Routed Units - recovery when?

[ComradeP]

This suggests that both sides' routed units check every time they can. Also,

"Every time they can" is once per turn, as the non-phasing player doesn't have a logistics phase in the enemy turn.

I'm not entirely happy with the routing mechanism myself. It indirectly punishes good units, as they can take higher losses due to retreating and being attacked again rather than routing. Losses from routing are also not too bad, I'm facing more or less the same guys over and over in some areas in my game with notenome, but I can't destroy them.

Increasing the shatter chance for routing units would be a good start.

[color]

Actually I would like to express and opinion against what seems the common denominator in this thread.

I think the system of routs, shatters and unready units (as well as depleted units) is very elegant. [:)]
Makes a lot of sense to me, given these are weekly turns, hard to simulate 7 days of fighting and fluid frontlines & changing situations leading to status as given at end-of-turn.

[sillyflower]

ORIGINAL: color

Actually I would like to express and opinion against what seems the common denominator in this thread.

I think the system of routs, shatters and unready units (as well as depleted units) is very elegant. [:)]
Makes a lot of sense to me, given these are weekly turns, hard to simulate 7 days of fighting and fluid frontlines & changing situations leading to status as given at end-of-turn.

On the whole I agree with this.
Only odd thing is that they can rout, rally (or not) and still have full MP allowance. I know fear can give you wings but even so.aybe it should be halved for units are routed or which rally immediately after 1st routed.

[Klydon]

Routed units also give another advantage to the defenders in an odd way as well with how the attack mechanic works.

You can use a retreated unit to help encircle enemy units with your controlled hexes. I don't have a picture handy, but lets say there is a nice stack of units in a hex with nothing behind it and you force a unit to retreat behind them. Your troops didn't have enough movement to physically get behind the nice stack, but now that there is a crappy unit behind it, you attack that unit (and it either retreats or routs) and you control the hex you could not reach behind the enemy stack, putting them out of supply. Granted that they will likely escape next turn, but in the mean time they have issues. On top of this, you could then see about attacking the nice stack forcing it to rout (no retreat available) and take heavy losses when it would otherwise just retreat. If the first unit had routed instead, then there would have been no opportunity to either encircle or cause a good stack to rout. Hopefully all this make sense.

I am not saying any of this should be changed; just an observation.

[PeeDeeAitch]

Klydon, this is why I always have wished for the ability to attack an empty hex or a ZOC [:)]

[Mike Parker]

On routed units.

Either have them move alot fewer hexes when they rout (so you can encircle them)

-or-

Do not have them displace when a unit moves adjacent while routed.

Right now a unit gets routed, and even if it does rout into the net of the encirclement you have to jump through hoops not to end up moving adjacent and displacing it out of the pocket. In addition if it routes away in a good direction for the defender, if the attacker is willing and able to move another unit adjacent they should be able to attack it and have a good chance of surrender or shattering of said unit. Instead it just runs away again.

The attacker should WANT and appreciate a rout result. Often times I am discouraged at it. If I really thought it was an overwhelming attack, I am disappointed I did not get a shattered result, and if its a more normal odds attack I am disappointed I did not get retreat and instead the unit 'gets away'

A retreat is I would guess at least 75% of the time better than a rout. With a retreat you get the following benefits

1. The possibility of pocketing the unit with later manouver
2. The possibility to attack it again gaining
a. Another Morale boost
b. A great chance at a shattered result as usually the unit is depleted and in less favourable terrain and/or loss of fortifications


But honestly Lord knows what that would do to game balance for the soviets. So many routed Inf Divisions fall back and dig defensive positions while they refit, if you made it easier to chase them down and kill them it might unbalance things.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Just curious if people are under the impression that routed units will stay routed for at least one friendly player turn?

example:
t1(axis) - sov unit routed by axis attacked
end t1(axis) - logistics phase: sov routed units don't check to recover, but axis routed units do?
t1(sov) - previous turned routed sov unit(s) are still routed (?)
end t1(sov) - logistics phase: aix routed units don't check to recover, but sovrouted units do?
t2(axis) - previously routed sov unit may or may not still be routed?


---
I think I just saw a situation where a sov unit recovered the axis logistics phase and thus did not remain routed for at least one owner player turn. This would seem very wrong. Not crazy about the whole 'routing' mechanics already, but this situation would be considered a bug?

This would mean that both axis and sov units attempted to recover on *any* logistics phase?

I've seen on many occasions soviet units rout then be good to go next turn. Perhaps in the early war there should be a penalty to the leadership check that lets them unrout? I'd be in favor of that.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

OMG WTF LOL

Just asked person in my human vs human game a question about 12 routed units that I routed on my turn. So guess what, of the 12 units ONLY TWO units were still routed. This is turn 4! So 10 of the 12 recovered before the sov turn and can be used again. Just shoot me now.

I'm stunned what the heck is going on here? This is just the most ridiculous bs rule I've ever seen. GEE, so of the 12 units that routed 10 were able to recover on the sov turn? That is complete nonsense.

Who is writing this code that is allowing the sov player to kick ass in the CG? I mean really, beginning to wonder wtf is going on with testing? Sorry, but I can be pissed off because I played human vs human game in pre beta 3 and got ass kicked because of blizzard, sov super units in 42, sov player can do anything they like almost. Now they don't even they don't even stay routed for a complete turn?

IMO routing is some BS and I never liked it before cause units can magically jump all over the board and you can't touch them again that turn because they will magically jump again. Now I know that they will just recover that sov turn as if nothing happens. How convenient is that. I suppose at the rate the play balance is going I should be happy because in 42-43 (before Berlin) I'll get to have all my axis routed units recover too.

Vented... very unhappy with this latest discovery. But maybe there's something wrong with my analysis and I can still look forward to maybe squeezing out a draw. As axis in WitE I think that is being optimistic. Somebody take away Gary and Joel's communist manifesto. J/K needed some humor to recover from this latest news. Just a joke. But seriously I'm going to relax, calm down, go outside for a walk, and find some cats to throw rocks at. ok, no throwing rocks at cats..
[;)]

You might not like routing but everytime you get close to a unit that is routed they lose more and more equipment. So it's not like they do a sunday drive away from you.

[Commanderski]

From reading Glantz's latest book I think the Routing is modeled as close to reality as they can program.

First remember that the turns are based on a week and they most certainly do regroup within that time. When they do regroup they will have lower morale and probably in a not ready state as they need new equipment and have very inexperienced leaders.

As soon as they did regroup early on, they were sent right back into the fighting. The survivors now had some experience, (good or bad), sort of like on the job training.

The Germans spent a lot of time trying to encircle divisions rather than taking them head on when they could. Encircling them and destroying them would eliminate the routing problem...[;)]

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Commanderski

The Germans spent a lot of time trying to encircle divisions rather than taking them head on when they could. Encircling them and destroying them would eliminate the routing problem...[;)]

I appreciate the abstractions required for week-long turns and IGUGO systems. I would not change either of these mechanics for a game of this nature.

And again, let me re-iterate that I'm not sure we should tinker with the routing issue, with the primary reason being that it works the same for both sides (and we expect, generally, an Eastern Front game to replicate the change in initiative from Axis to Soviet over time).

The only thing that really bothers me in this is that the routing units can both route out of closed pockets, and/or route multiple times in a turn such that they've moved a tremendous number of hexes from the original combat point at which they routed. Then, on top of that, whether they rally or not in between the end of the first player and start of second's turn, they ALSO get normal movement again.

Some of the issue we see with the superior human-Soviet performance compared to historical is simply the result of this latter issue.

An idea would be to penalize a routed unit's movement point allowance based on how far he routed in the prior player's turn. Routing is awesome help in 1941 for the Soviet. I'm not sure how much it helps the German in various periods (Blizzard, 1943-45) though.

[G Felzien]

heliodorus04

The only thing that really bothers me in this is that the routing units can both route out of closed pockets, and/or route multiple times in a turn such that they've moved a tremendous number of hexes from the original combat point at which they routed. Then, on top of that, whether they rally or not in between the end of the first player and start of second's turn, they ALSO get normal movement again.

And this is the issue for me. Routing out of closed pockets (without at least a massive loss in cohesion and manpower), displacing multiple times in a turn (thus easily traveling potentionally hundreds of miles) and normal movement while routed.

I do not have a problem with routed units being able to move normally after recovering because of all the other penalties they must take as formally routed units. Also I do not have an issue with them attempting to recover every logistics phase as per the sequence of play. Remember their chances of recovery is significantly reduced if their HQ is beyond 2 hexes away.

[delatbabel]

If this game system ever gets used for a western front game then the routing rules will need to be seriously looked at in the light of the behaviour of US troops on the front line.  Compared to other (European) troops, the US troops had a somewhat deserved reputation for routing immediately they got into a bit of trouble, however also being able to recover quite quickly -- as quickly if not more so than German units.  There's a reasonably good model for that in squad leader, however I'm not sure how it would map out in a game of this scale.

In any case it was quite common for US units to rout, take a few steps backwards, hide behind the nearest large rock, then start returning fire.

Also, because I'm a pedant:  rout == your troops run away.  route == the direction your travels took you.

[fbs]

In my game I have a few of them cowardly Western Front units that started to run on turn 1 and are still running on turn 10. They must be arriving in Mongolia now. Those Germans are really meanies.