Triggering Moral Checks. Napoleonic vs Civil War Series

[BigDuke66]

Hi
I just wonder if someone knows why there are different ways of calculation to determine if there is a moral check.

In Civil War:
"When Morale Checks are applicable, they are determined based on a probability using the given loss as:
loss / (loss + 25)
Thus a unit that takes a loss of 25 men has a 50% chance of requiring a morale check and a unit that takes a loss of 100 men has an 80% chance of requiring a morale check."

In Napoleonic:
"When Morale Checks are applicable, they are determined based on a probability using the given loss as:
loss / (loss + base)
where base = strength-of-unit / 10 but limited to be no lower than 25.
Thus a unit of 250 men that takes a loss of 25 men has a 50% chance of requiring a morale check and a unit of 1000 men that takes a loss of 25 men has an 20% chance of requiring a morale check."


You see that the Napoleonic series takes into account how big the losses were compared to the units size, so big units with small casualties are less likely to have to make a Moral Check.
In the Civil War series only the amount of casualties are important, so higher casualties mean a higher chance for a Moral Check, a 100 men unit is as likely to make a check as a 1000 men units, what seem rather strange.
Any reason for this?

[TheGrayMouser]

I dont own any of the CW titles but am familiar enough w those games manuals, AA reports, screenies etc to take a stab:
My guess is the designers wanted to emphasize the absolute importance of command and control (ie in game terms passing down leader bonuses) for the armies that were mostly comprised of hastily raised recruits or draftees in a military system that had little "tradition" in the European sense. Also, to emphasize the frightfull power of rifled muskets , without resorting to simply increasing the weapons values (causing a-historically high casualties).

Or, the manual could simply have a typo!