Warspite1 | 03 Apr 2018 5:58 p.m. PST |
I took part in a huge Wars of the Roses game under Hail Caesar two weeks ago and I noticed that something significant appears to be missing. Unlike nearly other set of war-game rules I have ever played under in more than 40 years, routs seem to take place in a vacuum. Units rout past friends or even THROUGH such friendly units with no affect on these friends. My view is that any unit routing causes units to test when these routers come within 6-inches or rout through them. The morale roll is modified by -1 if the rolling unit is routed through and modified by another -1 if any two routs are within 6-inches when the test is taken. These modifiers would apply to any morale test taken for any reason. Thoughts? Barry |
Extra Crispy | 03 Apr 2018 6:01 p.m. PST |
It's been a while but I thought nearby routs did affect friendlies? |
Warspite1 | 03 Apr 2018 6:03 p.m. PST |
Not in the game we were playing! Did we get it wrong? Barry |
arsbelli | 03 Apr 2018 6:28 p.m. PST |
In HC, a unit that breaks does not rout across the battlefield, but is immediately removed as if destroyed. Any unit supporting a unit that breaks must in turn take a Break Test of its own. The only exception would be for elephants, which have their own special rules. For broken units to rout across the battlefield would require the creation of a house rule, such as the one you describe. |
Aquahog | 04 Apr 2018 1:51 a.m. PST |
Doesn't the entire brigade (or whatever the term is in HC) rout if a certain number its units rout? |
Extra Crispy | 04 Apr 2018 4:30 a.m. PST |
Yeah, sounds like your game had a bunch of house rules. |
madaxeman | 04 Apr 2018 5:07 a.m. PST |
Units are simply removed rather than "routing"in pretty much every "1 unit = 1 base" system out there – occasionally with collateral damage to units immediately behind the router What with all the DBx variants, Impetus plus HC all using this paradigm, I'd have thought that probably means at least half of the most "popular" systems in the past 20+ years have used this mechanic rather than "routs" and "reaction tests for friends" – so the HC mechanic is probably more "usual" than "unusual" I |
Marcus Brutus | 04 Apr 2018 7:27 a.m. PST |
I agree with madaxeman, the system in HC is fairly standard today. In Impetus routs don't effect other units directly but the command overall is degraded. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 04 Apr 2018 7:56 a.m. PST |
One of the major reasons why my gaming group went with 25/28mm Clash of Empires game system in preference over Hail Caesar. The physical rearward passage of routing units does create movement issues on the battlefield. By total immediate removal of bases, the former unit's space is now open for another unit to advance into that same space when in reality, there would be time delay before a unit could enter or advance… clearing away of the routers. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 04 Apr 2018 8:47 a.m. PST |
cont… Should clarify that the COE routers out distanced their immediate enemy pursuers. If not, the routing unit is destroyed and all bases removed like under HC and other WAB based rule sets. If a units routs from failed morale test and not direct enemy contact/engagement, the units have rearward rout movement. |
olicana | 04 Apr 2018 9:40 a.m. PST |
I thought the general argument for removing routers in HC was that all 'routers' were beyond recall and becoming a quickly dispersing cloud rather than a recognisable solid 'body' of troops. As such they would pass through gaps in friends like water through a grate, or side slip out of their way. As such they are probably best removed. That they cause units within support distance (supporting or not if the same rule as P&S) to take a break test seems reasonable to me, then take them off. My issue with routers being removed is that there never seem to be any pursuers. |
Marcus Brutus | 04 Apr 2018 10:40 a.m. PST |
In Impetus, a unit routing immediately back upon another unit causes automatic disorder and the loss of one on its cohesion (a big deal.) There is a bonus for flank supports in Impetus so its absence causes problems for units abandoned by friendly routers. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 04 Apr 2018 11:36 a.m. PST |
Olicana, Point well taken about the thought on dispersing and I think mentioned in the HC rules, but I think the fleeing troops have to gain some distance from the fight point for that dispersion to take effect. Every film I have seen of a large dense mass of humans deciding to suddenly run for it have them bolting for the safety exit or direction generally in an uncontrolled clumped mass. Sort of clump together for "group protection" somewhat seems to be the group thought… for the short moment that is. That is a common reason why people get trampled to death or wounded even without the confines of a narrow passageway which magnifies the trampling event. As for the lack of pursuit…. I love game play with the Barbarian hordes and other undisciplined armies. They always chase their foes. But lots of gamers love to play with the iron rule control of Romans… or others who hold there position after brawling the now fleeing foe… who somehow are destroyed even without any form of pursuit and hack/stab in the back while fleeing. |
