Slitherine

Is Falling Back a unit-specific move or can anyone perform it? I'm find some units prefer to turn and move as normal. Unless I'm doing something wrong.

Maybe lights can move, others have to fall back.
Also, it seems you can fall back when in a ZOC, even though you can't otherwise move away from the ZOCer.

kdonovan wrote:Maybe lights can move, others have to fall back.

Correct.

Thanks so light units will move as normal and i have to manually change facing afterwards?

jomni wrote:Thanks so light units will move as normal and i have to manually change facing afterwards?

Yep

The cohesion test for falling back is too harsh. It doesn't seem right that units who are almost at full strength should fall from "disrupted" to "routed" just from using the fall back command. Falling back when within enemy charge range seems like something that you should NEVER do on anything but elite units because everyone else always spectacularly fails their cohesion tests.

It would also be useful if the UI indicated when using the command will cause a cohesion test instead of having to guess whether the unit is within charge range.

KateMicucci wrote:It would also be useful if the UI indicated when using the command will cause a cohesion test instead of having to guess whether the unit is within charge range.

I'm pretty sure it does, if you have the relevant bit of the UI switched on? Certainly when I'm playing I get a warning when I mouse-move over the 'fall back' pointer...

KateMicucci wrote:The cohesion test for falling back is too harsh. It doesn't seem right that units who are almost at full strength should fall from "disrupted" to "routed" just from using the fall back command. Falling back when within enemy charge range seems like something that you should NEVER do on anything but elite units because everyone else always spectacularly fails their cohesion tests.

It would also be useful if the UI indicated when using the command will cause a cohesion test instead of having to guess whether the unit is within charge range.

I am petty sure a unit cannot lose two cohesion levels when falling back (of course it could have been shot at by reaction fire in the process perhaps?)
There are no additional mal modifiers for falling back.

TheGrayMouser wrote:

KateMicucci wrote:The cohesion test for falling back is too harsh. It doesn't seem right that units who are almost at full strength should fall from "disrupted" to "routed" just from using the fall back command. Falling back when within enemy charge range seems like something that you should NEVER do on anything but elite units because everyone else always spectacularly fails their cohesion tests.

It would also be useful if the UI indicated when using the command will cause a cohesion test instead of having to guess whether the unit is within charge range.

I am petty sure a unit cannot lose two cohesion levels when falling back

It can if it scores 2 overall (1 in 36 chance if no modifiers apply, 1 in 12 chance if already disrupted, 1 in 6 if disrupted and already lost 25% - all these for Average troops. Superior troops have much lower chance of double drop)

I am petty sure a unit cannot lose two cohesion levels when falling back

It can if it scores 2 overall (1 in 36 chance if no modifiers apply, 1 in 12 chance if already disrupted, 1 in 6 if disrupted and already lost 25%)

AAHH, good to know!

Miletus wrote:

KateMicucci wrote:It would also be useful if the UI indicated when using the command will cause a cohesion test instead of having to guess whether the unit is within charge range.

I'm pretty sure it does, if you have the relevant bit of the UI switched on? Certainly when I'm playing I get a warning when I mouse-move over the 'fall back' pointer...

I don't see anything that indicates whether falling back will cause a cohesion test or not.

Typically, when you select the fall back square, two flags pop up, -- one for fall back and the other for turning.

When you hover over the fall back flag -- read the entire message. It indicates there could be a cohesion loss.

John

That there COULD be. I already know that. I want to know when there's going to be a cohesion test, because it's not always clear when a unit is within enemy charge range.

I would think it says "could" because it is referring to the possibility of a cohesions loss (depends on the random number, etc.) and not whether there "could" be a cohesion test.

nikgaukroger wrote:I would think it says "could" because it is referring to the possibility of a cohesions loss (depends on the random number, etc.) and not whether there "could" be a cohesion test.

Actually KateMicucci is correct that there "could" be a cohesion test. But charge distances are hardly mysterious. Nevertheless, if there is some uncertainty, that is surely more realistic than the alternative.

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:I would think it says "could" because it is referring to the possibility of a cohesions loss (depends on the random number, etc.) and not whether there "could" be a cohesion test.

Actually KateMicucci is correct that there "could" be a cohesion test. But charge distances are hardly mysterious. Nevertheless, if there is some uncertainty, that is surely more realistic than the alternative.

Indeed - I just noticed I was talking rubbish when I was considering a fall back in a game

Personally I'm OK with how it currently is.

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:I would think it says "could" because it is referring to the possibility of a cohesions loss (depends on the random number, etc.) and not whether there "could" be a cohesion test.

Actually KateMicucci is correct that there "could" be a cohesion test. But charge distances are hardly mysterious. Nevertheless, if there is some uncertainty, that is surely more realistic than the alternative.

Not simulating uncertainty so much as tedium.

Just make the fall back flag yellow when falling back is going to cause a cohesion test. I don't see why a more informative UI should be a controversial change? It's a pain to check each of a dozen units when it involves counting AP, diagonal movements and facing, and then even more of a pain when cavalry comes into it.

I've had units drop cohesion tests on fall back even when there was no obvious enemy who could charge them. Or when there was an enemy in "charge range" but they wouldn't actually be able to charge because there were blockers in front of them.

nikgaukroger wrote:Personally I'm OK with how it currently is.

Me too.

Anyway, change the flag to yellow and someone will post about how it's the wrong shade of yellow, or how they would have preferred a cooler colour. A bit like that scene in Reservoir Dogs...

KateMicucci wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:I would think it says "could" because it is referring to the possibility of a cohesions loss (depends on the random number, etc.) and not whether there "could" be a cohesion test.

Actually KateMicucci is correct that there "could" be a cohesion test. But charge distances are hardly mysterious. Nevertheless, if there is some uncertainty, that is surely more realistic than the alternative.

Not simulating uncertainty so much as tedium.

Just make the fall back flag yellow when falling back is going to cause a cohesion test. I don't see why a more informative UI should be a controversial change? It's a pain to check each of a dozen units when it involves counting AP, diagonal movements and facing, and then even more of a pain when cavalry comes into it.

I've had units drop cohesion tests on fall back even when there was no obvious enemy who could charge them. Or when there was an enemy in "charge range" but they wouldn't actually be able to charge because there were blockers in front of them.

One thing that could make implementing a warning difficult is WHEN does the game calculate if a cohesion test is needed. Obviosly if the unit is currently in in a grid that could be charged it needs test.. However, what if said unit is in a grid that it doesn't need to test but the fall back move one grid puts it in a situation? What if falling back one grid the unit is in the clear but the second grid could cause the test!. (to be honest, not sure if you can even fall back if the fall back target grid is "chargable to an enemy unit...) You might need 3 colour codes haha.