarrior89]

Okie Doe ! Thanks for your repley.[;)]

[Naomi]

Is Kia a Korean car maker Hyundai bought recently?

[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

[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.