Quote Originally Posted by Julianus View Post
I understand that if an infantry unit do rout when facing a cavalry charge, they should rout before the impact. Otherwise if they stay steady then it's the cavalry who will be in real trouble if they don't put on the brakes. So i always wonder if the "charge into an infantry unit -- if they don't rout then disengage and reform -- charge again until they rout" practice really happened in history.
This is an interesting point, especially the bit about inf routing before impact. I am no expert, my knowledge is purely academic and limited at that. My impression from a few texts eg Face of Battle is units often fell back before contact when charged, refused to charge when ordered etc. so generalship was something like herding cats.

I recall having this problem with units in MTW (the old one) especially with 0 1 or 2 star commanders. If morale was a lot lower then we'd see charges brealk off sooner and defenders rout more often.

This makes for less impressive battles (hmmm the disorganised barbarians ran away again), or at least the impressive ones are less common. Maybe its a touch of historical realism? Real bloodbaths only happening when there are two well-led well-motivated forces, or there's no escape for one side?

In game terms I guess it would favour skirmishers and missile troops over heavies in that if both sides are unwilling to engage then shock loses value.

I suppose it might force players to position generals and "eagle" units more carefully and time attacks more exactly.

I find it frustrating when a flanking unit drops its bundle and flees to the rear but I guess it did happen and in fact it might have happened a lot.

Once again the game mechanics might not handle this so well, with the distortion of the town square and battlefield map edge meaning a rout has massively different values for different situations.

Is there a point in nerfing morale (and maybe speeding morale recovery? if possible?) to model troop trepidation?