Routing Units

**savage_rabbit** · August 05, 2006, 07:05 PM

Quick question:

Will routing units defend themselves at least on occasion? The "knife-through-butter" effect that pursuers had on fleeing enemies was completely ridiculous and caused the virtual annihilation of armies in Rome: Total War. It bore no resemblance whatsoever to what a real rout would be. This was a step backwards from Medieval: Total War which at least incurred slight casualties when caught amidst large numbers of panicked enemies.

**_GunneR_** · August 05, 2006, 09:41 PM

I hope this is improved i hated losing a whole unit because they routed after only a handful of loses. Also i hope fighting on walls is improved, it was ridiculous in RTW

**Dirty Harry** · August 06, 2006, 01:24 AM

I think routing units should be easy to chew up...but units shouldnt rout so easily in the first place.

There should be a difference between a unit "routing" and "withdrawing". A unit that takes heavy losses but can tell the rest of its army is doing OK and knows it has reserves behind it backing it up shouldn't rout, it should withdraw.

The real problem is when a frontline unit that went into battle in a position that anyone can see would see very heavy fighting takes losses and routs, which inturn lowers moral for all neighbouring units regardless of how well they are doing or how well supported they are, causing a chain reaction which results in other units of mediocre base moral or those that have taken some losses all routing, leading to an instant total collapse of your army.

Instead said unit that takes heavy losses should start withdrawing, an action similar to a rout (you lose control of the unit), but doesnt affect nearby units moral, and the unit should recover to normal status once it is out of danger (the commander moves a reserve unit to cover its place).

Routs should only happen when large parts of the entire army is taking heavy losses and the strategic position is poor (no reserves, flanks under attack, arrows raining down on it. etc), in that case the rout is on.

So in summary, good units that take heavy losses should not rout in even combat (giving as good as they receive), causing chain moral losses and chain reaction routs down the line. Especially if they know theyre being covered by others.

**Grand Duke Vytautas** · August 06, 2006, 03:18 AM

Well concerning routing units in RTW, I would like that they at least try to fight back for a bit (they were totally helpless in Rome) like in original MTW and inflict some minimal losses for chasing units (like routing spearmen vs cav; you then should think twice about chasing them). Btw does anyone know how taking prisoners in battle will work (ransoming or killing will be on campaign map this I know), but the exact process of taking prisoners? Will it be like in MTW? Txs

**mark0701** · August 06, 2006, 05:54 AM

I think a lot of the problems with routing could be solved if units slowly gave ground as the battle went on rather than just fighting over the same two yard strip.

I always imagine Medieval battles as more like a giant rugby scrum than two lines of men taking turns to whack each other.

**PandaRegent** · August 06, 2006, 06:04 AM

I'm wondering, and I don't know if this has been discussed earlier, will the player/AI be able to capture routing troops and generals as in prev. Medieval?
Back to topic, if would be nice to not see a unit rout instantly when it's on the recieving end of a flanking attack.

**Bwaho** · August 06, 2006, 06:28 AM

Will routing units defend themselves at least on occasion? The "knife-through-butter" effect that pursuers had on fleeing enemies was completely ridiculous and caused the virtual annihilation of armies in Rome: Total War.

actually I think routing units should get massacred if you pursue them, that's what happened in real battles.

what they should change is how long it takes for a unit to start routing. In RTW units would rout 2 seconds after you had engaged them. The fighting should last longer is basically what I'm saying.

The real problem is when a frontline unit that went into battle in a position that anyone can see would see very heavy fighting takes losses and routs, which inturn lowers moral for all neighbouring units regardless of how well they are doing or how well supported they are, causing a chain reaction which results in other units of mediocre base moral or those that have taken some losses all routing, leading to an instant total collapse of your army.

Instead said unit that takes heavy losses should start withdrawing, an action similar to a rout (you lose control of the unit), but doesnt affect nearby units moral, and the unit should recover to normal status once it is out of danger (the commander moves a reserve unit to cover its place).

