Routed Units

[Rock64]

Is there any plans to improve the way routed units are handled by the game system? It's like a death sentence for any unit that is part of the defending force. I understand that route status represents a unit that has lost all fighting capability and is dispersed with nothing but survival in mind. What I don't understand is why route recovery takes place where it does and why a routed unit can take so many casualties from fire directed at the unit counter.
I think a routed unit should move far to the rear, out of LOS of known enemy units at least. Perhaps add MIA to the log list to represent soldiers that go missing during the route.
Just some thoughts...

[Phoenix100]

I haven't seen routed units runing into enemy lines since the patch. Their behaviour has been more or less fine for me since the patch, I think. I have worried about how quickly some units rout, but that's more down to their starting stats. It's quite common, for instance, that a (reduced) Axis Panzer company of about 8 Tigers will rout when 1 gets knocked out. Certainly if they lose 2 of 8 they will rout. I wish they wouldn't. It has felt to me like you can stiffen them a little by upping the losses button to max. You say you want them to rout far behind lines, Rock64, but that would only be possible for motorized anyway, no? I would like them to rout into available cover more, maybe. But I would definitely say that since the patch I haven't had a problem with routed units behaviour. You are playing patched to 4.3.249, Rock64?

[Rock64]

I don't have a problem with the direction they are routing and only very rarely noticed them routing towards the enemy.

The problem I see is they are not routing far enough. They should at least route out of threat range. Route recovery takes a very long time. I read in a different thread that a routed unit has lost all cohesion and turn and ran from the fight. The long route recovery period is supposed to represent the time it takes for the individual members of the unit to recover and find there way back to the unit. Too many times, the routed unit never gets the time as they are mercilessly attacked by artillery or direct fire unit they give up or are destroyed.
In short, a routed unit should run away.
I've noticed that most scenarious end with a casualty count much higher than the actual battles. I believe alot of this is due to the inability for units to withdraw and the death sign of the route recovery status.

Great game though

[Arjuna]

I am reviewing this at the moment. I'll report back once I am happy with the changes.

[wodin]

It's a balancing act. Making them route to early so they don't get wiped out would lead us back to the time when units routed way too much and wouldn't stick to their defensive task, it seemed very unrealistic. It's alot better in BFTB now, though I'd still like units when in defensive or dug in positions hold on until very few are left to be honest unless they are an inexperienced unit. Not sure it should boil down to moral but experience. A unit that has an OK moral but slowly gets wiped out in a defensive position however they are still keeping the enemy from moving forward should not retreat even when their moral drops due to casualties esp if they have a good leader. Again this is where leader stats should come into play and have a massive impact in the game and how the units act. A good leader will keep the troops fighting even when few are left. Maybe a good leader would mean the unit is very unlikely to route or even lose much moral. Then I'd like to see leader casualties where a leader can be incapacitated and if he is your notified and you can then check the new leader stats. Obviously the more men killed in the unit the higher the odds the leader is killed but it should have a slight random element where the leader could still be alive when only a few men or left or he could be killed near the beginning.

I think if Leader stats had more impact on the whole many of the quirks could be ironed out. Not only could it be used to give poor units poor performance but historically tough units their real life performance in game. Also if they can be killed etc it would add another immersive element aswell.

[Rock64]

I'm just guessing here but there are probably 2 different routines at work, 1 determines when a unit routes, the other the direction and distance. The one I would like to see looked at is the one that controls where they stop to recover. I just feel that there are too many instances of route recovery taking place in the face of major enemy threats which leads to a destroyed unit. It doesn't seem to "jive" with the combat narratives I've read. From what I have read, soldiers in a routed unit have one thing in mind, survival!

I've seen units cut off (no clear line of retreat) go to retreat status, then route and then surrender, which makes sense. They had no where to go.
But I've also seen units with clear lines of retreat go to retreat status and move out of there positions, then get routed almost in the same location, go to route recovery still in threat range of enemy units, and slowly get destroyed while in route recovery.

