Destroying the Enemy ... Strategy or Not

[Beruldsen]

I've played almost all the way through as both Union and CSA (Normal Level) and secured victories in all.  However, it's still not clear to me if it is worth it to destroy the enemy or conserve my troops for the next battle.  This assumes I've already secured the victory objectives.  I remember playing as the Union in Chancellorsville and opted to see if I could destroy Jackson's entire force since I had it surrounded.  I almost did and I practically wiped out the entire CSA army.  Normally, this would be good strategy ... but I'm not sure in the game if it makes sense.  I'm sure I captured a ton of equipment but I also lost a number of troops in the process even with a very lop-sided victory.  Do the losses you inflict carry-over to succeeding battles?

[Fred Sanford]

1 minute ago, Beruldsen said:

Do the losses you inflict carry-over to succeeding battles?

No they don't.  You are fighting zombies.

One other motivation for destroying the enemy army is to capture weapons. However, since Nick just posted the last update, one thing added was "Increased the availability of low cost musket rifles in late campaign for both sides, so player can have enough weapons for his army".  To me, this makes going after the enemy army for weapon capture less attractive, but since this just came out I can't say for sure.

[Wandering1]

As far as increasing the lower cost rifles, all it just does is allow you to maintain a 3 corps army with a decent number of 2000 man sponge squads instead of building your 3 corps around a limited supply of low cost rifles.

Weapon drops are still going to be more valuable than manpower cost towards late game, especially if the difference is 4 Farmers for an 1863 or Fayetteville. So long as you aren't doing worse than a 1:1 casualty rate, you'll still come out ahead on relative trade cost, as drops are 25% on normal. Obviously, the trade rate is a lot stricter in the higher difficulty levels as the captures I believe are 12.5% on MG (in effect, 2:1 casualty rate in your favor for break even), and probably even smaller on Legendary. 

[Aetius]

It's completely not worth it on Hard or Legendary, with the exception of battles where you have allied troops that aren't part of your army. In that case, it is absolutely beneficial to press the enemy as hard as possible with those troops, as you get drops from kills on both sides. The only limitation on this is that sometimes there are victory conditions based on force percentages, so you just have to be careful.

[quicksabre]

This is probably my biggest complaint about the game - I wish there were a reason to turn a victory into a decisive victory. For example, at Antietam, in a move that will undoubtedly be seen by historians as costing hundreds of thousands of lives by allowing the war to continue, I let the Army of Northern Virginia escape when it was badly battered and trapped in its entirety against the creek. It would have cost too many men to finish the job (and contrary to what's been said in this thread, I find manpower a greater issue than money or guns so far - I'm only to Gettysburg, which maybe isn't quite 'late game'? Or am I doing something wrong like not equipping my men with expensive enough weapons?  My army mostly has Springfield 1855s with a few 1842s as well as some better guns on my elite brigades. I have both medicine and politics maxed out)

On the other hand, the AI would have to recognize when it was time to give up the fight to try and avoid total defeat, which might be challenging to program?

[jamieva]

i always save them because eliminating the enemy does me no benefit for teh next battle.  Get your victory objectives and stop (unless going for their supplies)

[Fred Sanford]

I still say there should be a Reputation bonus over and above the scenario reward for inflicting excessive casualties in a battle.

[quicksabre]

14 minutes ago, Fred Sanford said:

I still say there should be a Reputation bonus over and above the scenario reward for inflicting excessive casualties in a battle.

I really like that idea - it's not a game-breaking bonus, especially because it caps and there are limited things you can do with it, but it gives you a reason to keep fighting if you have the chance to decisively win the battle. The AI would still need to know when to stop sending the tattered remnants of its brigades against your unbreakable lines, though.

[Hitorishizuka]

It's advantageous so long as you don't put yourself in a bad position and lose more troops in a bad ratio to do so. Getting more experience on your troops is valuable as is the guns. (Remember, once you reach the top end, the enemy can't keep outscaling you!)

[sonnypemberton]

Since the AI almost always presses the attack, I will let them break themselves by the waves upon my defenses if it is a good spot to defend in cover. I do not chase men out into the open. So basically, it comes down to if you are taking damage or not...