Fall back cohesion test conditions

[MVP7]

Personally I wish that the chance of cohesion failure was greater for Fall Back, setting aside my wish for it to cause nearby units to test.

It would practically cease to be a real option if it had that bad odds and severe consequences.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Frankly it really shouldn't be used as often as it is. Historically it frequently led to total disaster.

[Blastom1016]

Frankly it really shouldn't be used as often as it is. Historically it frequently led to total disaster.

There's always another option, at least in game - you can just turn your bg around and walks on the next turn - if the enemy cannot charge your bg, it's free to go, as ZOC won't stop a bg walking away.

[76mm]

There's always another option, at least in game - you can just turn your bg around and walks on the next turn - if the enemy cannot charge your bg, it's free to go, as ZOC won't stop a bg walking away.

Yeah, but realistically this is the kind of maneuver which seems like should trigger a cohesion check, since they are turning their backs to the enemy and, for all they know, getting ready to flee the battlefield--at least when units back up they are keeping the pointy end towards the enemy!

But in the game seems like that would be a nightmare to deal with...

[devoncop]

There's always another option, at least in game - you can just turn your bg around and walks on the next turn - if the enemy cannot charge your bg, it's free to go, as ZOC won't stop a bg walking away.

Yeah, but realistically this is the kind of maneuver which seems like should trigger a cohesion check, since they are turning their backs to the enemy and, for all they know, getting ready to flee the battlefield--at least when units back up they are keeping the pointy end towards the enemy!

But in the game seems like that would be a nightmare to deal with...

Was the "fake retreat" not successfully used several times as a way of drawing enemies out of strong defensive positions ? ...Hastings comes to mind but there were several others....At Agrigentum in 262BC the Carthaginians under Hanno also did it go the Romans.

[MVP7]

Fake retreats were used pretty often by various horse nomad peoples with varying success. It was usually more about pulling and isolating a part of the enemy army to ambush rather than small scale tactical maneuver.

[devoncop]

Fake retreats were used pretty often by various horse nomad peoples with varying success. It was usually more about pulling and isolating a part of the enemy army to ambush rather than small scale tactical maneuver.

Hastings was an exact example of a small scale tactical manouvre non nomad/horse archer type use of course.

[Blastom1016]

Fake retreats were used pretty often by various horse nomad peoples with varying success. It was usually more about pulling and isolating a part of the enemy army to ambush rather than small scale tactical maneuver.

I think lots of Chinese tales, including the romance of three kingdoms, told stories about a whole army fake retreated to lead the enemy into an ambush position or to lure them away from protecting assets.

[rbodleyscott]

Personally I wish that the chance of cohesion failure was greater for Fall Back, setting aside my wish for it to cause nearby units to test.

As I say, much of the design is a compromise between hard core realism and what some of the target audience is likely to accept.

Fallback moves don't exist at all in the Tabletop version of FOG.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Along with the examples of successful lures and ambushes there are also examples of what was supposed to be a lure turning into a collapse and rout. But as Richard says, this is a design compromise unlikely to change, so I'll have to accept things as they are.

[jomni]

Fake retreats were used pretty often by various horse nomad peoples with varying success. It was usually more about pulling and isolating a part of the enemy army to ambush rather than small scale tactical maneuver.

I think lots of Chinese tales, including the romance of three kingdoms, told stories about a whole army fake retreated to lead the enemy into an ambush position or to lure them away from protecting assets.

But game wise, I imagine this as the units pulling back from the enemy several squares away, not a turn-around when close.

[Blastom1016]

Fake retreats were used pretty often by various horse nomad peoples with varying success. It was usually more about pulling and isolating a part of the enemy army to ambush rather than small scale tactical maneuver.

I think lots of Chinese tales, including the romance of three kingdoms, told stories about a whole army fake retreated to lead the enemy into an ambush position or to lure them away from protecting assets.

But game wise, I imagine this as the units pulling back from the enemy several squares away, not a turn-around when close.

Probably more like routed. There's some other stories - when the enemy started to retreat, the army was eager to pursue. But the tactician found that though the enemy ran fast, they still kept a proper cohesion, so he knew it's the enemy's trick and stopped the pursue.

[MVP7]

I was a bit vague in what I meant mentioning the horse nomad tactics. What I mean is that there's a big difference between falling pack a few hundred paces at walking pace compared to full speed feigned rout that looks convincing enough to fool the enemy. I don't think the former would be anywhere near as likely to cause widespread panic in the rest of the army as the latter.

With the fall-back distance being what it is I don't think it's really even possible to do a feigned retreat with the fall back movement. Evasion and breaking out of combat for cavalry is more fitting for that and seems much more like the kind of risky maneuver that could easily cause panic. Of course adding a cohesion test to cavalry evasion and fallback would make cavalry armies struggle even more and is not really an option unless the entire cavalry stickiness and melee performance is increased to portray the cavalry fighting on a bit higher level: The repeated charging, probing, pushing and evading would be happening mostly at at the square level and evading or falling back would be a more major regroup (I wouldn't be opposed to this ).

