"Runaway" stats.

[Pariente]

My point, which keeps getting missed, is :
Was it "normal" for about 30-35% of an Army (win OR lose) to be "gone" after a battle where a couple of thousand were killed and wounded ?.

One of the greatest French military theorist Charles Ardant du Picq (1819-1870) said about MacDonald's column at Wagram :

« On 22 000 men, 3 000 or hardly 1500 reached the position, and certainly they were not responsible for the taking of this place : the moral effect of a hundred guns and cavalry deserve the laurels. Were the 19 000 missing men out of fight ? No. 7 on 22 - about a third, huge proportion - might have been killed in action. What were the 12 000 missing men doing ? They fell, they were lying on the ground, playing dead so they would not have to go further. »

As the French love to exaggerate, all the figures may be... approximate.
But it happened, MacDonald's incredibly high losses were due to : runners, comedians and soldiers who helped the wounded to go back.[/pre]

________________________________

I found different information about the three Davout's divisions' losses at Auerstaedt but I take in account the 7 000 dead or wounded, according to Jean Tranié (in L'épopée napoléonienne : les grandes batailles). 7000 on 26 000 : nearly a quarter.

I guess 30% is not « normal » but is possible. The size of the battlefield and the fact that the ennemy army in the demo never retreat may explain such losses.

[CBR]

I'm not so sure, the number of runaways is for the most part WHOLE units that have left the battlefield.

When I did a test I could see how the number of runaways increased whenever a unit had moved off the map. So it seems the number comes from the soldiers who are in units that have escaped.

My point, which keeps getting missed, is :
Was it "normal" for about 30-35% of an Army (win OR lose) to be "gone" after a battle where a few thousand were killed and wounded ?.

Each battle is of course unique but was it normal? No.

edit: and yes the numbers for Wagram are a bit suspect as MacDonald did not advance with anywhere 22,000 soldiers but more like 8,000 according to what I have read. The total losses of the Army of Italy (that his corps was part of) are stated to be around 6,000 (30%) and IMO we can safely assume his corps took heavier losses than the other corps in the army.


CBR

[Hook]

My point, which keeps getting missed, is :
Was it "normal" for about 30-35% of an Army (win OR lose) to be "gone" after a battle where a few thousand were killed and wounded ?.

Who do you think the "runaways" actually are?  (The French word is "Fuyards.")  They appear to be units that have left the field because they are no longer combat effective.  This will include units that are reorganizing.  Or whole corps that have retreated off the map.  They are no longer available to fight for whatever reason.

There's already a statistic for "missing."  This may be what you expect runaways to be.  

Suggest a different term for "runaways" and I'll put that in the translation file instead.  Would "Left the battlefield" make more sense?  We have a statistic on another screen for units "Out of map", this would be "Men out of map" or similar.

And your point, which I did address, was that I was surprised it was as low as it is.  Real life generals who watch wargamers playing are surprised at the number of losses we're willing to accept.  At the end of the battle, 1/3 of the force is no longer combat effective and have left the battle rather than fight to the death.  How would you prefer to handle these forces?

Hook

[Formaldehyde]

I have always taken the "runaway" message as somewhat abstracted.  The formation in question has manpower, but ceases to exist as a coherent combat unit.  As far as better terminology in English- The unit has been rendered "combat ineffective" or "unit shattered" "broken", etc.

[Count von Csollich]

It seems to me good idea to suggest these terms as a possible change in the interface because they make things clearer... especially the "combat ineffective"...

[Hook]

I'm changing "runaways" to a more generic "Out of map" unless someone has a better suggestion.  I'm not sure if this number includes reinforcements that haven't arrived yet.

Hook

[Gunner24]

This will include units that are reorganizing.  Or whole corps that have retreated off the map.  They are no longer available to fight for whatever reason.

What your saying here is these men have in fact "retreated" to safety and can no longer fight TODAY, but may re-organise ready for tomorrow, that makes sense to me but I'm sure this figure is too high when compared to the killed and wounded stats.

Suggest a different term for "runaways" and I'll put that in the translation file instead.  Would "Left the battlefield" make more sense?  We have a statistic on another screen for units "Out of map", this would be "Men out of map" or similar.

How about "Withdrawn from battlefield", would that be any good ?.

At the end of the battle, 1/3 of the force is no longer combat effective and have left the battle rather than fight to the death.  How would you prefer to handle these forces?

If you look at the casuality figures for major Napoleonic Battles there were huge numbers of men killed and wounded, if what your suggesting is correct, how did that happen - as they would have left the battlefield rather than fight.

Some basic info from : http://napoleonic-literature.com/WE/Casualties.html

Battle French Casualties Enemy Casualties
Austerlitz 9,000 27,000
Borodino 30,000 44,000
Eylau 25,000 15,000
Jena-Auerstadt 12,000 38,000
Waterloo 41,000 22,000

Yes, it is obvious that the above casualty figures, which include killed, wounded and missing, are large;

In the demo battle in the first post of this topic the total killed, wounded and missing, come to about 10 and 14 thousand.

