About allowing an About face

[CrazyHarborc]

My fellow old farts and I are wondering why...........A medium cav BG in a single line can evade. That evade can include an about face and moving away. However that same unit cannot turn around and move away if it is not an evade move??

Have we old farts missed something here? The evade (which can include a about face) is not beyond the BG. Why is an about face and simple advance not possible?

[rbodleyscott]

My fellow old farts and I are wondering why...........A medium cav BG in a single line can evade. That evade can include an about face and moving away. However that same unit cannot turn around and move away if it is not an evade move??

Have we old farts missed something here? The evade (which can include a about face) is not beyond the BG. Why is an about face and simple advance not possible?

In play-testing, it was found to be too easy to withdraw large chunks of troops if a turn 180 degree and move was allowed. (Too easy compared with historical accounts of battles). Hence the above restriction.

The apparent anomaly re evading goes away if you consider that movement in FOG is intended to be episodic rather than continuous.

In short, ignore the nuts and bolts, the restriction on turning 180 degree and moving gets the overall effect we intend in terms of overall historical simulation.

[hazelbark]

If CV could turn 180 and move they would be super troops.

Historically even quality troops seemed to be aphrensive about the withdrawing even via skirminshing in the face of the enemy.

The authors made a good call here the extra anxeity works.