Slitherine

Here's one of the worst rout path's I've seen. Here's the start position. Look at the unit circled in red and see the obvious rout path, directly away from the attacking unit.


Now, of course it doesn't go that way, no, there's a much worse path it could take! See red line....


Final position...


Now it has turned a game I was comfortably winning into a dodgy position. I'm expecting, because my glass is half empty, a chain rout along that line and all my efforts will be for nothing

Please improve the rout logic.

it looks like your troops were obviously not well trained or drilled...just kidding...it seems to me that units should take a rout path that avoids "enemy zones of control" first and then friendly units second...after that its pot luck...similarly cavalry breaking off from melees should use a similar logic...

Needless to say, being pikes, my disrupted line completely collapsed next go. It's now touch and go...

Ya...I wish it could be fixed, but we've all gone on and on about it to seemingly little avail.

Maybe it just can't be improved. It's still a fun game, but that will always be disappointing about it.

It was a common Roman tactic when invading Seleucid lands to turn the signposts around - your men just though that home was in that direction!

Does need improving - drives me mad when there is a clean route to rout through.

Blathergut wrote:
Maybe it just can't be improved.

i can't believe that! it's an obvious bug and must be corrected the same as anarchy charges through formed steady friendly units; they simply would not let the charging/routing unit pass.

omarquatar wrote:it's an obvious bug and must be corrected the same as anarchy charges through formed steady friendly units; they simply would not let the charging/routing unit pass.

Anarchy charges through formed steady friendly units are historical - see accounts of the battle of Crecy.

That said, the TT rules do not make shock troops anarchy charge through other shock troops as the PC rules do.

It is harder to say whether routs through formed friendly troops occurred historically - because any troops that were routed would not be formed afterwards even if they were before, so it is hard to judge. There should certainly be a limit on how many the routers can pass through.

In the TT game if their rout route was similar to the one shown above, the routers would simply be removed from the board after routing through one or two friendly units.

rbodleyscott wrote:

omarquatar wrote:it's an obvious bug and must be corrected the same as anarchy charges through formed steady friendly units; they simply would not let the charging/routing unit pass.

Anarchy charges through formed steady friendly units are historical - see accounts of the battle of Crecy.

That said, the TT rules restrict when it can occur more than the PC rules do.

weren't we talking about ancients?

omarquatar wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

omarquatar wrote:it's an obvious bug and must be corrected the same as anarchy charges through formed steady friendly units; they simply would not let the charging/routing unit pass.

Anarchy charges through formed steady friendly units are historical - see accounts of the battle of Crecy.

That said, the TT rules restrict when it can occur more than the PC rules do.

weren't we talking about ancients?

The FOG system covers Ancients and Medievals. The same rules apply to both. It seems pretty unlikely that human nature changed in the meantime.

rbodleyscott wrote: In the TT game if their rout route was similar to the one shown above, the routers would simply be removed from the board after routing through one or two friendly units.

It would be nice to have that rule in the PC game It makes sense and will remove one usual reason for complaint.

rbodleyscott wrote:

omarquatar wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: Anarchy charges through formed steady friendly units are historical - see accounts of the battle of Crecy.

That said, the TT rules restrict when it can occur more than the PC rules do.

weren't we talking about ancients?

The FOG system covers Ancients and Medievals. The same rules apply to both. It seems pretty unlikely that human nature changed in the meantime.

it's a matter of training and discipline. in the game i've seen veteran legions impetuosly charging without orders the enemy in advantage positions...seems not plausible to me. at crecy the french knights stamede their bowmen, a totally different situation

Thanks for the screens - definitely looks like something odd here!

Thanks for looking into this

Just for the record, the game ended in a draw. I was 2 points up with combat to resolve (Fragged vs Steady).... I lost it, the unit routed, Disrupted the unit behind it, routed through the unit and Fragmented it

So, another rout cost me the game.... but at least this one was directly away from the enemy and I was immediately to the rear of the unit... now had this one gone sideways then I'd have won!

omarquatar wrote:it's a matter of training and discipline. in the game i've seen veteran legions impetuosly charging without orders the enemy in advantage positions...seems not plausible to me.

This type of behaviour by legions is described in the works of Julius Caesar.

I guess I would not have units rout through a unit that is engaged with an enemy unless there is no other path...it seems if you were running from an enemy you would not run through another...when you rout through a unit in melee you are effectively routing through an enemy unit, since practically speaking the engaged units are intermixed in combat...

mschund wrote:I guess I would not have units rout through a unit that is engaged with an enemy unless there is no other path...it seems if you were running from an enemy you would not run through another....