arsbelli | 04 Apr 2018 12:24 p.m. PST |
@James (oilcana) – Your memory is entirely correct in regard to the rationale given in Hail Caesar for immediately removing broken units from the table. Since others have discussed the merits of rules mechanics found in other Ancients rules systems, I will mention that my own personal favorite is the rout/flee mechanic found in Swordpoint. A unit that breaks will flee directly away from its victorious opponent, and will continue to do so unless rallied by a commander. The victorious opposing unit must then take a Pursuit test if the player does not want it to chase its fleeing foe. In addition, any friendly units within 12" of a unit that breaks, or within 4" of a fleeing unit. is required to take a Cohesion test of its own. |
TMPWargamerabbit | 04 Apr 2018 12:56 p.m. PST |
ArsBelli, Same as in COE for routing units with the note the units turn towards their friendly table edge on the second turn of routing. The first turn is directly away. Friendly unit immediate morale testing radius is 25cm or approx 10" radius then 19cm for passing by after the turn of break. COE uses centimeters for measurement. |
arsbelli | 04 Apr 2018 1:29 p.m. PST |
Correction/clarification: in Swordpoint, a unit of broken troops will flee directly away from its opponent in its first movement, then after that toward the nearest table edge (but not toward enemy troops). |
Charlie | 04 Apr 2018 1:55 p.m. PST |
I use my own homebrew rules which originally started based on WAB, as it was the only ruleset I was familiar with, but it has since become far removed. At first I didn't like the idea of units 'vanishing' when broken, and liked the WAB mechanic of fleeing / attempting to rally each turn. However I soon changed my mind – it didn't make sense to me that a unit would break, spend several turns running across the battlefield, then suddenly rally for no apparent reason and be back in fighting form a long way from the action. So at first I had it so you had ONE turn to rally them, after which they dispersed for good. I quite liked that – there was one random move backwards, then start of the next turn you could attempt to rally, and they would either do so or 'vanish'. But I've since switched to the usual method as detailed above, when a unit breaks it is simply removed with no hope of it rallying or coming back. However breaking isn't the only result of a failed test – either driven back, driven back disordered or broken depending on how much they lose the test by. Anyway, if a unit breaks, the victorious enemy makes a random move (2D6 inches, doubled for cavalry) directly forward, representing them surging forward cutting down the fleeing foe. They can attempt to restrain pursuit by passing a test. Whatever they do, the defeated unit is removed. Friends within 6" of the broken unit test – fail by 1 or 2 points, they become disordered and make a random move backwards, fail by 3 or more points they rout and are also removed completely (which is statistically unlikely). This strikes the right balance for me. There is potential for units being defeated to break up battlelines and cause randomness. If they are driven back but followed up (combat continues next turn) the lines are shifted. If they break there is potential for nearby friends to also shift backwards a random distance and become disordered, or break also. The winners may surge forward, messing up their own battleline. Supporting units of the losers may be able to swiftly step up to take their place, or that may not be possible (units in the way, disorder, them routing themselves). There should always be a level of randomness to cause these things, so when a unit beats another in combat you really don't know what will happen in regards to unit placements and battlelines, and whether it will cause problems next turn for either side. When you throw units into combat, you can try to make it so the odds are in your favour, but you'll always need to keep your fingers crossed – who knows what might happen! |
Last Hussar | 04 Apr 2018 4:00 p.m. PST |
