Fall back cohesion test conditions
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:34 am
Fall back cohesion test conditions
I think I always got the extra "may cause cohesion test" on fallback, while it accurately wouldn't.
The manual says when a unit is within enemy charge reach, it will take a cohesion test.
In this case as all the nearby warbands were engaged, so no one can charge the archers. I retreated them, no cohesion test happened (no hold firm text). I've also got this cohesion test tooltip when the nearest warbands was two tiles away from my archers. They were definitely not possible to charge with 10 ap. I retreated the archers, no cohesion test happened as well.
Is the rule isn't the same as the manual says or something wrong with the tooltip?
The manual says when a unit is within enemy charge reach, it will take a cohesion test.
In this case as all the nearby warbands were engaged, so no one can charge the archers. I retreated them, no cohesion test happened (no hold firm text). I've also got this cohesion test tooltip when the nearest warbands was two tiles away from my archers. They were definitely not possible to charge with 10 ap. I retreated the archers, no cohesion test happened as well.
Is the rule isn't the same as the manual says or something wrong with the tooltip?
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28053
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
The algorithm used does not test for whether the enemy can actually charge, it only tests from them being within their normal charge distance - i.e. 2 squares for most infantry, 4 squares for most cavalry. The logic is that the men in the unit don't think it through in such detail, they just have a chance of panicking if ordered to fall back when they are near the enemy.
The "may cause cohesion test" thing is deliberately intended to leave some uncertainty as to whether the unit will actually test or not. This is because the disasters that occurred historically when units were ordered to fall back and the men panicked were not expected. If we wanted to be completely realistic, nearby units would have to test too, for seeing their friends apparently retreating.
Some of the major disasters of history occurred because some troops were ordered to retreat and the rest of the army panicked.
The "may cause cohesion test" thing is deliberately intended to leave some uncertainty as to whether the unit will actually test or not. This is because the disasters that occurred historically when units were ordered to fall back and the men panicked were not expected. If we wanted to be completely realistic, nearby units would have to test too, for seeing their friends apparently retreating.
Some of the major disasters of history occurred because some troops were ordered to retreat and the rest of the army panicked.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:34 am
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
So it doesn't always test? What's the chance for the test? Probably not so dangerous as I think.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:28 pm The algorithm used does not test for whether the enemy can actually charge, it only tests from them being within their normal charge distance - i.e. 2 squares for most infantry, 4 squares for most cavalry. The logic is that the men in the unit don't think it through in such detail, they just have a chance of panicking if ordered to fall back when they are near the enemy.
The "may cause cohesion test" thing is deliberately intended to leave some uncertainty as to whether the unit will actually test or not. This is because the disasters that occurred historically when units were ordered to fall back and the men panicked were not expected. If we wanted to be completely realistic, nearby units would have to test too, for seeing their friends apparently retreating.
Some of the major disasters of history occurred because some troops were ordered to retreat and the rest of the army panicked.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28053
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
It does always test if the conditions for testing are met, but those conditions have deliberately been left a bit vague, for the reason stated above.Blastom1016 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:35 amSo it doesn't always test? What's the chance for the test? Probably not so dangerous as I think.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:28 pm The algorithm used does not test for whether the enemy can actually charge, it only tests from them being within their normal charge distance - i.e. 2 squares for most infantry, 4 squares for most cavalry. The logic is that the men in the unit don't think it through in such detail, they just have a chance of panicking if ordered to fall back when they are near the enemy.
The "may cause cohesion test" thing is deliberately intended to leave some uncertainty as to whether the unit will actually test or not. This is because the disasters that occurred historically when units were ordered to fall back and the men panicked were not expected. If we wanted to be completely realistic, nearby units would have to test too, for seeing their friends apparently retreating.
Some of the major disasters of history occurred because some troops were ordered to retreat and the rest of the army panicked.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:34 am
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
I see. It’s still awesome to kite with horse archers.
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
What do the numbers mean?
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28053
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
They mean that the fallback move uses 10 AP out of 10.
Richard Bodley Scott
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
Well, this is something I strongly disagree with. Rules should never be vague. Since you can figure it out through trial-and-error, this just gives an unfair advantage to those who take the time to do so.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:54 amIt does always test if the conditions for testing are met, but those conditions have deliberately been left a bit vague, for the reason stated above.Blastom1016 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 1:35 amSo it doesn't always test? What's the chance for the test? Probably not so dangerous as I think.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:28 pm The algorithm used does not test for whether the enemy can actually charge, it only tests from them being within their normal charge distance - i.e. 2 squares for most infantry, 4 squares for most cavalry. The logic is that the men in the unit don't think it through in such detail, they just have a chance of panicking if ordered to fall back when they are near the enemy.
The "may cause cohesion test" thing is deliberately intended to leave some uncertainty as to whether the unit will actually test or not. This is because the disasters that occurred historically when units were ordered to fall back and the men panicked were not expected. If we wanted to be completely realistic, nearby units would have to test too, for seeing their friends apparently retreating.
Some of the major disasters of history occurred because some troops were ordered to retreat and the rest of the army panicked.
-
- Major-General - Jagdtiger
- Posts: 2801
- Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
It's only vague in the sense that it doesn't tell you if it will test. If you're within 2 squares of enemy infantry, or 4 of cavalry, it will test. As Richard pointed out, the fact that ordering a Fall Back doesn't cause nearby friendly units to also test is generous.
