News of Wheelock's Latin

is it ever proper to put the vocative word first in a sentence?

Wheelock explains pretty well the word order in a Latin sentence pretty well , assuming no unusual emphasis , but what about the placement of expressions of time?

English to latin translation: Mentam tam/ita celerem habes ut plurima/res plurimas discere sine labore possis. This is the answer in the answer key and I came up with the same thing except I put the infinite verb second from the end before possis. I was stumped by this one. Is there a different emphasis between the two word orders?

sentence in question: Illi identidem in silvas ad suos se recipiebant ac rursus ex silva in nostros impetum faciebant.

teacher's guide translation:Those horsemen were repeatedly retreating into the woods to their own men and then again from thje woods, making an attack against our men.

I came up with the same thing but I said ..... retreating into the woods to their own men THEMSELVES...

I couldn't figure out what do with the se word. ...

Whhelock does not touch on this to any great degree and so I have learned the importance of word order regarding emphasis from other sources. Once I learned this I found my English to Latin translations in the workbook matched the answer key most of the time. When I don't do a translation correctly I don't know if I am missing Wheelock's intentions or if, in these cases, the word really is not important and ...

In chapter 9 Wheelock mentions that hic and ille can both mean 'he' but can iste also be used this way? Is there a difference in meaning or emphasis as compared to using 'is' to mean he?

Ubi cupit eos metu aut miseriacordia moveri, metu aut misericordia oppressi terrentur aut flent

teacher's guide translation: When he wishes them to be moved by fear or pity, they are terrified, overcome by fear, or they weep, overcome by pity. I had an awful time with the second clause(after the comma). I wnet back and re-read Wheelock's chapter on participles and I feel I understand the concepts but this sentence really stumped me. I understand ...

You will not be feared either by your citizens or by your enemies.

My translation: A aut civibus aut hostibus tuis non timeberis. Wheelock's translation adds another 'a' before hostibus; does this really change the translation?

Wheelock does not make clear( at least to me) when to translate the imperfect as a simple past tense. In many of the answer keys he translates the imperfect as a past when I can't figure out why. There must be some grammar nuance that I am missing.

When this is added to the end of a word it adds a syllable. Do the usual rules apply as to which syllable receives the accent?