Slitherine

Sorry, not sure what to call it when a unit is engaged in melee and falls back... But my question is this: if a unit in melee gets a result that means it is supposed to fall back but cannot because there is a friendly or enemy unit in the space, do it lose a cohesion level instead? Or does it simply not fall back?

76mm wrote:Sorry, not sure what to call it when a unit is engaged in melee and falls back... But my question is this: if a unit in melee gets a result that means it is supposed to fall back but cannot because there is a friendly or enemy unit in the space, do it lose a cohesion level instead? Or does it simply not fall back?

its gone and it dissapears, i am not sure i like that mechanic

76mm wrote:Sorry, not sure what to call it when a unit is engaged in melee and falls back... But my question is this: if a unit in melee gets a result that means it is supposed to fall back but cannot because there is a friendly or enemy unit in the space, do it lose a cohesion level instead? Or does it simply not fall back?

Neither fallbacks (nor pushbacks) force a cohesion test if the unit is unable to do so.

lapdog666 wrote: its gone and it dissapears, i am not sure i like that mechanic

hmm, I think we're talking about different things...

TheGrayMouser wrote:Neither fallbacks (nor pushbacks) force a cohesion test if the unit is unable to do so.

Thanks, good to know. Is that in the manual somewhere, or just something you picked up?

TheGrayMouser wrote:Neither fallbacks (nor pushbacks) force a cohesion test if the unit is unable to do so.

"Thanks, good to know. Is that in the manual somewhere, or just something you picked up?"

The lack of a feature would not be in the manual . That being said I believe some time ago it came up if it should be part of the game mechanic, and the answer was no, partially to avoid the "double buttocks of death" ( which im not 100% sure but took to mean you shouldnt get screwed over twice for only screwing up once)

TheGrayMouser wrote:The lack of a feature would not be in the manual .

Good point!

The way it currently works adds some value to having a second line (or recycling your skirmishers as a support line).

lapdog666 wrote:

76mm wrote:Sorry, not sure what to call it when a unit is engaged in melee and falls back... But my question is this: if a unit in melee gets a result that means it is supposed to fall back but cannot because there is a friendly or enemy unit in the space, do it lose a cohesion level instead? Or does it simply not fall back?

its gone and it dissapears, i am not sure i like that mechanic

That only happens if it is routed.

Just kickin' the can, and none of you good folks know me, but I am one of the oldest members on the "sister" Matrixgames forums, and have always tried to contribute (when possible).

Old, ugly, and retired now, I am a former army Ranger, (U.S.), and come from an army family.
Much "on the ground" experience, and wargaming since Avalon Hill in the late fifties.

I have known a few game designers in my day, and they have always been extremely intelligent, and often reclusive.

I presume to offer an idea....What if a unit takes enough hits to fall back, but is blocked, and cannot?
I dare say that unit would "find a way" to fall back thru a unit, (unless the unit behind them is shoulder to shoulder)..
Rather than taking such losses and just "dissolving", why not allow a percentage of them to join the adjacent friendly units, and "lose" a certain number of their original strength?
Seems this would be a more realistic event than completely dissolving when the path is already blocked to avoid getting off the battlefield?
With no intent to step on any toes, I will never take it personal if told to "mind my own business", lol..

Love this game to pieces!...Bob

m10bob wrote:I presume to offer an idea....What if a unit takes enough hits to fall back, but is blocked, and cannot?
I dare say that unit would "find a way" to fall back thru a unit, (unless the unit behind them is shoulder to shoulder)..
Rather than taking such losses and just "dissolving", why not allow a percentage of them to join the adjacent friendly units, and "lose" a certain number of their original strength?
Seems this would be a more realistic event than completely dissolving when the path is already blocked to avoid getting off the battlefield?
With no intent to step on any toes, I will never take it personal if told to "mind my own business", lol..

But units don't disperse when forced to fall back and unable to do so.

Or do you mean routing units? Routing units are fleeing in panic, not falling back in any sort of order.

So, for example, what would happen wargame-wise if I were to design a Milvian Bridge scenario, where Emperor Maxentius - for reasons best known to himself - defended Rome in front of the Tiber after carefully having destroyed the main bridge which was his only route to safety? Historically his inferior troops appear to have been pushed back, then fell into confusion because they didn't have space to either regroup or escape. Are we saying that units that should be pushed back, but which cannot perform that action because of an impassible river, simply fight on as usual without suffering any penalties?

Odenathus wrote:So, for example, what would happen wargame-wise if I were to design a Milvian Bridge scenario, where Emperor Maxentius - for reasons best known to himself - defended Rome in front of the Tiber after carefully having destroyed the main bridge which was his only route to safety? Historically his inferior troops appear to have been pushed back, then fell into confusion because they didn't have space to either regroup or escape. Are we saying that units that should be pushed back, but which cannot perform that action because of an impassible river, simply fight on as usual without suffering any penalties?

The flip side of that example is when there are no obstacles and you get two pike lines ending up like the sliders on a sound desk because of pushbacks; I'm specifically thinking about the Raphia scenario. In one case, one Macedonian Phalangite unit pushed back an opposing unit of the same type nine times, disrupting it once (from which it rallied while being pushed back) yet it suffered no other penalty. It's the one bit of the game that I find glaringly unhistorical as you get something like:
It would be nice if a unit that is pushed back multiple, consecutive times suffered a penalty.