Routs should only happen when large parts of the entire army is taking heavy losses and the strategic position is poor (no reserves, flanks under attack, arrows raining down on it. etc), in that case the rout is on.

brilliant idea Dirty Harry, you should spread the idea so maybe a developer can catch sight of it.

**Frost, colonel** · August 06, 2006, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by savage_rabbit

Quick question:

Will routing units defend themselves at least on occasion? The "knife-through-butter" effect that pursuers had on fleeing enemies was completely ridiculous and caused the virtual annihilation of armies in Rome: Total War. It bore no resemblance whatsoever to what a real rout would be. This was a step backwards from Medieval: Total War which at least incurred slight casualties when caught amidst large numbers of panicked enemies.

So in your opinion what was a real rout like?
I have read so many accounts of very heavy casualties(at times just plain slaughter)from armies that effectively pursue a routing enemy, with only perphaps a few elites still standing firm, ie Culloden with the French/Irish rear guard or the old guard at Waterloo standing firm. Ceasar in Gaul wrote about severe enemy losses when he unleased the cavalry upon the fleeing Celts. The real casualties usually always come after the battle, in the rout.

I have often read that when an army 'routs' (not just driven back)it is every man for himself(unless effectively rallied)with men behaving like people in a cinema when a fire starts and they trample one another to death in a state of selfish, uncontrolled, utter blind panic.

When men are fighting, they think very differently from those that panic has a grip of, and they don't want to hang around to face the slaughter and murder. Look at the blind panic that set in at Iswalana(spelling Zulu war)when the line was over run! A man running for his life, only looks back to see how near his pursuers are!

**savage_rabbit** · August 24, 2006, 08:10 PM

When a large portion of the Norman army pursued the Saxons fleeing from Hastings, the Normans ended up sustaining immense casualties as a result of becoming scattered and vulnerable in the pursuit.

Neither does my suggestion prevent the potential (and even certainty) for slaughter of routers similar to the historical examples that you cite. It just gives a more realistic outlook on the reality of things.

Proposing that every man who runs from a battle has entered a frenzied quasi-mad state of mind in which he will not defend himself is absolutely ludicrous.

It is also correct that units should not rout as quickly as they do in Rome but this is a somewhat seperate issue.

Entire armies literally become wiped out in minutes because of the way Rome handles routing.

**mike007** · August 24, 2006, 08:48 PM

There are many differnt routs. Some more orderly than others.

In terms on the TW games, think of it this example. Your fighting an enemy to your front so thats the only place your looking. All of a sudden the men behind you get violently pused into you. You turn to see a whole band of enemy cavelry that just flanked you & is now cutting down & slaying your unprepaird troops. Chances are your going to run, otherwise you'll get killed from behind.

So in that case, it would take roughly 2-10 second to decide to run, and thats not that much different from RTW games. Just try & put your self there & imagine the terror & its not that hard to imagine breaking in 2 seconds.

Anyone agree?

**Eird-Way** · August 24, 2006, 09:17 PM

What I have always wanted:

- Broken : The unit has lost all cohesion and the men are trying to get away. The men have decided that the fight is unwinnable at present and made the conscious decision to leave, ignoring orders. They fight as they retreat, but with greatly reduced attack values. Can rally.

- Fleeing : Not only has the formation been destroyed, but the soldiers have been overcome with animal panic. Having thrown away their weapons, hysterical, they move a trifle faster as they escape, but are irretrievable.

And, no. No one thinks the battles in vanilla RTW are anywhere near realistic. The game sucks without mods, and a magic purple man in my closet says the sequel will too.

The ability to stay where you are and keep fighting in that situation is called discipline. Despite a whole universe of table-top and videogames insisting otherwise, that's the real difference between a level-zero peasant and a badass warlord.

I would TOTALLY run in that situation. I'm a musician and a pansy, not a member of the freaking black watch.

