ROUTING IMPACTS

[BIG ERN]

On a recent thread here it was stated that it is worthwhile moving alongside routed units as it starts the routing routine again and they lose more men. Just out of interest I tested this in a game. I routed a unit and then checked the troop levels, before routing it again on a subsequent turn. The result was NO reduction in troops, it was a SEC unit and each time there were 534 troops left. I am playing 1.03. So my thought is then there is no advantage in moving next to routed units, best to ignore them.

Conversely I also did the same for an airfield to see the impact. By moving next to an airfield the number of planes went from 259 down to 158, a significant impact.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Ketza]

Planes were damaged. If you move next to them again you wont see the same results.

Routing does seem a little weird. I once chased an SS division all over the front and it must have routed about 5 or 6 times. It came back next turn with a CV of 7 after I had initially made it rout with a CV of 8.

[carlkay58]

The best way to destroy routed units is to rout them and then isolate them - they surrender immediately.

[johnnyvagas]

There has been a number of threads on this topic as well as screen shots of routed unit strengths before and after the routed unit was re-contacted by an enemy unit. And yes, there appears to be no effect on the routed unit if it is recontacted by an enemy combat unit -- aside from an additional displacement. Or at least there is no additional loss of men or equipment as a result of the routed unit being recontacted by an enemy unit. I think some of the play testers have made attempts to explain the "abstract'ness" of what a routed unit represents in WITE. But it still makes little sense to me what is actually being represented by routed units. Pursuit is actually a very important aspect of real military operations and has been for a thousand years and more. Press enemy units that have retreated or routed. For example, see FM 100-5 -- any edition. It's an important aspect of operations as it attrites defeated/disorganized enemy formations of manpower and equipment at a very low investment cost by the pursuing formations. It also keeps an enemy formation (or formations) from reforming and reorganizing into a cohesive fighting unit.

[carnifex]

I don't like the whole rout and rout again and again mechanic. I believe that routed units should shatter instead of routing the second time.

[Ridgeway]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

I don't like the whole rout and rout again and again mechanic. I believe that routed units should shatter instead of routing the second time.

I don't think that units are really "routing and routing again."

Instead, it is an abstraction based on the WEGO system with 1 week turns.

The way I imagine it, the routing unit suffers initial casualties which are supposed to be higher than a regular retreat (have not verified this, though) and then goes to a "holding pen in the sky" until the end of the Turn, even though it is represented on the map as having routed to a specific location. Because of the consecutive nature of the movement system, it is impossible to know what the final rout location will be until all the units have moved. Hence, although it looks absurd to have the unit routing all over the map, if you imagine that those were merely "possible" rout locations that were foreclosed upon by subsequent events, it makes a bit more sense.

That being said, I think the routing system could use a lot of work.

[Aussiematto]

I just tested the same thing, in a PBEM. Checked the soviet losses, then moved adjacent to a routed cavalry unit. Sure enough it DID take losses because after that one action there were another 200 casualties showing.

It could be that there is a base limit in the game code for manpower in a unit, below this limit the unit shatters -- the system might privilege the displacement over the shatter; in such a situation, the algorithm would set the loss to zero so that the displacement would happen, not a shatter. Note too that a routed unit stacked with another, good unit, WILL shatter if you retreat that unit. Perhaps the code needs to be amended so that very low strength routed units will shatter if the displacement loss is enough.

I dont mind the rout rules so much - they are just a representation. Perhaps the losses need to be higher, or the rout should be more extensive...eg to a friendly city at least 20 hexes from the enemy, but whatever...you learn to play by the rules .