I believe HC is close enough to BP for a suggestion, even though I haven't played/read HC. May I suggest that Routing units run maximum speed away from enemy each turn in the Initiative phase. If they contact one of their own units they disperse, cause in 'x' number of attacks on the friendly unit, which gets morale saves as per normal – after all hits are represented not as kills but as loss of morale. You may wish some sort of hierarchy as to what causes hits/how many, so a bunch of guys with slings don't really worry your Imperial Roman Legion! Say -1 hit if light, +1 if Heavy. Incidentally for BP we play that Brigades are broken when MORE than half are lostshaken, and you can rally shaken units if less than half the Brigade is routed – i.e. there is a possibility that you can rally enough units to 'unbreak' the brigade. The rules state if a unit from a Broken Brigade is within 12 (I think) it has to retreat on initiative, and as its moved it can't be rallied. This means Brigades fall back, spend some time rallying and reforming, and can then be recommitted (if you are lucky with your rally rolls! It can take some time). This then means you need to keep up pressure on broken brigades – it gives your light horse a historical role, rather than ignoring a bunch of battalions. |
Thomas Thomas | 05 Apr 2018 7:48 a.m. PST |
While the idea of a moving mass of routed troops seems like a good idea – it has from a game simulation stand point many problems. First its very had to find an historical example of a "unit" of troops routing in mass and obstructing another unit. This is because "units" is a modern concept with only hazy parallels in medieval/ancient warfare. By there nature routs cause people to disperse in all directions rapidly losing what little "unit" cohesion they once had (if any). By the same token such events tended to be local and effect only the immediate body involved other troops buried in the ranks often remained unaware of what was happening. Time scale is also a factor as routs happen quickly with dispersal occurring much more rapidly than normal movement given we often use 15 minute or so turns as a scale. Nor is a rally likely. Troops running away discard weapons, armor and all sense of unit integrity. Not to mention the exhaustion involved. With little sub-unit articulation it becomes every man for himself. Reforming around a banner is possible but only if the body of troops retained some order (more like a push back) and for that matter the banner. Consequently the DBX model of just removing a small part of the battle line as an immediate consequence of a sharp local reverse but then having such consequences accumulate to the point of eventually threatening the whole battle line provides the best simulation device without any book keeping or having to bother moving "routed" units around the table. It reflects the great advances in game design that have occurred since the days of WAB. Thomas J. Thomas Fame and Glory Games |
Mars Ultor | 05 Apr 2018 9:29 a.m. PST |
I hear all the sentiments about not liking routing units running on the board, but both Sulla and Hail Caesar's very own namesake would have never been so victorious as they were if routing units were unable to be rallied. History would have been very different if that were the case – Caesar would have probably died in Spain (IIRC where the event occurred, maybe Gaul). Of course, many examples of units not rallying. I'm with WGRabbit – I think that COE and some similar systems got it right – routing units are a nuissance to their rear lines – men don't just disperse. I believe I remember that in COE units suffer pretty serious morale problems after rallying from breaking or being under minimum strength but can still be effective. |
Last Hussar | 05 Apr 2018 3:29 p.m. PST |
Its about hundreds of men just running away- they aren't acting in concert, but there is a certain 'lemming/follow the bloke in front' aspect to humans. They will still get in the way. Mars – you mention Caesar rallying routed units – I suggest in HC and it's stable mates they aren't 'Routed' they are 'shaken'- ie wont fight but still a unit. Rout in the BP canon is "not stopping for nobody". |
Mick the Metalsmith | 05 Apr 2018 3:33 p.m. PST |
The rally of routing that Sulla and Caesar achieved all occurred in the combat resolution roll. It represents the back and forth of period of combat and the end result. What happened during that period could be of many extremes and still end up with "Defender or Attacker Eliminated". Literalism in simulation and granularity are fine but if you want to get a game finished in a reasonable amount of time, you have to allow for some abstraction, as long as the game produces plausible simulation in the range of outcomes. Some folks like lots of it, others less. I am growing much more fond of abstraction, if it means I get to finish a game. In the old days of leaving a game for 3, 4 or more days of play to be able to handle all the granularity was not an issue. Sadly today it is. |
Last Hussar | 05 Apr 2018 4:07 p.m. PST |
^ This (I think- I think we have the same approach!) You could say a routed unit moves back 1/2/3 moves – if it contacts anyone they take 'x' hits, as per my suggestion, but then the routed unit disperses, whether it has contacted anyone or not. Supports still take a test, INCLUDING THE UNIT JUST CONTACTED |