Yes, but this is what I would call a "tremendous relative advantage"--you'd think that the 100 man unit would be overwhelmed very quickly, because it would in fact suffer casualties on a man-basis, not a percentage basis...in other words, it seems incredible that 100 men would inflict 100 casualties on 1000 man unit, and a 1000 man unit would inflict 10 casualties on a 100 man unit. In fact the opposite would seem to be the case, and the combat would be over...TheGrayMouser wrote:Example
1000 man unit takes a 10% hit has 900 men left, 100 man unit takes same hit 10% now at 90 men. If both units get hit again ie get hits that inflict 10% losses each 800 and 80 will be left respectively (remember its the % times the ORIGINAL men in the unit) Thus both units will degrade proportionaly ie both will reach their rout limit at the same rate asuming exact equal punishment is inflicted on them.
Agreed. This system seems to work as long as unit sizes are kept the same for both sides. But what the rational for different unit types having different unit sizes? In other words, do HF, MF, and LF all have differnent number of men in the these respective units? If so, why?TheGrayMouser wrote:Basically there is no point in making a scenario with troops of the same type having wildly differnt #'s of men, uless you are just getting the #'s right for historical accuracy. It shouldnt effect anything except maybe confuse the player who might wonder why unit 1 loses 200 men at a time and unit 2 only loses 20 men per pop
