BabyJesus, the fact that one is true, does not mean, that the other is not. Cazasar may indeed have terribly bad luck. But Volk's math may be as bad as Cazasar's luck.
I cannot think of any real battle during Napoleonic Wars, in which casualties of one side would be even remotely close to size of emeny's army. And in our game almost every battle ends with such results. In almost every battle in which size of one army is much bigger than size of the other, bigger army suffers irrational loses.
Battle of Emden, France had 6 500 men, Britain lost 4 350 men.
Battle of Torino, Russia had 20 000 men, Swedes lost 15 000 men.
Battle of Starnberg, France had 58 200, Austrians lost 53 750 men.
Battle of Viipuri, Denmark had 10 000, Russia lost 9 500 men.
Even in historical battle of Auestedt, casualties of Prussia were equal to only 55,5% of French army. Only event I can think of is pursuit after battle of Vauchamps, but if was a result of battle itself, in which loses of coallition were not even close to those which he have in our game.
Current mechanics and math used in this game make totally no sense. Neither historically nor tactically. It's impossible to predict results of any campaign, and even Montenegro could now rule the world after one battle with good rolls. I'm not starting this discussion again, I don't really care anymore, but as this topic was mentioned, I've felt obligated to show some things forth.