Routing in v1.02

[econ21]

Historically it was very rare for units to rally on the battlefield once broken.

I'm not sure why you say that - I would have thought it was the norm for routing units to rally on the battlefield if not pursued. From Hastings through Waterloo, attacking units would often attack, break, run away back to safety (ie rout) and then rally & reform to come back again. It's probably harder to think of examples of defenders routing and rallying, as they were more likely to be pursued.

At least in terms of the Napoleonic wars, which I know most about, Waterloo is thought of as the exception in that almost the whole French army eventually routed and did not rally. But even then, that characterisation was probably overplayed - only three French eagles were lost on the day (less than the number of Allied colours captured).

[dopp]

Sorry, I meant armies, not individual units. I was referring to breaking an entire enemy battle line in M2TW and have them rally 10 seconds later.

[econ21]

Sorry, I meant armies, not individual units. I was referring to breaking an entire enemy battle line in M2TW and have them rally 10 seconds later.

OK, I see your point. Yes, the whole army routing and quickly rallying is odd, although as I said, I haven't found that a problem so long as I have a few pursuing cavalry units. It may be more of an issue against high command generals, e.g. the Mongols, but I have not fought them much. And again, if anyone could rally a "fleeing" army, I suspect it would be the Mongols.

TW has always been a bit "all or nothing" in its battles. I suspect most historical battles did not end in the disintegration of the losing army. Waterloo being the Napoleonic exception that proves the rule. A successful disengagement, a fighting retreat or even a pause due to mutual exhaustion were probably more likely. To be fair to TW though, the disintegration of the losing army only tends to happen if the victor has sufficient cavalry to chase the losers. You could nerf TW cavalry in stats and it would still be invaluable for that reason.

[Moah]

TW has always been a bit "all or nothing" in its battles. I suspect most historical battles did not end in the disintegration of the losing army. Waterloo being the Napoleonic exception that proves the rule. A successful disengagement, a fighting retreat or even a pause due to mutual exhaustion were probably more likely. To be fair to TW though, the disintegration of the losing army only tends to happen if the victor has sufficient cavalry to chase the losers. You could nerf TW cavalry in stats and it would still be invaluable for that reason.

Actually that's one of the reasons I've found TW so good. Form my reading of history I've got the impression that it is the routing of one side that genreally marks the end of a a battle, and then the casualities come in that slaughter.

Casualties while fighting were generally surpisingly low but then when one side runs it is slaughtered, and that's where you get your massive cacualty imbalances.

For example Mon Graupius was given some totally ridiculous casulaty count by the roman historians: Something like 10,000 celts and 84 romans. There are generally thought to be 3 explanations.

1) Exaggeration.

2) The roman historian didn't count auxiliaries as romans, thus only 84 romans died, but possibly 100's of aux. - who were alwasy sent in first.

3) Routing. The suggestion is only a few hundred britons were dead when their line broke, then teh vicotrious army slaughtered the fleeing britons.

But in other cases, like Bannockburn, it was the routing english being trapped by the river and drowning or being hacked to death in water or on bank that led to teh death toll - not the initial pikes. There are various other examples.

Casualties are low, then your shield wall breaks. YOur side runs. They are slaughtered. I find it very realistic.

As someone here posted above, morale is the one factor that makes TW better than all the other contenders - and I'd rather not have lots of units fighting to the death. I think that was pretty rare!

Morale rules good. me like.

[Empirate]

Clausewitz put it like this: Cavalry may not be the deciding factor of a battle anymore [in the Napoleonic era, that was], but it is still the deciding factor in wether a victory is decisive. Historically, router chasing was the most important function of all cavalry - making sure all your efforts on the battlefield, all the great risks your side took in accepting the battle, all the lives lost were actually worth something more than a warm feeling afterwards. I think this is what TW games try to incorporate in tactical battles - although historically the chasing of routers would often go on for days. After the battle of Bannockburn, e. g., king Edward's retinue was chased around and decimated for many days before he was finally able to get on a ship home.
So if an army is destroyed on the battlefield in M2TW, this is a representation of your annihilation of enemy fighting capabilities that would in reality have taken much longer.

