<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ernie Sands</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />Actually, I'd rather see the ability to "control" routers taken away outright. Maybe increase their "run" distance, but until they're rallied, you have no direct control of them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
And that solution is probably more historical then the present method of being able to control the routed unit. There is plenty of documented (I don't have the sources, specifically)evidence about troops only stopping their rout when someone got them to rally.
<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, Commanding, Army of Ohio
ACWGC Cabinet member
</b></font id="gold">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Perhaps only allow us to control a routed unit's movement if a leader is present? Still no movement towards the enemy, of course. If no leader is present, then we can't tell them what to do. Is that possible programming wise?
But I also think that routed units should be running faster than half-movement. The inability to fire, melee at full strength, or advance towards the enemy is all well and good, but routed men probably were moving at least at the double-quick if not full out running.
Regards,
Major Gen. Alan Lynn
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA
God Bless <><