American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

Typical event. The Rebs approach the Union line. Bam!! They kill six Yanks(oh no!!). The Yank regiment panics( I mean it WAS six guys) and ROUTS!! Seven nearby regiments of course join them in the advance to the rear. Been there done that a gazillion times, no big deal my line will hold and eventually I will reform the regiments and they will return to the front. As have almost all Yanks, this is how we fight the battles,It never seemed to ring realistic but as an "apologist" I have given myself many logical reasons why this might occur-ENOUGH!!

What in heck does the "ROUT" represent? My readings of Civil War combat seem to indicate this to be a rather rare event( XI Corp excepted). Is my History flawed? What are the designers trying to achieve? I am just not sure that Yank Generals spent half their time rallying disparent regiments and getting them back to the front to plug holes that were created by the next line of units routing. What am I missing?[xx(]

Major General Tony Best
AOJ

General Best,

Quickly Missionary Ridge, Shiloh, and First Bull Run come to mind as examples of large numbers of men panicking and "advancing to the rear" (as we like to say who "lead the advance" [:D]) ! Your point is well taken, however, in that you don't read of it happening in EVERY engagement.

To me, a rout shouldn't be a function of how many men are killed as it should be a function of how many men think THEY are about to be killed. If a regiment of 50 men pokes through the woods and fires a volley at a line of several thousand men, what would be the chances of the several thousand running away? On the flipside, maybe the mere sight of several thousand men approaching would be enough to scare off a single small regiment.

Hmmm, I'm thinking of an engine rule change: "Every time an enemy unit appears in LOS, your units take a moral check. The morale check would be modified the relative number of men in each continguous group ('contigous group' being defined as the number of men in stacks or adjacent hexes within LOS of the unit taking the morale check."

At Missionary Ridge, I've read the Rebels were in a relatively strong position and there was no logical (?) reason for the line to have collapsed. One writer suggested it was simply the panoramic view the Rebs had, from their height advantage, of the entire Union army assembling before them -- when they could only see a relatively few supporters on either side of themselves and couldn't know for a certainty what their own generals knew, how physically strong their position was.

Of course, the 'rout' in game terms may not always be depicting actual panic so much as a game-forced withdrawal. On Bloody Hill (Wilson's Creek) and at the Hornet's Nest (Shiloh), for a couple of examples, the Rebels charged and fell back several times. If it weren't for the 'rout' feature, how often would we actually fall back to regroup as opposed to just standing at point-blank range and continuing to duke it out? (Not that this didn't happen on occasion, either, but the game does allow for it as well.)


Your humble servant,
Gen 'Dee Dubya' Mallory

David W. Mallory
ACW - General, Chief of the Armies, Confederate States of America & Cabinet Member
CCC - Sergeant, Georgia Volunteers, Southern Regional Deaprtment, Colonial American Army

While we're messing with the engine, lets give the routed guys full movement-at least! And I think their defense in melee once you do catch them is too high. Half strength for routed troops who can't even shoot when good order troops who are isolated defend at quarter strength doesn't make much sense to me. But as I have stated in previous posts, I think the whole isolated thing is overdone.

MG Mike Mihalik
1/III/AoMiss/CSA

I have always held that in both the BG and the HPS games units rout too easily *and* rally too easily. I mean, as Tony said, we (the Federals) spend half of our gaming time doing that--rallying routers and rotating units to keep a line in spite of the routing. I don't object to mass routs, not at all--I never play with Rout Limiting for that reason. They should be catastrophic in their effects when they happen. But I do object to having some regiments rout *every turn*. It just doesn't make sense.

Besides, depend on it, the only time that a unit sure as hell won't rout is when I *want* it to rout. Get the hell out of the trouble, boys ... oh no, General Sir, we are staying and fight to the last man. But why don't they do just *that* when I want them to?

Not to mention the bunch of stubborn irrationalists who rout *towards* the enemy in the first place and then refuse to come back, claiming that "routed units can only move away from the enemy", when I am trying to induce them to do just that.

