Improving Routing

[Evillemon325]

Right now in total war, a unit is entirely cohesive until it reaches the magical morale number for it be considered 'Broken', in which case every single man in the unit does an about face and makes for the border.

Thing is, in real life, some people are braver than others. Some are more cowardly. The 'morale' of a unit should only be an average for all the men in a unit- while a member of a veteran legion is more likely to be brave than a new recruit, he is just that, more likely.

So how about we rework the routing system, so that instead of everyone running once the unit reaches 'broken' status, the unit starts 'bleeding' men once it reaches shaken or wavering status, where single men, or a small group, start breaking and running of their own accord. This bleed naturally picks up in tempo the closer the unit would be to 'broken' or 'shattered', and provides a much more realistic and natural sort of routing.

Since the morale numbers that CA programs in are completely arbitrary anyways, this system would not have to make units break slower or faster than they would anyways, as the morale numbers can simply be re balanced to the new system. But all in all, I think this would be a far better system.

[Antissa]

+1 You've made some excellent suggestions, evillemon325, the routing system definitely needs an overhaul.

[RGA]

While combat could last for hours, routing only occured in matter of minutes if not less. The scene of running away comrades is too much even for today soldiers. IMHO the current CA system is fine.
What could be improved is the way units can be routed. While casualities are surely an important factor, we read records upon records of soldiers who broke ranks and fled BEFORE contact was even made. Never in a Total war games has the terrible psycological effect of charging cavalry, elephants or barbarian hordes been modelled.Peasants accepted a cavalry charge like Leonidas in 300, yelling ''Tonight we dine in hell". 30s later haft of them are already in hell waiting for the meal. IRL they were not so hungry and would break at the first sight of coming cavalry charge.

[Ichon]

Biggest problem with routing now is that unit as likely to run into enemy lines as away. I am not sure engine can have a few men from many units all over the map plus how to treat these fleeing after battle? As wounded or dead or % return but many gone forever. Also xp would ne ed rework because most of infantry kills come when enemy unit route enmasse.

[Wowwars]

Pyscology should be a bigger thing in Total war just imagine being one of those Crusade Leaders having people from farms go to arid hot deserts and go through ship sickness.

[DavidtheDuke]

I like the idea as it will make morale a more granular thing, instead of instead-mega-routs that are possible now. However, I'm kinda hesitant to see such a thing developed since I want most of their technicians/programmers getting AI better this time.

[Sun Jetzu]

Right now in total war, a unit is entirely cohesive until it reaches the magical morale number for it be considered 'Broken', in which case every single man in the unit does an about face and makes for the border.

Thing is, in real life, some people are braver than others. Some are more cowardly. The 'morale' of a unit should only be an average for all the men in a unit- while a member of a veteran legion is more likely to be brave than a new recruit, he is just that, more likely.

So how about we rework the routing system, so that instead of everyone running once the unit reaches 'broken' status, the unit starts 'bleeding' men once it reaches shaken or wavering status, where single men, or a small group, start breaking and running of their own accord. This bleed naturally picks up in tempo the closer the unit would be to 'broken' or 'shattered', and provides a much more realistic and natural sort of routing.

Since the morale numbers that CA programs in are completely arbitrary anyways, this system would not have to make units break slower or faster than they would anyways, as the morale numbers can simply be re balanced to the new system. But all in all, I think this would be a far better system.

I love this idea to the end, I'm surprised I haven't heard, or even thought of this before. A bleeding would be awesome, and it would add extra flavor to the game already. I believe their should also be a system, where every unit has a rally ability that only works for their unit. That way while your men are routing u just pop rally, and it brings a couple of them back. Then as battles go on and the unit increases in stats, so does their rally ability until....The head soldier who's been rallying people gets promoted and is a general hahaha. Idk this idea could take some tweaks to it. But there are commanders for certain units that do rally there squad in the midst of battle.

[atheniandp]

Excellent idea. I've long thought that the routing system was a tad dated.

I'd also like to propose a new form of tactical withdrawal, along with a fighting retreat. Tactical withdrawal would be for the purpose of redeployment, rather than an informal route. This would encompass a fighting retreat, in which a cohesive unit may move back slowly or leave a few men to hold off the enemy as the bulk of the unit repositions.

