Logic behind fall back plus other queries

[pantherboy]

1. I'm finding it frustrating with fall back. Why is it permissible to have a double cohesion drop from the single test but it isn't possible from combat or shooting? To have a fresh cavalry unit fall back with no apparent modifiers and go to fragmented seems awfully severe. In addition what constitutes within charge range? I had a disrupted foot regiment within charge range of an enemy cavalry so I charged in between them with my cavalry and engaged his cavalry. I then proceeded to fall back and went straight to routed. There were other units in charge range but they were all engaged with my units from the previous turn.

In truth I think a single cohesion drop is enough of a risk without introducing the chance for a double loss.

2. What is the roll needed for a double loss? Is it 2 or lower?

3. Why are the random battlefields sometimes having major forests in the center of your deployment? I find it hard to believe such terrain was chosen for an open battle. I think you need to examine how terrain is randomly distributed and have an algorithm that prevents some of these battlefields. I can understand them in certain scenarios like attack/defend but not for open battle. Major terrain features like a forest that can contain your entire army would of been anchoring a flank rather than disrupting your battle line.

4. I'm not sure about angled movement as it feels too gamey to slip through battle lines with dragoons or cavalry by attacking on the oblique.

5. Is it possible to have the potential casualty range shown for impact like it does for shooting? Also for melee? Not understanding the exact number of potential casualties weights the game in favor of players who can check the insides of the game engine. The percentage chance to win is useful but not understanding how casualties are exactly calculated denies a player the ability to actually anticipate outcomes unless they are the game designer or a tech savvy individual who can examine the programming.

6. Pertaining to casualties why does melee or impact result in so few casualties to the guns? I think if you win versus artillery they should basically be carried away - straight to rout - regardless of a cohesion test. The gunners will have fled or been cut down.

[rbodleyscott]

1. I'm finding it frustrating with fall back.

It is meant to be risky. It was something to be avoided historically. Excessive use of fall backs would be rather gamey.

Why is it permissible to have a double cohesion drop from the single test but it isn't possible from combat or shooting?

It is possible from close combat.

To have a fresh cavalry unit fall back with no apparent modifiers and go to fragmented seems awfully severe. In addition what constitutes within charge range? I had a disrupted foot regiment within charge range of an enemy cavalry so I charged in between them with my cavalry and engaged his cavalry. I then proceeded to fall back and went straight to routed. There were other units in charge range but they were all engaged with my units from the previous turn.

It is just whether the enemy unit is within the distance, not whether it can actually charge. It represents an illogical panic by the troops, not a logical assessment of the situation.

In truth I think a single cohesion drop is enough of a risk without introducing the chance for a double loss.

Possibly so, but quite severe panics did occur when commanders tried to withdraw troops close to the enemy.

2. What is the roll needed for a double loss? Is it 2 or lower?

Yes

3. Why are the random battlefields sometimes having major forests in the center of your deployment? I find it hard to believe such terrain was chosen for an open battle. I think you need to examine how terrain is randomly distributed and have an algorithm that prevents some of these battlefields. I can understand them in certain scenarios like attack/defend but not for open battle. Major terrain features like a forest that can contain your entire army would of been anchoring a flank rather than disrupting your battle line.

The woods are heavily weighted towards the edges of the map (in fact the vast majority are placed off the edge of the visible map), but nevertheless sometimes occur in the middle. Think of the "battlefield" as being where the final clash actually takes place, not necessarily the whole map.

"Open Battle" really just means not a defensive battle. It includes encounter battles, where the terrain certainly did not always suit a straight up and down battle.

4. I'm not sure about angled movement as it feels too gamey to slip through battle lines with dragoons or cavalry by attacking on the oblique.

The game assumes that there are significant gaps between units placed diagonally to each other - units are assumed not to completely fill their square, so the gap between two units in an oblique line amounts to a whole unit width. To turn your point on its head, it would be gamey if you could hold nearly 1.5 times as much ground with troops placed obliquely than orthogonally.

You might say: Even if there is a gap, it would be too risky for an enemy unit to enter it.

However, if it were prevented, it would be necessary to prevent it for friendly as well as enemy troops otherwise friendly units could wait behind the "gaps" ready to attack out without any danger of being attacked. It would also have to prevent shooting, otherwise units could lurk behind the "gaps", able to shoot out but not able to be charged.

With all these issues, on balance we decided to leave it as it is.

5. Is it possible to have the potential casualty range shown for impact like it does for shooting? Also for melee? Not understanding the exact number of potential casualties weights the game in favor of players who can check the insides of the game engine. The percentage chance to win is useful but not understanding how casualties are exactly calculated denies a player the ability to actually anticipate outcomes unless they are the game designer or a tech savvy individual who can examine the programming.

It could be added, but I am not sure how it would tell you more than the actual chances of winning - which are calculated by running the random part of the close combat resolution 1000 times. These figures tell you more than a casualty range would.

6. Pertaining to casualties why does melee or impact result in so few casualties to the guns? I think if you win versus artillery they should basically be carried away - straight to rout - regardless of a cohesion test. The gunners will have fled or been cut down.

We have been making gradual adjustments to this interaction, and it may need further tweaking in a later patch.

[Miletus]

RBS wrote:
"The woods are heavily weighted towards the edges of the map (in fact the vast majority are placed off the edge of the visible map), but nevertheless sometimes occur in the middle. Think of the "battlefield" as being where the final clash actually takes place, not necessarily the whole map."

Must admit that I also find the random battlefields tend to be a bit too crowded. I don't know whether it might be possible in future releases to specify battlefield type/density of terrain features, as per FoG? I much prefer relatively open terrain for contact battles, so it would be nice to have the option.

Cheers,
Miletus

[rbodleyscott]

Must admit that I also find the random battlefields tend to be a bit too crowded. I don't know whether it might be possible in future releases to specify battlefield type/density of terrain features, as per FoG? I much prefer relatively open terrain for contact battles, so it would be nice to have the option.

Obviously we can consider this as an option, although we feel that we have got the proportions of terrain right for the theatres of war included in the game. Obviously battlefields in the Middle East or the Steppes should be much more open.

In the meantime you could play on wider maps - this won't reduce the proportion of terrain much, but the gaps between terrain features are likely to be larger, and it suits the idea of the map being an area including the battlefield, rather than only the battlefield.

[mceochaidh]

In a recent game, I noticed Determined Horse falling back from a charge into enemy Determined Horse after an adverse impact result. I would think that horse would not be able to break off from enemy horse. Conversely, I have noticed that horse will stay in a melee with foot after adverse results. I would think that horse would withdraw after 1) losing impact and/or 2) after losing a melee from foot. This does happen, though it is difficult to determine what the criteria are.

I also observed an instance where average Determined Horse charged Superior Determined Horse in flank and the Superior Horse was not disrupted. It appeared to be a direct flank charge, but was interrupted by shooting from a musket unit; so the average horse charged, was stopped to receive fire, then completed the charge. Does this negate the flank charge?

[rbodleyscott]

In a recent game, I noticed Determined Horse falling back from a charge into enemy Determined Horse after an adverse impact result. I would think that horse would not be able to break off from enemy horse.

They did so frequently historically.

Determined Horse are shock troops, so both units are shock troops. Mounted can only break off from mounted shock troops if they themselves launched the charge. The charged unit cannot break off if charged by mounted shock troops. (But can from Kurassiers, which are not shock troops).

Conversely, I have noticed that horse will stay in a melee with foot after adverse results. I would think that horse would withdraw after 1) losing impact and/or 2) after losing a melee from foot. This does happen, though it is difficult to determine what the criteria are.

The criteria is how highly the AI rates their chance in the continuing melee or not. If they are disadvantaged they will normally break off.

I also observed an instance where average Determined Horse charged Superior Determined Horse in flank and the Superior Horse was not disrupted. It appeared to be a direct flank charge, but was interrupted by shooting from a musket unit; so the average horse charged, was stopped to receive fire, then completed the charge. Does this negate the flank charge?

It shouldn't do. Bear in mind that a flank charge does not count as a flank charge (even if it contacts the flank) unless the charger started the turn behind the flank. (Or in the case of pursuing routers, started the pursuit behind the new enemy unit's flank).