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS

It would be nice if you could have the option to rout on command to get away from danger. And it is frustrating trying to move them to saftey but can't as the game thinks you're going closer to the enemy.
In a current battle my opponent was frustrated by a lucky rout:
In a Shiloh campaign battle his 850 or so man reb quality B unit is about to break through my line. I send a B quality Union unit of around 450 to fire and suicide melee into his flank/rear hoping to disrupt him so he won't cause any more harm. Well it cost me - 75 of his guys vs 120+ of mine in the melee. But then in his turn that unit routs! And routs into my lines where I may be able to destroy it (arty immediately inflicted around 100 casualties). I'm happy, but understand my opponent's frustration.

MajGen, 2/XIX/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"

Unfortunately, route is a catch all in these games for a whole lot of things. It represents the tendancy of troops seek cover when the fire gets to hot, withdraw to safer positions when an attack fails, and the real all out route of First Bull Run, etc. It's why I favor using Route Limiting because mass routes rarely happen unless troops were worn out from fighting (high fatigue) or very green (E's and F's).

HPS games have a number of flaws in route handling. One I object to is that route occurs only due to Offensive Fire. Apparently attackers never run. The other is that it isn't affected for the most part by number of casualties taken (has an indirect effect in whether the morale check occurs).

If I had my wishes[:)] I would like to see a graduated result based off a morale check that took casualties into account, position (troops in woods, trenches less likely to fail), and adjacent units (and/or command integrity). No differentiation between defender and attacker except maybe a shift. All units would either pass or become disordered(similar to current disrupt), disrupted (and retreat three), or routed depending on how bad they fail the check. This would mean that high qualtiy units might not even be able to route until they become fatigured although I like the random even roll that many board games include. That is, if on the morale check you rolled boxcars or something then a random event roll was made. This could cause units like the Iron Brigade that normally wouldn't route to route.

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)

Kennon
Good stuff! I like the idea of disrupting and retreating three which could give the effects that General Mallory was talking about but without the strange looking dynamics that we see now.


Major General Tony Best
AOJ

What draws a vaccum is when a unit routs, it routs through another unit even if there's an open hex for the routing unit to run through. Then disrupts the unit it runs through.

Lt. Col. Gery Bastiani
Fightin' Carolinians
4/2/II AotM CSA

I'd like to add another 'pet peeve' about rout. When your units rout and recover they always come back in column formation, even if they were in line to begin with. Give me a break. How many instances has anyone read where when rallying troops they tried to rally them in to a column formation to oppose an enemy battleline(and how many units rout in column formation)? It just gives your opponent time to move up and send your columns on their way again while not suffering any return fire from your disordered units in column formation. NRBH, is rout effected by fatigue? [:D]

Col. Phil Driscoll
1st Brigade/1st Division/VCorps/AoP

ok... i have one for you, i had an unattached unit 800 in the Peninsula Campaign on the far right of my front tline rout,,,, they took off towards the Rebels between their artillery side stepping their infantry down a road running through the rebel’s line up onto a hill, where now I had a view of the rebel’s rear………….and this wasn’t a straight path, but towards enemy artillery[:0]

Maj.Gen. Les Knight
**Corcoran's Legion** 2nd/VIII
Army of the Shenandoah USA

I suppose I have always seen the rout as a necessary evil in these game, and can accept the fact that this phenomenon, like so many others in the series, is an abstraction. Nevertheless, that propensity for routed units to disrupt and possibly rout every single friendly unit they associate themselves with on their run to safety can be really frustrating. I suppose that Rout Limiting is the tool we ought to use do deal with excessive routing.

I do find myself setting up my reserves and second line troops with an eye for where I might predict a front line unit might go if it were to rout. I end up putting them behind obstacles and in high-movement points terrain in the hopes that the routers will follow the path of least resistance and go somewhere else. I get it wrong more often than I would care to though. This tactic also calls for some odd deployments at times.

Be that as it may, I am just finishing up a July 2 full historical scenario as Union, and was a bit surprised at the results. I'm not at home as I write this, and do not have the exact scenario name and number. I remember someone else posted a screen shot of the opening positions of the Union troops in this scenario a couple weeks back and said in so many words that the Union's crowded opening positions were an open invitation to wholesale Union routing, and that was why he was uninterested in playing the hsitorical GB scenarios. "Yep" I said as I read that posting... "I completely agree. How did I let myself get talked into this one?" To my surprise, my front lines held with minimal disruption and very limited routing, while the rebs took a beating as they advanced to my prepared postions. Looks like the result is going to be a draw with the Union positions more or less as they were at the start of the game, except at the far south of my lines where I managed to open a counterattack and advance a bit. I would never have predicted that outcome. My two cents.

