Something off with evades?

[hidde]

Recently I've had several cases where LF or LH were set to always evade but didn't do so.
I one case a lancer cav routed one of mine and when pursuing he came in contact with two of my LF.
They were set to always evade and it was his turn. Both stayed put.
Just now a knight of mine charged a LF expecting to chase him off and attack a knight waiting behind.
That the skirmisher stands is surprising whatever orders it have.
Anyone else seen this?

[deeter]

Yes. In nearly every game, some idiot LF fails to evade. Don't know why.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

I've always found that troops evading from pursuers after routing troops is iffy. I haven't figured out the logic but it may be that an evade from a pursuer is only triggered by the front faces of the pursuing unit.

In the TT game, if skirmishers do not want to evade when charged by a non-skirmisher they must pass a CMT if they are in clear terrain. There is no modifier based on the type of non skirmisher charging them. As far as I know, this is the same in FoG PC. If the skirmisher is in any sort of non-clear terrain, no test is required if they are ordered to not evade.

Chris

[hidde]

I've always found that troops evading from pursuers after routing troops is iffy. I haven't figured out the logic but it may be that an evade from a pursuer is only triggered by the front faces of the pursuing unit.
Chris

I can't remember how it was with the lancer and the two LF in the first game.
In the game I'm playing right now the LF actually came in contact first with a knight that charged another enemy BG and the charging knight were not facing the skirmisher.
But then another of my knights charged the LF head on. Earlier it would have evaded because it's not "tied" to the first knight.
Now the same happened to me (divine justice) and the enemy attacker was also not facing my LF. No second charge, though.