No, only 145,000 were "casualties", of which about half are actual deaths. The rest were captured.
Beta AAR: Einigkeit und Recht - Comments thread
- Thread starter Darth Tracid
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well the whole population number is just a number of households, and I remember in a diary that a household equals 4 people. And since soldiers are recruited from the number of the population 1,000 soldiers = 1,000 POPs, the soldier's women and children indeed die when they do.
Check your demography, Austria in 1836 had around 38 million inhabitants empire wide, Prussia alone around 14 Million IIRC. Factor in 30 years of gamplay POP growth in addition, and the numbers in the armies don't sound all that off to me.
Don't compare battles with WW2 battles, think WWI with its millions of men engaged on each front. IIRC the fighting in Verdun in 1916 ended up involving well over 1 million troops from both sides during the months it was fought (and Jarkko's battle here was something akin to a Verdun type battle)
''if the whole army was wiped out''
I mean like if everyone had excellent morale through the whole battle so that they wouldn't rout and die to the last man.
Well, okay I guess that's reasonable then, and before by 3 million people I actually meant 3 million pops, as seen from the AAR, but it was a little more higher than 3 million though.
Are there "captives" in Vic2? Are those who weren't directly killed in battles really captured and then sent back, such that these soldier POPs remain?
Their families are not killed by enemies, they die of hunger because of the loss of their father and husband
Surely you should rather be comparing it with historical big European battles in the 1860s, like Königgrätz (400,000 men involved), Sedan (320,000) or Solferino (320,000)...?
This battle is at least two to three times as big as each of them, which is absolutely ginormous, and wouldn't have been possible to pull off (although could explain the unusually high Austrian casualty rates, as an army that size would have been decimated by disease in no time).
If I'm reading Jarkko's AAR right though, this battle lasted a good 2-3 months, Sedan and Solferino were over within a week or two if I am not mistaken. What it looks to me like is happening is that both sides engaged and then both start pouring in more troops into the battle, neither side wanting to lose because a loss would be a major defeat, again like Verdun 1916.
It could have happened if Austria and Prussia threw her entire manpower into one battle and made it all hang in the balance of that one battle... possible but slightly crazy. Anyone who suggested it on the day would have been deemed insane.
Which again is an issue - with the exception of big sieges, battles simply didn't go on for 2-3 months in this period, as the technology, strategy and supply effectiveness wasn't there to support this sort of thing...
If this is the just way the game is set up or if you want to pretend it's reflecting a series of battles, then cool, but you really can't pretend this as a single battle is in any way historically feasible.
well, considering the size of provinces covering hundreds of square kilometers, I guess you can say it reflects a series of battles in the area of the city of X.
Of course, Victoria 2 is strategic, not tactical, so a certain degree of sublimation of battle mechanics is to be expected.
When i saw the black red golden flag my whole face changed to a big smile.
Thank you.
Thank you.
So basically, trench warfare doctrine (grind each other down) is in from the early years.
Grinding eachother down is hardly exclusive to trench warfare.
What I mean is that this is a bit unlike the warfare that was seen in the early days of the Victoria game, where you routed the enemy, not fight for days over some province where the armies fight until one of them just drop dead.
That's not trench warfare exclusively, it could also represent several days/weeks of campaigning in the area during mobile warfare.
If you have a battle involving 30,000 men I imagine it will be resolved rather quickly, with one army routing the other within days.
A battle involving hundreds of thousands is not really a battle, it is a campaign.
Just because in this scenario a human player decides to pit his entire army to hold against an Austrian invasion in one province, doesn't mean that's the kind of thing that happens all the time.
A battle involving hundreds of thousands is not really a battle, it is a campaign.
Just because in this scenario a human player decides to pit his entire army to hold against an Austrian invasion in one province, doesn't mean that's the kind of thing that happens all the time.