We could say, at Waterloo, almost the whole French Army ended up as "runaways" but how many of the Brits/Prussians did the same ?.

I'm not trying to say the runaway figures are "wrong" only that they appear very high, for both sides, I don't know if they are right or wrong......it will be interesting to see if these type of figures are repeated in the full game version.

I suspect in an effert to avoid "fighting to the last man" in LG something may be a little over tweaked to make sure that does not happen.

[Hook]

We could say, at Waterloo, almost the whole French Army ended up as "runaways" but how many of the Brits/Prussians did the same ?.

We don't have stats for that.  For example, the Household Brigade would probably have been counted in the "runaway" number.  Where is it recorded what happened to those units?  They're simply ignored for the rest of the battle.

Where are the actual battle stats for "men in units that are no longer combat effective"?  I've never seen it recorded, but you might be able to calculate it if you're given the number of effective battalions at the end of the battle.  Even better if you're given the number of ineffective battalions. 

And exactly why do you think this number is too high?  What do you have to compare it to, since it's never reported for real battles?  I think it's too low, because units are staying in battle longer than I expected.

Hook

[Gunner24]

What do you have to compare it to, since it's never reported for real battles?

Ha, so why are you right and me wrong when you admit there are no sources to prove one way or the other.

It's a fair bet that at Waterloo there were many more "effective" troops left for the Brits/Prussians than the French, who were leaving the battlefield in very large numbers, with little organised resistance, unless I've read all the wrong books of course.

And exactly why do you think this number is too high?.

Everyone is allowed to "think" something for themselves (even if they turn out to be wrong) and I gave some interesting stats.  If we use Borodino from them as an example, 30k and 44k killed, wounded and missing for each side, that's about THREE times the number in the LG demo battle, so it would follow that the 30k "runaways" would also be three times as many, meaning neither side would have hardly any (if any at all ?) effective troops left after Borondino.  Now you can say that is correct because after that kind of battle very few troops would be capable of fighting again for................how long ?.

What really happened ?....I'm guessing that after a period of intense action (how long ?) units were withdrawn to a quite area for rest while another fresh unit took it's place, but I doubt very much if formations that had years of training and battle experience fought for two hours and then said, "that's it, I'm done for today I'm off for a cup of tea in that nice barn over there......see you in a few days time".  More likely they were withdrawn to a safe area, with little or no action, for a spell to re-group and rest, then they would be ok for further action later - if needed.

You are suggesting they fought for an hour or two and that was it, they had done their job, that may be right, but it's not the impression I have got from all the books I've read.

I could not care less if your right, or I'm right, or we are both right, or both wrong, the fact is we were not there and all we know is what we read from books and one opinion is as valid as another.

The number of "runaways" look too high to me, they look too low to you.   

[Hook]

More likely they were withdrawn to a safe area, with little or no action, for a spell to re-group and rest, then they would be ok for further action later - if needed.

And that's exactly what's happening.  They'll be available for combat tomorrow.

The safe area is off the map.  You don't get to order them back into battle, where they'll break at the first threat.  This is a good thing.

I'm not saying the number is too low, just that I'm surprised that it's not higher.  I'm willing to go with the number in the game.

There are any number of reasons a unit can only take one or two hours of direct contact with the enemy.  Fatigue, combat stress, morale, losses, lack of ammunition, the will of the men and the officers to continue fighting, breakdown of discipline due to officer and NCO casualties, probably a lot more I can't think of off the top of my head.  There's a limit to how long you can expect even a Guard unit to stand and die.

Hook

[chops]

Instead of "Out of Map"  how about "Left the Field".  I also like "Combat Ineffective" and "Broken".

[Franciscus]

...
If we use Borodino from them as an example, 30k and 44k killed, wounded and missing for each side
...
  

I would say that many if not most of those "missing" are in fact the so called "runaways", don't you think ? "Missing" could even be a good term for this statistic...

[Duke of Earl]

Instead of "Out of Map"  how about "Left the Field".  I also like "Combat Ineffective" and "Broken".

Bonjour Messieurs,

I changed my interne text to say 'Broken' .... 

Cordialement, DoE

[Hook]

"Missing" could even be a good term for this statistic...

Already got one for Killed and Missing.  At least these guys are responding to a roll call.  The missing ones aren't.

Instead of "Out of Map"  how about "Left the Field"

I like "Left the field" better than "Out of Map" myself.  If no one has any objections, I'll put that in the final files I send to JMM.  He's already got the Out of Map version.  They aren't finished, though.  Just better than what we had before.

Hook

[Formaldehyde]

"Out of map" seems a bit ambiguous.  It breaks the brittle layer of believability that we all have as historical simulation gamers.  I know it's a game, and that there is a "map"- but I want to think that the forces that have just failed to do their duty to me have "broken" or "fled the field".  It's funny how words matter in different contexts.