Now, I'm going to go ahead and defend the claim against me that "my post doesn't make sense" and that "I am wrong on multiple points" so this is now an argument.
1.) It isn't an argument. I'm simply saying that this is a unique scenario where the casualties should be rather high.
While this is now some form of an argument over whether or not this was an argument, at the time of posting I did not consider this to be an argument where as you did. So, while it is now an argument before, I do not think it was so.
2.) Were you sober when you read my post? Essentially I said a-There was a lot of artillery, a lot of infantry, and a lot of friendly fire. b-Not all of the men considered casualties were killed. c- This is a unique scenario and the only one I have come across with such ridiculous casualties. d - Everyone should play the demo to see if they like the game. I fail to see how it doesn't make sense. While the post is sporadic and rather jumpy it still seems to be comprehensible.
A- This is a fact of when I played the scenario. Thus this is true.
B- This is also true. Not every man that was listed as a casualty was killed, some were captured yet listed as a casualty so this is undeniably true.
C- I have played 4 scenarios thus far and this is the only one where the casualties have been over 50%. So that makes this one unique in its casualty count as far as I know. That makes this true as well.
D-This was a statement of my opinion and very subjective therefore not provable or disprovable.
3.) (To Tarheel) You can also play a HITS style game by just setting the game to historical difficulty as it forces you to view the highest ranking unit under your control from an over the shoulder type view were you can not move your camera around. Also, if you select your general unit (commander) and just press F it does something similar.
This is also true. You can play from an in-the-saddle view by setting the difficult to historical or pressing the F key with your commander selected. This makes this true as well.
I would challenge you to disprove anything I have said in this post. I can understand why it might have been difficult to follow as I was just listing some facts initially so if you are trying to string it together as an argument proving as point then yes, it doesn't make sense. However, as a series of listed facts, no thesis statement given, and a claim from the poster who is the only one who knows what he intended to do by posting the post that I have addressed here, this MUST be accepted as a listing of facts.
This was not an article meant to counter or convince you Sloop. Therefore, as all of the points I listed are true I am not wrong on any point aside form 2 subjective points where you can't prove either way.
Now, since this is an argument and I'm trying to prove that what I said makes sense and that I am not wrong in any of the things I said. Lets see what you can come up with since this is now a 2-way argument.
EDIT: I decided to go ahead and address my previous posts as well just for the sake of being thorough. My debate OCD is taking over.
Sloop first said that the casualties I took would be historically impossible. I then said no game is 100% historically accurate and this one doesn't claim to be. Both of which is true. Then I said Pickett's division suffered 2,655 casualties in the actual charge. This is also true. I also said that this means that the casualties I took weren't that far off which would also be true as I took about 2,900 casualties. That is only 200 more and therefore "close". I didn't say that the percentage of men lost was nearly the same, if I did I would be wrong.
Sloop then says something about hoping for improvement and lists facts about the historical losses of the charge.
I carried on to say that in context of a game meant to be fun and thorough in its mechanics you can not be 100% historically accurate. This is true as I challenge you to find any game that is 100% historically accurate. If you can't do so, then I am by default correct. In this post I also listed how many guns and said there was a lot of infantry. Both of these things are true as I used the game as my source and you have nothing that can disprove this. I also said this is the only scenario I have found with such high casualties which, as addressed before, is also true. I haven't seen any other scenarios that have that many casualties.
Sloop, you then said my argument doesn't make sense. This is subjective and therefore irrefutable as while Sloop can't prove my argument doesn't make sense to anyone, I can't prove that it does make sense either.
I then posted what has been covered above this edit.
Now that my debate/argument urges and OCD have been satisfied I'm going to sit and wait to see if Sloop is going to bother arguing anymore. I hope you do respond Sloop as arguments are quite fun.
P.S. If any of you actually made it through that long wall of text, bravo.
