Slitherine

Hi all I hope I can ask a general question about the routing process.

I played a game on the weekend and 2 players who are knowledgable about history and the periods made a comment regarding routers. They were ok in that the initial rout had to use evade rules for avoiding things but when it came to further routs they questioned why the routers could not simply flow around friends. They did not like that broken BGs had to operate as solid BGs rather than I think a fleeing mass that would take the easiest path to freedom. I understand their point but don't know for sure what the developers are trying to simulate. My gut tells me this was probably looked at already.

Can someone give me some insight into what the reasoning is that routers cannot simply flow around friends after the initial rout? I would like to say something other than "Its the way the game was designed"

Thanks for any help.

Brian

They can if they do not have to flow too far. Also a BG represents a number of units. The routers bursting through between them disrupt the effect of the whole

I think that the routers bursting through friends are taking the "easiest path to freedom" on the theory that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

Marc

Thanks for the replies guys. So I can assume that that was the designers point of view as well. I just wanted to make sure as I am not an authority on this period.

Can I ask about routing in general. How much lee way do you have when routing a BG to its own table edge? I believe the rules say you can wheel and turn to avoid things so if I know I have either friendly or enemy BG's in behind my routing BG am I allowed for instance to wheel and angle toward my board edge at say a 45 degree angle to stay clear of obstacles? Or do I have to move back perpedicular to the rear board edge such that my rout move takes me the furthest or closest to the edge? If pictures would help I could post a few to get my point better across.

Thanks

Brian

After the first rout move, where you move directly away from enemy (not in the JAP, unless your initial rout was in the JAP but then there is no enemy to rout away from anyway), you then head directly for your table edge, only deviating when you meet obstructions, not planning ahead. Tho some of the obstructions will destroy the routing BG when they meet it.

Hey Phil.

I re-read both the rout and evade sections last night as I wanted to wait to reply. I understand the rules as you mentioned. There is the option during an evade to evade straight back as well. But then in the JAP you have to move directly as you say to your board edge, which is perpendicular. You can only avoid enemy BGs, friendly BGs and terrain by using the evade mechanism.

It was mentioned in the rules that routers can turn and wheel to avoid things. But I think that means turn and wheel when permitted. And if I understand the rules right, routers can only turn or wheel to avoid either a fortified camp or terrain that they are prohibited from entering. Once clear then they move directly back once again.

The interpentrate friends that they can or burst through those that they can't. If they cannot bypass an enemy BG using the evade avoidance rules then they are eliminated at the end of the phase.

Does that sound about right?

Thanks,

Brian

So routing BG's can be destroyed by galloping one's LH around between them and their map edge?

possum wrote:So routing BG's can be destroyed by galloping one's LH around between them and their map edge?

Yes. If they cannot evade past your LH they take a powder.

Marc

An interesting stream with a few topics within it.

In terms of intent, while we would agree that in reality some routers tend to flow around, in practice at this level what we are looking for is:
1. A way to get routers out of the way as much as possible to allow the next phases of the game to function
2. A way to allow them to rally on occasionifa good general can pull it off

Keeping them together is much more practical in game terms as regards the above and the process of going back up for BRK to FRG to DSR would, in my mind, include a host of stragglers returning to the fold. The mechanics of splitting up BGs is painful, for the visual benefit it would give -and we have avoided comllicated things with limited functional benefit. Of course, most routers either make it to the table edge and go home, get destroyed totally by casualties in pursuits, or are removed by not being bale to bypass things. So in most cases the difference is minimal in practice.

After an initial rout, you head towards your own base edge using whatever set of turns and wheels most readily set you off in the direction of the table. You then use the evade mechanism to avoid things by shifting a base and falling back a file if need be. So if something routs sideways across the table it would make a free 90 degree turn and then rout away, if at 45 degrees ot would wheel 45 or might turn 90 and wheel the other way 45 (whichever most easily gets the BG facing directly towards the table edge).

Hope that helps

Si

As always Si, I am overwhelmed by your knowledge and wisdom. Thanks for the background. I really wish that there was a document that explained the reasons for the various rules as it helps to give new players a deeper insight into why one rule was designed the way it was. It might seem strange but after knowing the intent it usually makes sense within the framework of the rules. Please take this comment as a constructive comment. From my experience I have found designers notes to be very beneficial. And from my ancients experience (ancients being early WWII) its an aid to help explain various rules to more knowledgable opponents.

I find I am liking simplicity more and more to complexity and welcome a little abstraction. I'd rather play than keep my head in the book all the time. In FOG you just have to be aware of where you are, where you enemy is, what can happen and what can happen in the future and try to position your BGs for this. Not too hard , part of the fun.

Thanks again

Brian

Si gives good answers, true, but sometimes he complicates them too much at the end.

He has a habit of answering the original question perfectly clearly, so you understand it totally...and then adding some sort of conditional statement at the end about -

"however, had X actually been Y, then the phase of the moon would have been calculated as of the next solstice and divided by the blazorgon of the frammerwitz..."

-that totally confuses me again

Si gives good answers, true, but sometimes he complicates them too much at the end.

He has a habit of answering the original question perfectly clearly, so you understand it totally...and then adding some sort of conditional statement at the end about -

"however, had X actually been Y, then the phase of the moon would have been calculated as of the next solstice and divided by the blazorgon of the frammerwitz..."

-that totally confuses me again

I like to keep everyone on their toes ... wouldn't like to think everyon had got everything just yet!

Si

ROTFLOL, I do find the same thing, but by then my eyes gloss over and can't read what he wrote. Kind of like a defence mechanism for my brain not overloading

Brian

possum wrote:Si gives good answers, true, but sometimes he complicates them too much at the end.

He has a habit of answering the original question perfectly clearly, so you understand it totally...and then adding some sort of conditional statement at the end about -

"however, had X actually been Y, then the phase of the moon would have been calculated as of the next solstice and divided by the blazorgon of the frammerwitz..."

-that totally confuses me again