mtaylor wrote:If conservation of force is not part of historical accuracy then what is? I can not think of very many battles where losses were immaterial so long as your side was the last one standing on a few pieces of ground.
You're absolutely right that conservation of force is historically relevant. So is, for example, having Axis forces freezing to death (or at least suffering attrition) in the winter, and yet both sides fight equally well when it's frosty all over. And a hundred other things are also historically accurate but are either beyond the scope of what the developers can deliver, inimical to the gameplay we know and love for UoC, or both. Simply put, you have to draw a line somewhere between when your software stops being a rigorous historical simulation and starts being a game. Which side of that line "conservation of forces" falls is certainly a matter of debate, but arguing that it MUST be in because it is "historically accurate" is simply not a compelling reason by itself.
As is, UoC doesn't pay attention from scenario to scenario beyond the highly abstract mechanic of Prestige; each scenario is painstakingly designed and arranged to match the terrain, disposition of forces, goals and weather of that historical battle as closely as possible for a hex-based game which is meant to be reasonably quick to play. A lot of details have to be lost, or at least heavily abstracted, in the process of this mapping from history to game, but the end result is impressive none-the-less. UoC is lauded for it's historical accuracy AND gameplay, and rightly so. And my concern is that adding variable starts to each scenario (i.e. where one playthrough results in you having more troops than average because you suffered fewer losses than your historical counterparts, and in another you have far fewer... possibly too few to succeed) would make the game harder to balance, harder to develop, and would ultimately not be worth the opportunity cost of the developers improving the game in some other way. Now, whether or not my characterization of conservation of units as going "against the grain" of the game is accurate is a matter of debate. And my dismissal of conservation of units as not being worth it is simply a statement of opinion. Feel free to refute me on either, or both of those fronts... just remember that historical accuracy is an underwhelming argument by itself and keep in mind the combination of developmental and gameplay costs of what you're suggesting.