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
I actually don´t care if the rule is generous with fallbackers or not; I am just against any vagueness in principle.SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:00 pm It's only vague in the sense that it doesn't tell you if it will test. If you're within 2 squares of enemy infantry, or 4 of cavalry, it will test. As Richard pointed out, the fact that ordering a Fall Back doesn't cause nearby friendly units to also test is generous.
Also, I did read this as the manual not being completely precise about when a test will or won´t happen.
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
So the test applies even if the enemy foot unit within two squares is already in melee? What about if the unit is facing in the wrong direction?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:28 pm The algorithm used does not test for whether the enemy can actually charge, it only tests from them being within their normal charge distance - i.e. 2 squares for most infantry, 4 squares for most cavalry.
AFAIK the test is not triggered in either event, but if not, I don't really understand what it means to say that there is no "test for whether the enemy can actually charge"?
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
There are many reasons a unit cannot charge another unit, including cohesion, priority targets and zoc’s. But it doesn’t matter because a unit using fallback takes a test if infantry is 2 grids away, mounted 4. So does a unit need to test in your samples? I think RBs has given all the hints he cares too76mm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:23 pmSo the test applies even if the enemy foot unit within two squares is already in melee? What about if the unit is facing in the wrong direction?rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:28 pm The algorithm used does not test for whether the enemy can actually charge, it only tests from them being within their normal charge distance - i.e. 2 squares for most infantry, 4 squares for most cavalry.
AFAIK the test is not triggered in either event, but if not, I don't really understand what it means to say that there is no "test for whether the enemy can actually charge"?
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:34 am
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
From my observation, it won't be triggered in both situations.76mm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:23 pm So the test applies even if the enemy foot unit within two squares is already in melee? What about if the unit is facing in the wrong direction?
AFAIK the test is not triggered in either event, but if not, I don't really understand what it means to say that there is no "test for whether the enemy can actually charge"?
It may be tested even when the enemy is blocked by other units, gets speed reduced by rough terrain, gets zoc, etc. It's still vague to me
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
Agree; also how about enemies facing away? Would be weird if they can trigger a morale test.Blastom1016 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:36 amFrom my observation, it won't be triggered in both situations.76mm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:23 pm So the test applies even if the enemy foot unit within two squares is already in melee? What about if the unit is facing in the wrong direction?
AFAIK the test is not triggered in either event, but if not, I don't really understand what it means to say that there is no "test for whether the enemy can actually charge"?
It may be tested even when the enemy is blocked by other units, gets speed reduced by rough terrain, gets zoc, etc. It's still vague to me
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28053
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
I think you are missing the point of the test. The test isn't being caused by the enemy. The test is being caused by the troops panicking when they are ordered to retreat when the enemy is close.sIg3b wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 7:59 pmAgree; also how about enemies facing away? Would be weird if they can trigger a morale test.Blastom1016 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:36 amFrom my observation, it won't be triggered in both situations.76mm wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:23 pm So the test applies even if the enemy foot unit within two squares is already in melee? What about if the unit is facing in the wrong direction?
AFAIK the test is not triggered in either event, but if not, I don't really understand what it means to say that there is no "test for whether the enemy can actually charge"?
It may be tested even when the enemy is blocked by other units, gets speed reduced by rough terrain, gets zoc, etc. It's still vague to me
It is not that they are afraid of being caught by a charge, it is the demoralising effect of apparently beginning a retreat.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:25 pm
- Location: Perth, Australia
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
how you get a phalanx to move backwards in real life with the din of battle etc , without it being disrupted wherever it was would be a very difficult task.
Getting 1000 men with 18 foot pikes to stop at the same time and move backwards then stop at the same time without loosing formation under the best conditions would be - i think not possible. They were designed to be deployed and move forwards - not much else. I think the rules are if anything - too generous.
Getting 1000 men with 18 foot pikes to stop at the same time and move backwards then stop at the same time without loosing formation under the best conditions would be - i think not possible. They were designed to be deployed and move forwards - not much else. I think the rules are if anything - too generous.
Previously - Pete AU (SSG)
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28053
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
Agreed. But it is a deliberate design decision because not allowing it would be too hard core for many of the target audience.General Shapur wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:07 amGetting 1000 men with 18 foot pikes to stop at the same time and move backwards then stop at the same time without loosing formation under the best conditions would be - i think not possible. They were designed to be deployed and move forwards - not much else. I think the rules are if anything - too generous.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
- Location: Wokingham, UK
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
I think in battle there would be less start and stop. The units stop in our games because of the abstraction of playing in turns. Without this then they would tend to move forward until melee, or commanded to stop and move backwards. I agree the change of direction would be a challenge!General Shapur wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 6:07 am how you get a phalanx to move backwards in real life with the din of battle etc , without it being disrupted wherever it was would be a very difficult task.
Getting 1000 men with 18 foot pikes to stop at the same time and move backwards then stop at the same time without loosing formation under the best conditions would be - i think not possible. They were designed to be deployed and move forwards - not much else. I think the rules are if anything - too generous.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
I’m not sure fall back literally means walking backwards. A formation could just do an about face, the rear rankers are now the file leaders and everyone behind just needs to follow.
-
- Major-General - Jagdtiger
- Posts: 2801
- Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am
Re: Fall back cohesion test conditions
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.
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg