Broken Units Suprisingly Don't Take Heavy Casualties

[MisterMark]

As the title implies... once a unit is broken, I'm surprised that repeated attacks on such units result in very few casualties as compared to when the unit was un-broken/disrupted or even un-disrupted . 

For instance, if you do an air strike or artillery strike on a unit that is unbroken you might inflict double digit casualties (depending on terrain, etc).  However once that same unit becomes broken, repeated attacks in an effort to eliminate it, usually result in 1-6 casualties per attack, despite hitting it with overwhelming fire power.

You would think a unit that has become broken would take even heavier casualties when under fire... completely panicked and unmotivated troops would seem even more vulnerable.  

Does that not seem counter intuitive?  Any one know why this is the case? 

Thoughts?

-Mark

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

As the title implies... once a unit is broken, I'm surprised that repeated attacks on such units result in very few casualties as compared to when the unit was un-broken/disrupted or even un-disrupted . 

For instance, if you do an air strike or artillery strike on a unit that is unbroken you might inflict double digit casualties (depending on terrain, etc).  However once that same unit becomes broken, repeated attacks in an effort to eliminate it, usually result in 1-6 casualties per attack, despite hitting it with overwhelming fire power.

You would think a unit that has become broken would take even heavier casualties when under fire... completely panicked and unmotivated troops would seem even more vulnerable.  

Does that not seem counter intuitive?  Any one know why this is the case? 

Thoughts?

-Mark

Think of it as broken troops are scattered and hiding in every piece of cover they can find whle unbroken troops are still concentrated and standing their ground.

[Ricky B]

As the title implies... once a unit is broken, I'm surprised that repeated attacks on such units result in very few casualties as compared to when the unit was un-broken/disrupted or even un-disrupted . 

For instance, if you do an air strike or artillery strike on a unit that is unbroken you might inflict double digit casualties (depending on terrain, etc).  However once that same unit becomes broken, repeated attacks in an effort to eliminate it, usually result in 1-6 casualties per attack, despite hitting it with overwhelming fire power.

You would think a unit that has become broken would take even heavier casualties when under fire... completely panicked and unmotivated troops would seem even more vulnerable.  

Does that not seem counter intuitive?  Any one know why this is the case? 

Thoughts?

-Mark

Think of it as broken troops are scattered and hiding in every piece of cover they can find whle unbroken troops are still concentrated and standing their ground.

Exactly, and the manual is very specific about it:

Fire against a Broken unit is halved because it is considered not to be exposing itself as it would normally.

[MisterMark]

As the title implies... once a unit is broken, I'm surprised that repeated attacks on such units result in very few casualties as compared to when the unit was un-broken/disrupted or even un-disrupted . 

For instance, if you do an air strike or artillery strike on a unit that is unbroken you might inflict double digit casualties (depending on terrain, etc).  However once that same unit becomes broken, repeated attacks in an effort to eliminate it, usually result in 1-6 casualties per attack, despite hitting it with overwhelming fire power.

You would think a unit that has become broken would take even heavier casualties when under fire... completely panicked and unmotivated troops would seem even more vulnerable.  

Does that not seem counter intuitive?  Any one know why this is the case? 

Thoughts?

-Mark

Think of it as broken troops are scattered and hiding in every piece of cover they can find whle unbroken troops are still concentrated and standing their ground.

Exactly, and the manual is very specific about it:

Fire against a Broken unit is halved because it is considered not to be exposing itself as it would normally.

Interesting... thank you guys for the clarification. 

From a tactics point of view, do you think it's worth the time and resources to chip away at broken units to the point of elimination?  Or is it better to chase them out of the way and leave them alone (assuming you are playing a lengthy scenario)? 

Roughly how long does it take for a broken unit to recover to the point of being combat effective?

[Ricky B]

Assaults usually handle broken units quickly, as you can usually trap it and it will lose half its men per assault then.

Recovery depends on quality and if its HQ is nearby along with the general situation. In supply and command, it could recover enough in 10 to 20 turns to fight again, or much longer otherwise or for poor quality troops.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Also, consider the size of the hex while they are broken and scattered. There are a whole lot of places to hide and run to while they are scattered.