Slitherine

The most recent rules regarding route are resulting in ruinous casualties. I'm not sure that something less extreme wouldn't be better. As it stands now, you will lose a whole unit even if its not really surrounded.

Deeter

i prefer the new situation muuuuuuch more than the usual "routed units burst through 2 or 3 friendly units disrupting them on his escape" problem we had before.
Did i mention i like it MUCH better now???
I don't think you need to physically surround a unit for it to have a dramatic rout that effectively put an end to the BG as an effective combat force. Being enough to be surrounded by enemy zocs looks pretty reasonable to me.
Cheers

True, bursting through happens less and that's good. But dying in place doesn't seem quite right either.

Deeter

They are not dying - just dispersing beyond the point of rallying or being a blocking force for other units.

I actually liked the bursting thru the friends, just not sideways thru 6 consecutive units when a free path was clear...

I cant imagine it will effect gameplay too much as units that got manhandled that bad usually wont rally anyway...
Might mean a lot more in a campaign game where losses are counted though

I had a unit break against three enemy all adjacent to each other meaning three sides were blocked and three open, yet my unit evaporated as if cut off. There was lt least on hex free of troops and zoc it could've run through. Can someone please explain the new route mechanism?

As an aside: the losses are so bloody now, I seldom see routes run through friends because they usually die on the spot.

Deeter

deeter wrote:I had a unit break against three enemy all adjacent to each other meaning three sides were blocked and three open, yet my unit evaporated as if cut off. There was lt least on hex free of troops and zoc it could've run through. Can someone please explain the new route mechanism?

As an aside: the losses are so bloody now, I seldom see routes run through friends because they usually die on the spot.

Deeter

I've had the same situation, three hexes occupied and adjacent, three hexes open, but the unit died on the spot. I prefer this to the routing through lots of units in one go, but I think I'd like to see it less bloody and have some routing units. In many respects it makes Elites a little less good. Before, if they routed there was a fair chance they'd recover before they left the battlefield (superior to some extent too), but now I can imagine that a lot will die on the spot.

Ideally, it would be routs as before, but with less extremes (i.e. tangential rout paths, distances, and units disrupted in one go). Sorry to be such a demanding pest

But, given a choice between the previous version (with extremes) and the current version, then I prefer the current one. So, thanks for making an improvement

One problem with this current fix is that players are not penalized for having masses stacked up behind their frontline. If units die on the spot, they don't sow disruption or draw off the victors. It's better that crazy rout routes, but I gather that's been fixed as well.

Deeter

I've found that units tend to die on the spot if three or so enemy units have ganged up on it. But when units are more or less lined up against each other in normal battlelines I've experienced a fair bit of routing through friends. I much prefer the new system of routs.

As for them being so bloody it makes the battles more realistic. In the previous system most battles ended with near parity in losses. Now the winner usually inflicts a lot more losses than he suffered. This was the case in most ancient battles. Men carrying shields did not suffer so much when facing each other but the moment one side started running away they got hacked down in great numbers. That's why so many battles had such lopsided results.

The new system makes it more important than ever not to let the enemy get behind you or around the flanks.

I believe the router turns around directly away from the enemy that broke it, if that new front hex is occupied by enemy they vape. If it is open they run.

I prefer this new system over old. It rewards maintaining a cohesive line and penalizes those who like to have units operate independantly if defeated. Also if you line up in depth you still suffer from the front rank routing as you check for disrupting and it is possible that they will pass through you away from the enemy but I've noticed that as long as you prepare chanels for them to rout through then you can minimize the impact. From a campaign perspective if you are worried about the losses inflicted all you need to do is raise the % of recovery after a battle but currently I feel this new system more accurately models results of defeated units.

pantherboy wrote:I prefer this new system over old. It rewards maintaining a cohesive line and penalizes those who like to have units operate independantly if defeated. Also if you line up in depth you still suffer from the front rank routing as you check for disrupting and it is possible that they will pass through you away from the enemy but I've noticed that as long as you prepare chanels for them to rout through then you can minimize the impact. From a campaign perspective if you are worried about the losses inflicted all you need to do is raise the % of recovery after a battle but currently I feel this new system more accurately models results of defeated units.

I agree with your point of view

Me too! For what i've seen, routed units run away (across friendly units if they have them behind) in "normal" combat situations (more or less linear or in 1vs1 or 1vs2 fights).
The 100% losses effect happens when the enemy gang on an unsupported BG attacking them 3vs1 or 4vs1, which invariable means at least a front and flank attack or even a front and rear attack.
It seems reasonable to me that an isolated BG losing and routing in thiese dire situations "dissolve" and is removed from game.
Cheers