From: Bedfordshire UK
I am not sure if the casualty calculations need to be adjusted, there are others who will know better than I, but this example looks like a x10 error and I wonder if it transfers into the total casualty list in the report section.
However, in this scale of game (operational and strategic) the loses should not be seen as only KIA. If a division, or corps, breaks up under attack, there could be 10,000s of disorganised and demoralised men, without equipment, clogging the roads (France 1940), or heading for the forests (Russia 1941), they don't have to be KIA to be lost to a fighting unit and unable to fight.
Well, it's hard to say: the turns are a week long and the units seem to be of the wing (Schlachtgeschwader) size, if one assumes that Luftflotte 1 (the actual unit represented) would've sent the entire wing for the attack (I/SG 3 for example)... still say that's too high. The division doesn't even have 36,000 men in it; that would be Corps size and I'm sure the unit represented is a Division IIRC.
Think there was only 336 Stukas that participated in Fall Weiss so the 25 losses I sustained doesn't seem right either.
Either way, finding this a glaring oversight/flaw/bug in the game to fail to accurately portray casualties.
I am agreeing that this particular example looks like a x10 error, but I also think we should not just be looking at losses in terms of only KIA, loses may run into large figures for many reasons that are not just those killed.
Does this error transfer into the loses data featured in the report section, or is it just a numbers display problem, are the actual calculations wrong, or is correct data being wrongly displayed.
The game works with units made up of strength points, purchased with PPs. If you lose a Corps with strength points of 6, it's the loss of those 6 strength points which is significant to the game mechanics, the notification of soldiers lost is window dressing and it is annoying if the figures are not relevant, but it shouldn't effect the game mechanics.
< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/13/2012 11:27:24 AM >
"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me