Total War melee always involved two parallel armies colliding. What I'd like to see is the lines bending and shifting throughout the battle, rather than just breaking and giving way to a full route.

[The Great Montrose]

Excellent idea. I've long thought that the routing system was a tad dated.

I'd also like to propose a new form of tactical withdrawal, along with a fighting retreat. Tactical withdrawal would be for the purpose of redeployment, rather than an informal route. This would encompass a fighting retreat, in which a cohesive unit may move back slowly or leave a few men to hold off the enemy as the bulk of the unit repositions.

Total War melee always involved two parallel armies colliding. What I'd like to see is the lines bending and shifting throughout the battle, rather than just breaking and giving way to a full route.

excellent idea about the tactical withdrawal

[HusKatten]

How do we solve the pursuing issues that will follow with the bleeding?

If an enemy unit has bled 50% of its soldiers and you decide you want to pursuit the bleeding units with a cavalry unit, will your unit chase the "bleeders" or the group of units that still stands and fight? The pursuing is already messy as it is when your cavalry are just circling around the routers rather than hacking them down. The bleeding will make the battles look more interesting but there will follow some major difficulties in terms of executing simple tasks such as Pursuing or doing a Hammer and Anvil strike.

[HusKatten]

Double Post, please delete.

[atheniandp]

The problem is that there is simply too few units on the field, and the unit sizes are simply too big in themselves. It would work a lot better if we had a lot more units in our armies (50+) and retained the current route system.

What bugs me is that these enormous chunks of our armies are routing cohesively because they are all part of the same unit.

[CptAustus]

Engine cant handle it, sorry.

[✠Ikaroqx✠]

@ Evillemon325 - cool this is a very similar thought that I had. I really think this should be done

This is kind of related - instead of having a whole unit waver and rout, individual soldiers should be able to rout while the rest of their unit stays strong. If the routing soldiers get past the red line, you see the unit numbers decrease.
One thing I don't like about Total War is how your whole unit routs when just a couple of guys are attacked from the back. Please do this CA!

@ atheniandp - Nice idea of the tactical retreat; I've often tried to pull my troops back a bit only to have them turn around to fun back and get butchered from behind. Plus they very rarely stay in formation and get mixed up with the other units.

What I've seen in RTW and M2TW is the first line of soldiers fight while the rest stays in formation jsut behind the fighting. This annyoings me to no end as it looks very unreaslitic and I want as many soldiers fighting at once. Similarily if I'm attacked from the side usually only those soldiers directly attacked respond and fight back, while the others stay stock still staring straight ahead as if nothing is happening

[Keyser]

Right now in total war, a unit is entirely cohesive until it reaches the magical morale number for it be considered 'Broken', in which case every single man in the unit does an about face and makes for the border.

Thing is, in real life, some people are braver than others. Some are more cowardly. The 'morale' of a unit should only be an average for all the men in a unit- while a member of a veteran legion is more likely to be brave than a new recruit, he is just that, more likely.

So how about we rework the routing system, so that instead of everyone running once the unit reaches 'broken' status, the unit starts 'bleeding' men once it reaches shaken or wavering status, where single men, or a small group, start breaking and running of their own accord. This bleed naturally picks up in tempo the closer the unit would be to 'broken' or 'shattered', and provides a much more realistic and natural sort of routing.

Since the morale numbers that CA programs in are completely arbitrary anyways, this system would not have to make units break slower or faster than they would anyways, as the morale numbers can simply be re balanced to the new system. But all in all, I think this would be a far better system.

I like it, but i think that the game also lack troops disengaging or retreating against a superior foe.
What i mean is that often, before routing, units will also simply give ground to an ennemy (and you can combine it with your bleeding of routing men).
As the focus of Rome 2 will be melee combat, i guess it would give battles a more natural look.

Edit

Just saw that atheniandp already had more or less the same idea...

[JaM]

this is more complex thing than many even realize.. Actual combat was not clash of men until one side was wiped out or running away. Real combat between units was composed of series of engagements and withdrawals, luls on battlefield during which each side threw javelins,rocks and insults at each others, followed by another brief engagement. No man could fight in melee longer than 5 minutes or less, and even those bravest would be tired in few minutes and be overwhelmed by fresh enemy. So, instead of mass route we have right now in all TW games, it would be great to finally see unit disengage from combat, to gain cohesion (and cohesion should mean something!), and engage enemy again.