I don't think a unit should rout through another medium or heavy unit at all if there is an open path available in an adjacent hex. I am really tired of the times when I have a heavy cav unit or something with open hexes on either side, and a routing unit instead runs right over the hitherto steady unit. I can certainly see routing units going through friendly units when there is no other practicable path, but not when it would be easier to simply go around. If it is absolutely necessary to have routing units romp over friendly units, it should be possible for the non-routing unit to stand their ground and have the routing unit simply disappear--it seems strange that an attack by a well-disciplined enemy BG can be repulsed without losing cohesion, but a mob of routing friendlies ALWAYS results in losing cohesion. I would imagine that a well-disciplined unit would present their speartips to routing friendlies as much as charging enemies. If people crave luck so much in this game, this is one area that begs for it...

I'll summarise the key points I've read, and maybe add some more of my own.

When a unit routs, it should not (normally):
- Rout through engaged units if an open path exists
- Rout through steady HF or MF units (I personally believe the HF point makes some sense, one could argue that the MF is not sufficiently tight to stop them)
- Rout through significantly more hexes than they could normally move through. e.g. 50% more is maximum. In my original post at the top, a unit which normally moves 2 hexes suddenly was able to move through 10 hexes whilst pushing their way through 6 units, 5 of which are in close order and all 6 are in combat.

Given these constraints, if no clear path exist they should stand and be slaughtered.

Regarding direction, then the preferred initial routing direction should be directly away from the attacking unit that caused the rout (which is common sense IMO). However, if this path is blocked then an alternative direction should be considered.

Morbio wrote:Rout through steady HF or MF units (I personally believe the HF point makes some sense, one could argue that the MF is not sufficiently tight to stop them)

Yeah, maybe you're right, dunno...just seems like routers would tend to avoid sharp pointy things pointed at them, friend or foe...

[EDIT] Note that I didn't say that routing units should NEVER rout through MF or HF--they should not route through MF or HF if there are adjacent open hexes. If there are no open hexes, I think there should be some kind of die roll to see if the routing unit will be able to rout through the MF/HF unit or not. I would think that at least some of the time, particularly with better-quality units, the routing unit would simply disintegrate rather than pushing into the steady unit.

i dont think a units quality rating should effect how they rout, panicking men are going to behave the same regardless if they were peasants or elites prior to routing. I dont mind the random factor of routing thru a unit when an open space is available. You could explain it that these men are wrapping around the unit in their haste to flee, some are trying to get into the formation in blind panic, others are maybe attemting to join the unit to fight on... All these things would tend to disorder the effected unit.. Obviously the insane rout path in the above pics needs to be corrected!

Morbio wrote:I'll summarise the key points I've read, and maybe add some more of my own.

When a unit routs, it should not (normally):
- Rout through engaged units if an open path exists
- Rout through steady HF or MF units (I personally believe the HF point makes some sense, one could argue that the MF is not sufficiently tight to stop them)
- Rout through significantly more hexes than they could normally move through. e.g. 50% more is maximum. In my original post at the top, a unit which normally moves 2 hexes suddenly was able to move through 10 hexes whilst pushing their way through 6 units, 5 of which are in close order and all 6 are in combat.

Given these constraints, if no clear path exist they should stand and be slaughtered.

Regarding direction, then the preferred initial routing direction should be directly away from the attacking unit that caused the rout (which is common sense IMO). However, if this path is blocked then an alternative direction should be considered.

I agree with what you are saying on paths routers take and on distance, howver not on the points of heavies preventing ather units from routing thru them nor on the slaughter part.
As it stands now a unit trapped once it routs basically disintergreats after the turn is over it it cant flee. If units cant burst thru there own ranks it seems that a fight between 2 main battle lines will basically turn into a less dynamic match of ist line moves up, routes, disappears, bring up the next etc etc

Look at scenarios that feature large undrilled and numerous heavy foot vs a smaller but better quality army ie Indistavio... The Romans really count on routing the german heavy foot in the front ranks and having them disorder the troops behind them in order to win. ie the chain routing disordering effect
I think this is a reasonable historical interpretation, ie a mass of ill disciplined , yet firece and eager troops will eventually disolve into disorder and panic if the front ranks give way.

Also look at the canned historical scenarios. For the most part the armies deployed are nothing like how players deploy in the dag battles. Units are more spread out, there are often distinct 2 or even 3 battle lines with a reasonbale distance from eachother to prevent chain routing (ie carths at ZAMA)
Of course the tactical disadvantage of deploying in multiple lines is that your frontage is smaller and less troops can engage at any one time.

Also the battle group in fog terms isnt a discreet unit in that it is arrayed in x ranks, y files at 1 meter per man etc, but is considered to be , well, a group of like units arrayed, somehow in that hex
If lights , including cavalry can interpenetrate heavy battle group on purpose, why can fleeing men>?