In M1TW it happened quite often that an enemy army that "knew" it was beaten withdrew from the fields. Especially when you had routed the first set of 16 units, enemy reinforcements would often pull back before reaching the fighting premises. This preserved part of the enemy's strength for another day, and I think it was an excellent mechanic. Also, in M1TW, even if you had cavalry, you'd often not be able to catch all routers despite they had great pathfinding for router chasers. Fatigue was much more important and it happened quite often that after a long, drawn-out battle, your cavalry was so exhausted it was slowed to a walk.

The "automatic" router chasing of RTW was a great downside to that game IMO, and M2TW in 1.2 has gone that way, too (although it was obviously intended to be this way from the start...). Units never reformed, but you didn't have an exactly hard time to catch them...

I like units reforming after a rout, I like it very much - it adds tactical depth in forcing you to either chase, losing a unit needed in the fight that still goes on at other spots, or let them reform and become a (bit of a) threat again. Love it!

I seem to find that enemy armies under mere captains rout easier since 1.2, while generals are much more able to keep their forces together. Also, missile fire seems to detract from morale more. I've found that firing a few volleys of crossbow bolts into the approaching enemy makes them much more susceptible to be broken soon after contact with your charging melee troops. This only seems to go for the first wave, those that take most damage from the missiles, while undamaged regiments coming up right behind rout much less easily. Maybe this has to do with a larger penalty for being outnumbered locally, I dunno.

[dopp]

TW has always been a bit "all or nothing" in its battles. I suspect most historical battles did not end in the disintegration of the losing army. Waterloo being the Napoleonic exception that proves the rule. A successful disengagement, a fighting retreat or even a pause due to mutual exhaustion were probably more likely. To be fair to TW though, the disintegration of the losing army only tends to happen if the victor has sufficient cavalry to chase the losers. You could nerf TW cavalry in stats and it would still be invaluable for that reason.

Say rather that most historical battles were inconclusive draws where even the nominal 'loser' retreated in good order. An army that simply routs is usually completely destroyed as a fighting force, but this is comparatively rare and is often the mark of a 'decisive battle'. Many of the defeated soldiers may survive, but they will be scattered (often deserted) or taken prisoner. More importantly, their confidence and fighting spirit (and that of their generals) will be badly shattered and the army may take many months to recover. If attacked, it may distintegrate completely even before contact.

"All or nothing" isn't a bad thing, though. The whole point of the Western art of war is to force a decision on the battlefield by annihilating the enemy army (the Eastern art of war is the exact opposite: evade and delay). It has been a spectacularly successful way of fighting. In fact, the irritating thing is that the AI doesn't recognize the principle; it doesn't realize that it's beaten even if it has absolutely nothing left to throw at you.

[TinCow]

In fact, the irritating thing is that the AI doesn't recognize the principle; it doesn't realize that it's beaten even if it has absolutely nothing left to throw at you.

I think you've identified a major area where the AI can be improved. If the AI withdrew from a battle when it was losing more regularly, I think the difficulty level would be much improved. The only times I ever see a withdrawal are when there are two waves of AI units, the first wave is destroyed or routed, and the second wave is a good distance back from the frontlines and is not committed to the battle. In that case, the second line will often withdraw if heavily outnumbered. This is the correct decision, but the AI doesn't ever seem to try to withdraw from a mainline engagement. Since it usually throws everything into the fray at once, this means that withdrawal rarely happens and it keeps fighting until it is dead or you are.

[Moah]

The Mongols do it.

Tehy quite often withdraw in good order if you survive the initial arrow storm then cavalry assault.

Another reason why they're one of the best aspects fo the game (if only mine actually did anything so I didn't have to pursue them and always fight in the open!)