Bug or leftover feature?

[coralsaw]

Hey guys,

Noticed that the old bug (feature?) where a retreated unit attacks, then cancels the attack in order to be able to dig in, was not fixed.

Just a reminder, thx.

/coralsaw

[JJKettunen]

It is a documented feature.

[nemo69]

Ditto. See the manual, section 8.2.9:

A unit may change from Retreated Deployment to Mobile Deployment, if it has sufficient Movement Points remaining to position itself for an Attack or Bombardment against an enemy unit. No such Attack needs to actually be executed, though; the unit may cancel the Attack order after its confirmation of attack eligibility.

[coralsaw]

Thx for the quote guys.

So, what the rules really say is: "Hey, you're not allowed to dig in, but if you attack and cancel, then you're allowed to dig in." Doesn't make much sense, does it? Let alone that the rule is somewhat "plugged"...

IMO, an interface has to be consistent above all. If I have to go through hoops to do an action that is otherwise not allowed, then to me (a long time software developer), this is a low-priority bug.

Regards and thx for the game, keep making it better please.

/coralsaw

[ralphtricky]

ORIGINAL: coralsaw

Thx for the quote guys.

So, what the rules really say is: "Hey, you're not allowed to dig in, but if you attack and cancel, then you're allowed to dig in." Doesn't make much sense, does it? Let alone that the rule is somewhat "plugged"...

IMO, an interface has to be consistent above all. If I have to go through hoops to do an action that is otherwise not allowed, then to me (a long time software developer), this is a low-priority bug.

Regards and thx for the game, keep making it better please.

/coralsaw

It was left in to help cut the differences between Player 1 and Player 2. SOme future release will make the two players more symettrical, and this will go away.

[coralsaw]

Bah, who needs symmetry when there's common sense. 

Thx ralphtrick, appreciated.

/coralsaw