Routs

[martin goddard]

I was asking today whilst queuing in Asda "why are routers not shown on the tabletop".
Always a problem in the wines and spirts aisle.

Well
Some rules allow the routers to effect other units in their path. They might carry those units away or cause new tests. Very good point.  I think it applies with more hand to hand armies where the threat from pursuers tends to be more immediate.
In shooty armies many units do not actually rout in a massed bunch but just "fade" in terms of action and effect.

Units that fight in close ranks are often easier to see in the confusion of battle.
As the times moves forward many units are evidenced by the noise/shooting they create.

Putting rout paths etc in rules can certainly slow the game down. It also introduces all sorts of "game" actions to bend the direction of rout. Another consideration is that some units are not too bothered about certain other units routing.

e.g.
If the guard routs= big problem.
If the  hired skirmishers rout= shame on them

I feel that a unit that has routed will be of no further use in the battle and should therefore be removed from the game.
By the time they are re-organised and put back into fighting condition the battle has passed in terms of time.
Routed units will have probably lost most of their officers and indeed a lot of weapons too.
Some troops will have run/directioned much faster than others and be difficult to locate.

It was common in the Featherstone days to allow routed units to be rallied and often joined with other routers to form new units. Amusing but not valid I feel.

In RFCM
Massed units fighting at close range/quarters (Dark ages)= cause consternation for other units and the army will to continue. those other units are needed to form the continuous battle line.
More scattered fighting (WW2)=less awareness of who is routing and less chance of being over run by routers or pursuers.

Falling back is a valid manoeuvre that can sometimes be mixed up with routing.
Falling back can become a rout if circumstances permit too.



martin

[Sean Clark]

All good points.

Having played Washingtons Army last week, this is something that can happen in the game. Upto 2 units witness  a rout within 6" have to test their morale. This is realistic I think.

However, in the wine aisle, it would become a real problem 😂

[Norm]

I am pretty much in the camp of' when a unit routs, it is pretty much lost to the commander, especially in a game that is looking at 2 - 3 hours of action. I like the initial rout to be Physically represented to see what they take with them, also if there are reinforcements arriving, then a meeting between them and routers can be justifiably represented.

In some games, units that rout off the table / board as opposed to still being on the table / board at the end of the game, can make a difference in victory points. A halted routed unit as useless as it may be, is still better for subsequent army cohesion, so again, an argument for allowing the rout path of a routing formation to be shown.

I suppose its a bit like a knocked out AFV, is it kept on the table, smoking and providing cover / line of sight obstruction / road blockage, or is it removed to keep a tidy table, I have seen both argued for successfully. 

[Big Mike]

All good points.

Having played Washingtons Army last week, this is something that can happen in the game. Upto 2 units witness  a rout within 6" have to test their morale. This is realistic I think.

However, in the wine aisle, it would become a real problem 😂

Sean, I get very bored whilst on supermarket duty so I must try setting up a game there next time...
Mike

[Leman (Andy)]

In a number of the games I play (particularly the C18th) the routing unit is moved back its rout move to determine if it affects other units. theses affects are then calculated and the routers then removed from the game.

[Leslie BT]

You must be spending tooooooo much time in the ASDA queue Martin!