[PedroFromHell]

I like the way the morale works in Dawn of War games.
When a unit's morale is broken it doesn't automatically run away. When it's broken the unit loses cohesion and dramatically becomes less effective at shooting and close combat. It's then up to you, as the commander of that unit to tell them to retreat and regroup.

I think this should be the case in Total War games. Mass and uncontrollable routs could still happen but only with untrained units and hard pressed soldiers like militia and citizenry. Or with professional units only under dire circumstances.

I get that a unit of line infantry might decide, against my wishes, to break combat and withdraw, giving ground to the enemy. But to vacate the field of battle entirely? And then showing up in the unit roster after the battle as if it was all okay and forgiven. As if I wouldn't just have them all shot for cowardice and desertion. Well, maybe not all, maybe one in every three. I'm no tyrant.

To summarise my opinion-
Professional and experience troops who suffer morale shocks and break should not vacate the battlefield, but lose fighting cohesion and effectiveness until you pull them out and give them time to regroup.
Only in dire circumstances should they forget they are soldiers, drop trough and mass route.

Inexperienced and untrained units should mass route as usual.

[atheniandp]

this is more complex thing than many even realize.. Actual combat was not clash of men until one side was wiped out or running away. Real combat between units was composed of series of engagements and withdrawals, luls on battlefield during which each side threw javelins,rocks and insults at each others, followed by another brief engagement. No man could fight in melee longer than 5 minutes or less, and even those bravest would be tired in few minutes and be overwhelmed by fresh enemy. So, instead of mass route we have right now in all TW games, it would be great to finally see unit disengage from combat, to gain cohesion (and cohesion should mean something!), and engage enemy again.

Yep, this is exactly what I meant by a tactical/fighting retreat feature and animation.

All melee engagements always result in a line of corpses where two parallel lines had clashed. I've always hated that.

[PedroFromHell]

Yep, this is exactly what I meant by a tactical/fighting retreat feature and animation.

All melee engagements always result in a line of corpses where two parallel lines had clashed. I've always hated that.

I think my suggestion would help with this, as the system I'm proposing above means broken units lose cohesion and disengage, only to regroup and engage again.
Melee battles would consist of two opposite units clashing, retreating, regrouping, and clashing again over and over, rather than two units clashing and fighting continuously until one unit gives up and runs home.

[RGA]

this is more complex thing than many even realize.. Actual combat was not clash of men until one side was wiped out or running away. Real combat between units was composed of series of engagements and withdrawals, luls on battlefield during which each side threw javelins,rocks and insults at each others, followed by another brief engagement. No man could fight in melee longer than 5 minutes or less, and even those bravest would be tired in few minutes and be overwhelmed by fresh enemy. So, instead of mass route we have right now in all TW games, it would be great to finally see unit disengage from combat, to gain cohesion (and cohesion should mean something!), and engage enemy again.

Good point, but I want to emphasize also that disengage doesn't mean losing contact. After disengaging two line of infantry were often just a few meters apart, barely outside the range of melee weapons. No tactical maneuvers are feasible but moving forwards (attack again) or retreating backwards.

The model of repeating engage/disengage explains how Roman relieved their front ranks and how a whole mass of people was physically "pushed" back without mass casualties involved.

I think there should be two (mutually supporting) modes of retreating/routing:

1. Unit losing melee battle against better troops/ weapons: morale and formation's cohesion slightly affected, suffering more casualties (but not the apocalyptic extent of old TW games). The most prominent effect is unit loses ground and is literally pushed back. Left unattended and unit may rout, but with some help (general's encouragement, friendly relief troops etc.) the pushing back can be stopped or even reverted.

2. Unit demoralized by losing battle, by general's death, by missile fire etc: fighting stats will be affected, leading to 1.

It's worth mentioning that there should be also risks for pursuing troops:

- Pursuing troops lose all bonus of formation cohesion, thus very vulnerable to counter-attack. A well placed ambush will turn the table.]

- Pursuing units, especially cavalry, often lose head and chase enemy too far. It can be simulated by: 1. cavalry may chase routed enemy against order of regroup, and 2. cavalry may follow the routed enemy CROSS the red border and in effect, "lost" for the rest of the battle.