I know this subject has been debated to death. However, I was just wondering if anybody out there could hazard a guess as to what percentage of players use this optional rule. Also, does anybody have enough experience with it both on and off? It seems this optional rule can stir huge emotions in players. Even with it "on" I've seen large portions of armies "run for the hills!"
(02-16-2015, 06:50 AM)Jgolch Wrote: [ -> ]I know this subject has been debated to death. However, I was just wondering if anybody out there could hazard a guess as to what percentage of players use this optional rule. Also, does anybody have enough experience with it both on and off? It seems this optional rule can stir huge emotions in players. Even with it "on" I've seen large portions of armies "run for the hills!"
I supposed that folks don't want to lose a battle simply because half their army up and runs. Realistic, but not very fun to play if your side has the crappy morale, though this tends to make a battle bloodier than in history due to units staying and fighting longer. I'm ambivalent to its use; played both ways.
I seem to play more often with people that like it on. I don't mind either way, although I do believe it to be more realistic to have it off.
I will help to separate the various actions a player does, attacks were usually done by brigade or division and these would move a bit separated from each other.
By that if one unit routs it surely won't pull half the army away, well unless you made a nice pearl string off low moral units and did not even put some wavebreakers AKA officers in the line, if you pulled that off you deserve to see half your army run away.
I don't mind playing with rout limiting off but if so I insist on having flank morale modifier on. To me it makes sense that if neighboring units can cause you to rout then neighboring units should help then stand firm.
According to BigDuke66 Rout Limiting was used in playtesting. He states this in his posts both on the Civil War titles and the Napoleonic games. This raises the issue of playbalance versus realism. If the scenarios are balanced using Rout Limiting I would think it would be a "no brainer" in competitive play. Why would a guy commit to a full battle Gettysburg PBEM game if a certain rule would skew the balance of the game? I don't know. I guess to each his own. And the debate continues.
I know Christian does a lot of testing on his own, but I don't know that he was actually on playtest teams -I don't have him down for any credits at SDC (which I took directly from the user manuals for each series).
Otoh neither am I for Overland, and I was on that team for 2+ years -so I guess just not being listed on credits is an absolute.
Ok - the thing that strikes me about the conversation is not the validity/invalidity argument -but I guess another way to see it is to know rules' potential impacts on a scenario and design them accordingly. In this case it sounds like a case of adjusting where VP's are earned and for what actions. Some designers take the approach that a scenario is optimised for a certain set of rules (or not tested with others) -the problem can be that sometimes designers forget to mention that part anywhere.
In REN, Rich White took the approach that armies were each sides' objectives with no vp hexes on the map I was never really sure that approach actually worked -in the context of REN, however that isn't really indicative of overall validity. It might have been more about what I was thinking at the time. Of course, too I am a big one for weighted loss scoring systems (one sides losses worth more than the other sides), and well VP juggling as a part of scenario design can be a bit of an art form all its own.
The question, then, for scenario designer (whether it is just brainstorming a design or be smack dab in the middle of working on one), is impacts - the rout limiting thing is an interesting discussion as there were situations when entire flanks bolted.
What do you as a player do to minimize the impact of that occurring? Reserves come to mind -and that then brings in another entirely different discussion - reserves management ( guys who are 'all in' types and just go at a battle with everything that they have usually come out on the wrong end of those battles (which isn't to say that I haven't when trying to use a reserve -and it might just mean that I have my off moments ;). Ok - I won't go any further with reserves apart from saying that I think that they are a big part of the rout limit discussion as well. Lose half your army to a daisy chain rout -better have someone else there to cover that flank (and quickly too.).
@Jgolch
Where did I say that?
Under Rout Limiting in your post on American Civil War titles. Toward the bottom.
The exact quote:
"Also the play testing was conducted with this rule activated, so it would be good to use it as otherwise the effects might be too drastic and far away from what was intended."
From your post on the Napoleonic series rule for Rout Limiting
The exact quote:
"Also the play testing was conducted with this rule activated, so it would be good to use it as otherwise the effects might be too drastic and far away from what was intended."
The sentences are identical but I copied and pasted from both posts. Am I missing something? Did I misinterpret your intent?