Is there any reason why M13 moves are not included in Pacto? It does seem particularly harsh on Drilled infantry.

It was included as one of the simplifications for Pacto.  It arguably is harsh on drilled infantry, but I struggle to find examples of infantry falling back in good order in front of an enemy in accounts of ancient battles.  Caesar attempted it in Gaul and it went badly wrong...

That said we will look at it.  I am wary of introducing too much into Pacto that it turns back into Maximus...

Richard

Thanks Richard.
Simplifying for Pacto makes sense as I guess its designed primarily for new players. We came to it after playing quite a bit of Maximus (in fact MeG since launch) and found that the lack of fallback availability did end up making us more cautious to advance infantry knowing that there was no way back other than turning, which inevitably exposes a flank or rear to the enemy. 

Bill

We want to ensure the games are not too long so I would err on not brining those in.  They are generous in maximus even.

S

Perhaps it could be included as a optional rule similar to the suggestion for Ambushes and Flank Marches. So you would have the main Pacto version of MeG remaining simplified but with options to include rules have been excluded, such as infantry fallbacks. New players would have a version of Pacto as an entry level to MeG and more experienced players could add optional rules if they wanted. It saves individually 'house ruling' parts players want to add back in.

I think leaving it out is valid; especially when you have the stand-alone rules then there is no confusion about what is missing and what is not. I find if I just concentrate on the QRS for PACTO it limits my options so I don't worry about what the unit could do in other iterations. [Just a little miffed about my Egyptian spear units with supporting bowmen in front not being able to exchange ranks to avoid a charge on the bow ].

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 02, 2022, 04:11:00 PM
(...) I struggle to find examples of infantry falling back in good order in front of an enemy in accounts of ancient battles.  Caesar attempted it in Gaul and it went badly wrong... (...)

I think you shouldn't use such argument when it is in the main game...
Especially that most of us here surely know the "inverted crescent" tactics, which is exactly falling back with the center infantry under the pressure of the enemy to draw him deep and then encircle from the flanks with cavalry.

But even if you wouldn't want to simulate the famous Hannibal moves, then fall back is a tool that greatly helps correcting mistakes in deployment. It was during my second Pacto battle that I thought "WTF I can't fall back with my infantry?" It's not a simplification - it's a bug. ;-) Which puts newbies into irreparable situations.

You know - if someone went through the whole rulebook, his brain didn't melt and he still wanted to play the game, then he would surely be able to comprehend such simple rule.