Caslu,
That's absurd.
If battle casualties in EU II were at that level, wars would never end. You have to consider the scale-and also that defeat in the real world meant heavy desertions, lost supplies, munitions and especially cannon, and tens of thousands of wounded who would never fight again. The point is not the numbers, as it's silly to compare EU II's to history. The point is that these decisive battles were carried by the tactical genius of great Generals, and they determined the course of whole wars and nations.
Also, I notice you completely ignored Jena-Austerdadt, in which Napoleon killed 25,000 Prussians to 5,000 French, most of whom were lost in Ney's mutinous attack on the center, and Davout, outnumbered nearly 3-1 and almost without artillery support killed 13,000 and captured almost all of the King's guns. 25-5 is 5-1, a slightly smaller ratio than Bujak. At Rimnik, Alexander Suvorov, outnumbered 4-1, inflicted 10,000 casualties to 1,000 Russians. That's 10-1.
More importantly, the OE was able to continue fighting after losing Bujak. After Jena, Prussia was badly defeated and lost half its territory. After Austerlitz, Austria was badly defeated and lost any authority over Germany and vast tracts of territory on the Adriatic. After Rimnik, sixty-five of the remaining ninety thousand Turkish troops went home against orders or defected to the Russian Cossacks. The OE lost the war as a result of that battle.
As I've said a half dozen times now, leaders, like manpower, wealth, etc., that the Turks have in abundance, are part of a nation's strengths and weaknesses. You weren't bitching endlessly when you had Selim, Suleyman, et al, and no one with even the slightest grasp of the game could argue Russia's file is superior to the OE's, much less that Russia is in a better position in all the other fields than the Turks. The argument you're making is that you shouldn't have to suffer any disadvantages, and that although it's perfectly possible for this OE, with its defensive depth, MP, money, naval superiority and total control of the Black Sea coastline, to win a defensive war against Russia with Suvorov, it's not your fault in any way, shape or form that it's losing.
Propaganda is understandable, but blatant inaccuracies are not. I've demonstrated that great Generalship was historically more decisive than it is in this game, not less, and that your casualty figures completely miss the point. It started out as a legitimate academic argument-now it's just petulance.
Make up whatever other excuses you like, but let's lay this dead horse to rest, shall we?
