Fall back cohesion test conditions

[Blastom1016]

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).

Screen_00000010.jpg (922.63 KiB) Viewed 3102 times

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?

[rbodleyscott]

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.

[Blastom1016]

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.

So it doesn't always test? What's the chance for the test? Probably not so dangerous as I think.

[rbodleyscott]

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.

So it doesn't always test? What's the chance for the test? Probably not so dangerous as I think.

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]

I see. It’s still awesome to kite with horse archers.

[jomni]

What do the numbers mean?

[rbodleyscott]

What do the numbers mean?

They mean that the fallback move uses 10 AP out of 10.

[sIg3b]

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.

So it doesn't always test? What's the chance for the test? Probably not so dangerous as I think.

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.

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.

[SnuggleBunnies]

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.

[sIg3b]

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.

I actually don´t care if the rule is generous with fallbackers or not; I am just against any vagueness in principle.

Also, I did read this as the manual not being completely precise about when a test will or won´t happen.

[76mm]

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.

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"?

[TheGrayMouser]

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.

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"?

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 too

[Blastom1016]

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"?

From my observation, it won't be triggered in both situations.

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

[sIg3b]

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"?

From my observation, it won't be triggered in both situations.

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

Agree; also how about enemies facing away? Would be weird if they can trigger a morale test.

[rbodleyscott]

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"?

From my observation, it won't be triggered in both situations.

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

Agree; also how about enemies facing away? Would be weird if they can trigger a morale test.

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.

It is not that they are afraid of being caught by a charge, it is the demoralising effect of apparently beginning a retreat.

[General Shapur]

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.

[rbodleyscott]

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.

Agreed. But it is a deliberate design decision because not allowing it would be too hard core for many of the target audience.

[Morbio]

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.

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!

[TheGrayMouser]

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.

[SnuggleBunnies]

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.