[Lieste]

Not always wrong - they are sometimes pinned in place, with subunits surrendering ~ not an unheard of phenomenon. Also, sometimes the 'losses' are disbanding rather than surrendering ~ the personnel moving to other nearby units... here the individuals are moving further than the parent unit which is attempting to hold it's position.

But, yes it could do with some 'work'. Both on when & where the unit moves/halts and in the presentation of the variable outcomes of a 'retreat'.

[Phoenix100]

Your observation about real world casualties being lower is very interesting, Rock64. I wonder how much of that is to do with routing. I'm not sure, myself. It may be that the game has been progressively tweaked to get units to hold, because Wodin's comments above reflect what has been a fairly widespread desire, i think, since the start - that units should hold more, if possible. If you're right, Rock64, and there are 2 different processes - when and where - then I would certainly plead for the when not to be altered in favour of routing. My complaint in this area, as I said above, is still that I think they rout too quick (I second Wodin's comments above). I haven't noticed units not routing far enough, myself. I've looked at where foot units end up, usually, and thought that that was about the distance they could cover in the time available, though I have wished they would run into trees, for example, instead of huddling in the open. Sometimes I have definitely thought they couldn't get as far as they have apparently run. Maybe they fear the arty a bit more than we give them credit for, since when they run into a forest they're still pretty easy to bombard with devastating effect (you can get routed troops to surrender like that). At the end of most major battles i don't end up with a vast number of surrendered units either, just a handful usually. Isn't it the same for you, Rock64? Or are you ending up with huge numbers of surrendered units? The new AAR screen usually indicates that most of the casualties were from arty and such like, which makes me wonder whether the higher than real life figures more reflect just how effective it can be for you to take direct control of arty (or a proportion of it) and use it clinically (as I'm sure most of us do - even though it does feel, to me, a little 'gamey' to do that) - leading to higher than RL arty casualty figures. because if you leave the arty to the AI it's certainly true that it's no where near as effective, I think.

[Arjuna]

I have modified the code that determines the suitability of locations to retreat/rout by adding a bias to select covered terrain where possible. I have also incrased the min and max range for the rout. Previously it was between 600 and 1200m. Now its between 1800 and 2700m. So far it's looking good. I have reduced slightly the probability of retreats/routs and I have reduced the number of troops surrendering during a rout. It wasn't factoring in that the code was often being called multiple times as they routed back under enemy fire. Overall the losses are down from routing. I am still tweaking with the fire routines to reduce the overall casualties to a more historical level. It's a bit of balancing act. Reduce them too much and you lose the momentum in the attack. I hope to wrap this up by tomorow and get out a new build for the beta bunnies to test. If that goes well I will ask Matrix to release it as a public beta patch.

[rfrizz]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

I have modified the code that determines the suitability of locations to retreat/rout by adding a bias to select covered terrain where possible. I have also increased the min and max range for the rout. Previously it was between 600 and 1200m. Now its between 1800 and 2700m. So far it's looking good. I have reduced slightly the probability of retreats/routs and I have reduced the number of troops surrendering during a rout. It wasn't factoring in that the code was often being called multiple times as they routed back under enemy fire. Overall the losses are down from routing. I am still tweaking with the fire routines to reduce the overall casualties to a more historical level. It's a bit of balancing act. Reduce them too much and you lose the momentum in the attack. I hope to wrap this up by tomorrow and get out a new build for the beta bunnies to test. If that goes well I will ask Matrix to release it as a public beta patch.

It may be too late for my input, but the reaction should be an accurate representation of what units of the era would do. In short, I may prefer a routed unit to behave in a particular way, but that is just too bad for me, right? If we players are going to ask for realism, we should get it whether we like it or not, no?

You go to war with the army you have, and not with the army you want. There is more than a little truth to that statement.


And I have to remember that you have to keep your military education customers happy as well.

[Rock64]

No Phoenix, like you I have only noticed a handful of surrendered units at the end of the game. I think "when" they route is fine except for a few exceptions, like when a tank platoon loses one tank, but that seems to be restricted to small units. The where is being changed along with lowering casualties, so hopefully the play will be much better in this area.