**Swe_gamer** · August 25, 2006, 12:43 AM

It should be no trouble killing off a unit that is in fleeing in full panic. In previous titles fleeing units sometimes stop and regain their composure and moral so I guess this will be the same. Some units would turn on you when caught up as well. I do not think this is so unrealistic (try to defend yourself against a horse charging your back when you are totally broken, your friends have been massacred in front of your eyes and you are totally exhausted). The only thing is that the killing rate was too quick in RTW, so I partly see your point on this.

In MTW2 it seems they will atleast look over their shoulders so they can see their killers approaching

**ENSAIS** · August 25, 2006, 08:23 AM

I always thought routs in MTW were about right... and I love that MTW2 will allow for capturing prisoners/ prisoner massacres, etc like MTW.

I'm not sure that for routs we need more than we already had in MTW... frankly with the new eye-candy and 3d models, etc... I'd be happy with MTW options and ai.

**Khelben** · August 25, 2006, 08:29 AM

I think you guys overestimate the bravery of the general soldier, it doesn't take all that much for even a trained soldier to loose his nerves and run for the hills. A couple of his mates going down... ppl have strong survival instincts, either they fight or they flee when in serious danger, some will flee. These instincts are stronger and runs deeper than any training they may receive, they can't be suppressed when in a life threatening situation and it only takes a few men panicking and fleeing for a unit to loose its cohesion and therefore its effectiveness as a fighting force.

Furthermore men as well as animals only tend to choose to fight instead of fleeing when they estimate that they will have a reasonable chance of succeeding in such a venture so when the state of the unit continues to deteriorate even those standing firm will eventually break down and try to save themselves.

**Khozemnian** · August 25, 2006, 08:48 AM

I completely agree with those against routing. Dont get me wrong, routing was a major part of historical battles, but none of the games in the TW series have allowed a function which i believe is central to an army losing a battle: the fighting retreat. Some units taking casualties can begin to move back but continue to fight covering other units moving back. Im not sure precisely how this would work but it seems like it would be a useful function to include.

Also, battles should definately last longer, no question. Pivotal battles just didnt seem to be that important when they only lasted under two minutes!

**Pelican Man** · August 25, 2006, 09:42 AM

Wow this is a nice topic.... well, first of all, lets start off with Medieval, units fought back... not for the battle, but for their lives. I mean, c'mon, "oh my, he's gonna kill me!!! im just giong to turn around now... :tooth: run....

" Dead. yeah, thats almost going to happen. They really did a good job with the kill rates when chasing routers in MTW. then, there came RTW. Did it ever change. C'mon, destroying an army of like 800 with only, say, 1 loss??? lol that was because a peltast missed and hit one of his own soldiers.

I hated that. I liked it if i was a smaller faction fighting for the survival of the faction, but it still sucked. maybe, just maybe they shall bring back that system from MTW.

The thing is, I really doubt it too. They do want more people playing it, and whats to say somebody does not destroy a whole army with one dead???? Gameplayers do.. not historians. And i think they are going more towards gameplay. Look at those unit cards!!!!!!!!!!!

ANyways, those were my twocents. Kinda got a little off topic. lol

THE PELICAN MAN

**The Lord Of Dance** · August 25, 2006, 06:07 PM

I agree with the withdrawing and routing.

Some units, ones that still had some morale left and know they're gonna get owned, should casually withdraw out of melee and wait or something, so they cant get completely annilhated.

**chgo** · August 25, 2006, 07:43 PM

if they are really fleeing because they are scared then it should be easy to kill them but if it is a organized withdrawal from battle the troops should not be overrunned that easily like it was in rtw. But what about takin prisoners. This was one of the aspects i liked most in mtw to take captives and ransom them for money or just slaughter them down.

**Sitarus Originalus PM-30+** · August 26, 2006, 01:16 AM

i would like o see in game a button you could push and comand your troops to act like you are retreating, and so you could use it in your advantage...