General Thos. Callmeyer
4th Bgd.-1st Div.-XV Corps-AoT

My main concern was not routing as such, but the position of the guns. Behind the front lines, and restricted by walled elevation changes. Looked all like a death trap to me, once the infantry would start routing through the guns, disrupting them for good, as they always do. (Remember that artillery has no chain-of-command worth mentioning, so nobody helps them to undisrupt. Artillery was virtually exempted from disruption, unless at max fatigue, in the BG games for a reason.)

Questions:
- Did you play with Rout Limiting ON?
- How aggressive, exactly, was your Reb?

Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
AoS

Dear General Walter,

In answer to your question sir "Pretty damn aggressive and my command is paying dearly for it. You see, the Confederate Side also routed but it appeared my boys ran abit further than the Union. However, in truth, I left my left remain weak after the rout"

It's so much fun!!!!!!!

Fld.Lt.R.E.Daley
1st Corp of the ANV
3rd Calvary Divsion,
3rd Brigade
"We are the Midnight Riders"

Howdy Dierk, I see we are both "Good Guys" in the ACWGC ;^) Sorry for not answering your question sooner. In my estimation, my opponent marched quickly to the attack from the north against Cemetary Hill. He took heavy losses and was disrupted by the combined fire of my cannon and small arms fire near Cem Hill and repulsed, with my forces taking moderate casualties and very little routing going on. He also hit my southwest flank rather sharply. To the southwest he was initially more sucessful. I had to withdraw a bit, took a few losses, but my lines bent rather than broke. My counterattack was well supported by regiments and arty available in that general part of the battlefiled and proved effective. I was able to throw him back and I was even able to advance a bit. On the rest of my western front between these two rebel assults I was subject to ranged cannon fire that caused a few units to panic, but which was otherwise not significant to the outcome of the battle. Though I never faced any assault in that long stretch of western facing units, I'm not sure my opponent had all that much to throw at me there either. I suffered from no probing attacks from the east.

As a side note I will also say that much of my overall strength in big guns was deployed in a most useless fashion, either drawn up in large reserves with no real access to the fighting, or deployed in isolated forested hexes far from the lines and with "expansive" one-hex radius LOS. Be that as it may, the guns I could use along with my supporting infantry were sufficient to enable me to hold my ground.

General Thos. Callmeyer
4th Bgd.-1st Div.-XV Corps-AoT

The game abstracts routing into a mathematical event given legs. By this I mean routing is a chance event based only on a unit's quality & the taking of casualties & not related at all to the environment of the routed unit. A unit can rout anytime, anywhere. At the beginning of a battle as easily as at the end. A case in point. Playing a Shiloh Campaign multiplayer as the Rebs & four regiments out of six have routed as a result of some long distance artillery fire only with but a handful of casualties; not an enemy infantry unit in sight!

From my reading I recall that units could rout if surprised by the enemy with enough mass & momentum. Jackson's rout of the Union right at Chancellorsville is an example. XI Corps was blamed but truth is any unit of any size surprised by enough force busting through the bush at suppertime in the absence of pickets would probably rout. Or fresh troops could rout if they were totally inexperienced as at The First Battle of Bull Run. These would be rare events & would be very hard to simulate given the paucity of psychological type variables the game uses.

Routing in other cases would definately be a function of fatigue along with quality & casualties. Routing in the game is not a function of fatigue unless the unit is at maximum fatigue when it comes into play in a partial way. Experience could be considered part of quality but what do you do with inexperienced but high quality units, for example?

I understand the need for routing to be contagious but again crescendo type routing would probably only be found at that part of the line at the end of the engagement when they are in extreme circumstances & in dire straits not in an intact line where units have just arrived & have not been highly fatigued.

When routing becomes a event of psychological bankruptcy modeled as it should be in a game then players will be content. Short of this ideal we tolerate the model we got.

Lt. Col. Dale Henken
2/1/XVI/AoT-USA