[FDB] rev ?!! [Gameplay] Routing units

[stockwellpete]

Routing units seem to rout through their own troops even when there is an empty hex available for it to rout through. In the original game routing units would always go through an empty hex where possible.

[voskarp]

I've also seen routing units just vanish.

[stockwellpete]

Bump

[stockwellpete]

This is another query that I would like an answer for please, Dan. In the old version players would deliberately leave routing channels through the ranks so that cohesion drops were minimised. Now it doesn't seem to matter so units can all be closely grouped together. Is this a conscious design decision?

[cothyso]

I've never found pointed anywhere in the rules that a routing/evading unit should always (ie with a 100%) chance pick a routing/evading path rather going through empty hexes vs occupied hexes.

I remember the code has a smaller chance percent to go through an occupied hex vs a free hex, but I'll have a look at the code anyway to see if what's the situation in there, and if/how can it be improved.

[stockwellpete]

Any further thoughts, Dan? I am fairly certain that routing units would always use vacant hexes where they could. As a result, players would leave vacant hexes in their formations so as to avoid unnecessary disruptions. Without this ability the dynamic of the game is changed quite considerably from what it was.

[cothyso]

There's much to discuss about this, and with making the release build's patches to have it ready for release, I do not have time for this right now.

Yet, on short:
- the first two hexes behind a unit are the only ones which should get near to 100% of free hex preemption against an occupied hex. units with lesser training might get panicked easier, and for a panicked unit, the shortest way out of enemy's killing reach is the best way for fleeing
- further than that, a unit can not have an image of the whole battlefield from above as the player commanding it has. the rout path is "growth" starting from picking an initial rear hex, and from there the routing unit tries to find hexes in its FA (front area), empty or not

[voskarp]

Even though annoying when it happens to you, I agree with cothyso. After all, routing is routing...

[MikeMarchant]

I've often had units rout through my own troops when they've had a clear path to rout through, in the original version, so I think this has always been the case.


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

The problem with all this is that in the ancient and medieval worlds there were not really "units" as such at all, but larger (usually) contingents of various types of soldiers that confronted each other on the battlefield. Melees were fought until one side got on top (maybe they outclassed the enemy, or they had more soldiers to start with, or they had terrain advantages, or perhaps friendly soldiers attacked the enemy in the flank or the rear) and then the whole losing contingent would rout. It was often the case that during the rout the heaviest casualties occurred. (This is also an argument for having many more closer combat results during the melee phases rather than the "bonkers" results we currently have to endure).

FOG has never reproduced this basic dynamic in melees. Instead "units" in the front line can rout while other "units" are still attempting to join the melee and so players had to learn to create ridiculous "rout channels" to minimise disruptions. However, the "rout channel" situation is more preferable than what we have in the new version, in my opinion. If players are now to be faced with units routing through friendly troops more often than before then it really does change the dynamic of the game. Players will have to consider whether it will be worth have supporting troops (i.e. a second rank) in many circumstances. Might it be better to approach the enemy in separate lines with three or four hexes between each line so that you can dodge routing units from the line in front? In addition, a greater part of the second half of the battle (when there are many routing units) will involve players shifting "units" to avoid these routing soldiers. It is likely to make the game very much more untidy and much less enjoyable, in my opinion.

I appreciate that this cannot be changed now before release, but I think this is one issue where we need to ask players what they would prefer. Obviously the best longer-term answer, in my view, would be to develop a system of "collective morale" across a melee so that all the "units" on the losing side would rout together - but in the shorter term, I would like to see the "rout channel" version that we have in the original game. At least this keeps the game reasonably tidy and we don't have to dodge routing units every turn - that is going to be a real pain in the new version.

[stockwellpete]

I've often had units rout through my own troops when they've had a clear path to rout through, in the original version, so I think this has always been the case.


Best Wishes

Mike

I don't think so, Mike. You can have situations where a unit is attacked on two sides - and then when it routs it is forced away from the two attacking units through a friendly unit. Sometimes, as the attacking player, you could actually play for that if target unit was fragmented or near auto-rout. But generally routing units would always use a free hex if it was available - that is why players learned to create "rout channels" because we knew we could rely on them. And as routing units made their way back to the baseline they would avoid any other friendly units unless their line of retreat was completely blocked.

[LordNytram]

Considering the old PC version and the table version of FOG, I think you are supposed to be able to safely engineer rear support if you think about your positioning. So if the new version prevents you from arranging relatively safe rear support that needs to be changed in some way. As Pete says the old FOG PC would normally choose a clear hex if one was available in its rout path. If the new programme has a problem with this and can't be fixed, can we change the support rules to include units that are behind and one hex further back? After all FOG table top gives rear support from units behind at 8" for foot and 12" for cav, where cav move at 5", HF at 3" and MF at 4". Just to give a scaling.
Regards
Martyn

[cothyso]

Guys, modifying the code to force a full going for empty hexes is not a problem, it can be done.

The simple things is this: this discussion is a long one, and we need to debate and discuss all the possible aspects before deciding to go one way or another. And this is not the time for it. At least I do not have time for it now. After we'll have the game launched, then we can go further on with it.

[stockwellpete]

Guys, modifying the code to force a full going for empty hexes is not a problem, it can be done.

The simple things is this: this discussion is a long one, and we need to debate and discuss all the possible aspects before deciding to go one way or another. And this is not the time for it. At least I do not have time for it now. After we'll have the game launched, then we can go further on with it.

Yes, that is fair enough, Dan. Thanks.

[cothyso]

Modified for rev1032 (v2.5.00.1032 GM2 build)