I think the odds of cohesion loss being the same when falling back with enemy unit 2 squares away rather than 1 is a bit much. Maybe the chance of cohesion loss could be reduced at 2 square distance for steady units but chance of double drop increased significantly for disrupted units at 1 and 2 square distance. This would increase the likelihood of misunderstanding spreading panic to surrounding units in situations where its most feasible without making the fall back ability virtually useless.

[Blastom1016]

I was a bit vague in what I meant mentioning the horse nomad tactics. What I mean is that there's a big difference between falling pack a few hundred paces at walking pace compared to full speed feigned rout that looks convincing enough to fool the enemy. I don't think the former would be anywhere near as likely to cause widespread panic in the rest of the army as the latter.

With the fall-back distance being what it is I don't think it's really even possible to do a feigned retreat with the fall back movement. Evasion and breaking out of combat for cavalry is more fitting for that and seems much more like the kind of risky maneuver that could easily cause panic. Of course adding a cohesion test to cavalry evasion and fallback would make cavalry armies struggle even more and is not really an option unless the entire cavalry stickiness and melee performance is increased to portray the cavalry fighting on a bit higher level: The repeated charging, probing, pushing and evading would be happening mostly at at the square level and evading or falling back would be a more major regroup (I wouldn't be opposed to this ).

I think the odds of cohesion loss being the same when falling back with enemy unit 2 squares away rather than 1 is a bit much. Maybe the chance of cohesion loss could be reduced at 2 square distance for steady units but chance of double drop increased significantly for disrupted units at 1 and 2 square distance. This would increase the likelihood of misunderstanding spreading panic to surrounding units in situations where its most feasible without making the fall back ability virtually useless.

I think it’s depending on troop type. Maneuver able troops like cavalry and legions can simply about face, move backward and then turn back, which is easy to execute.
To them, it only turns the back line as front line in retreat.

While unmaneuverable formations, with pikes steak across ranks, pike on front and shot on back or too large to pass order to everyone, cannot simply turn back line as front line. They should have some trouble to coordinate a maneuver like whole formation back move.
Maybe they shouldn’t be able to fall back. Or have penalty on cohesion when doing that.

Just some options, I’m content with current settings, and mainly use fallback for positioning before contact.

Some other note, I’ve found, is that light horses can essentially prevent the enemy from adjusting formation due by forcing cohesion test on fallback. Not sure if light foots can do the same, even though they cannot charge.

[rbodleyscott]

Some other note, I’ve found, is that light horses can essentially prevent the enemy from adjusting formation due by forcing cohesion test on fallback. Not sure if light foots can do the same, even though they cannot charge.

Light Horse and Light Foot do not cause a Falling Back unit to take a Cohesion Test.

[Blastom1016]

Some other note, I’ve found, is that light horses can essentially prevent the enemy from adjusting formation due by forcing cohesion test on fallback. Not sure if light foots can do the same, even though they cannot charge.

Light Horse and Light Foot do not cause a Falling Back unit to take a Cohesion Test.

Then I think there must be some other situations caused my archer became disrupted. Have completely figured out the details.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I was a bit vague in what I meant mentioning the horse nomad tactics. What I mean is that there's a big difference between falling pack a few hundred paces at walking pace compared to full speed feigned rout that looks convincing enough to fool the enemy. I don't think the former would be anywhere near as likely to cause widespread panic in the rest of the army as the latter.

With the fall-back distance being what it is I don't think it's really even possible to do a feigned retreat with the fall back movement. Evasion and breaking out of combat for cavalry is more fitting for that and seems much more like the kind of risky maneuver that could easily cause panic. Of course adding a cohesion test to cavalry evasion and fallback would make cavalry armies struggle even more and is not really an option unless the entire cavalry stickiness and melee performance is increased to portray the cavalry fighting on a bit higher level: The repeated charging, probing, pushing and evading would be happening mostly at at the square level and evading or falling back would be a more major regroup (I wouldn't be opposed to this ).

I think the odds of cohesion loss being the same when falling back with enemy unit 2 squares away rather than 1 is a bit much. Maybe the chance of cohesion loss could be reduced at 2 square distance for steady units but chance of double drop increased significantly for disrupted units at 1 and 2 square distance. This would increase the likelihood of misunderstanding spreading panic to surrounding units in situations where its most feasible without making the fall back ability virtually useless.

See, I'm of the opposite opinion where I think the test distance should be increased to 3/4 squares for enemy infantry and 7/8 for horse.

[General Shapur]

A feigned retreat would have to be a pre arranged tactic. I doubt it could be co-ordinated on the hop. It would be good to be able to do that in game but the only way I could think how to do it would be higher priced versions of the units that don't suffer fallback penalties. That could certainly add the required surprise and the opponent wouldn't necessarily know - only suspect due to lack of fallback failures.

[Blastom1016]

I found the enemy units has a smaller angle on forcing fallback test than zoc.
I just retreated an irregular from spearmen's secondary zoc like below, no cohesion test taken.

aa.png (4.92 KiB) Viewed 3087 times

[sIg3b]

I found the enemy units has a smaller angle on forcing fallback test than zoc.
I just retreated an irregular from spearmen's secondary zoc like below, no cohesion test taken.
aa.png

This sounds like a bug.