missing movement points

[Michael the Pole]

In my current PBEM (where Balto is beating my brains out!) I thought I saw an opportunity to pinch off a German pzgrn division shortly after the invasion of France. My reinforced BEF leapt forward, surrounding the hapless fools at 3:1 with three air armies in support, secure in the knowledge that, if things went south, I could always use my remaining 4 movement points to duck back into the French lines. Imagine my horror (after my units apparently threw a 6 or whatever the current equivalent for utter disaster is) when I discovered that my 4 movement points had completely evaporated (along with 90% of my combat points!)[X(]!
I had never noticed this before, and Balto says he has, but doesn't understand why, either.
Is this a bug, or does someone understand what happened to my poor Brits, who now, of course, sleep with the fishes.

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Mike,
 
There is an attack cost of one AP, but I don't know that it is ever more than one AP.  Am I correct in reading that when you had the red arrow, and clicked on the German unit your BEF was 4-4?  After the battle it was 1-0, or 0-0?  This is curious.  Perhaps Doom can tell what might have happened.
 
Chuck

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear Mike,

There is an attack cost of one AP, but I don't know that it is ever more than one AP.  Am I correct in reading that when you had the red arrow, and clicked on the German unit your BEF was 4-4?  After the battle it was 1-0, or 0-0?  This is curious.  Perhaps Doom can tell what might have happened.

Chuck

That's afirmative, Chuck. Went from 4-4 to 1-0! Not only that, but I had a British motorised division acting in support and it went from 2-4 to 1-0 as well.

[doomtrader]

Attack cost Action Points.
Did they miss that in manual?
 
Or is it something else?
 

[cpdeyoung]

Dear Mike,
 
Are you playing with an unmodified WW2:RtV or are you using Uxbridge's Mod?  He has adjusted ZoC costs, and may well have adjusted AP costs to attack too.
 
Chuck

[Mike Parker]

I admit I haven't checked the manual in detail on this.  But I also have noticed that when you attack it seems the attack costs Vary.  1 AP for an attack is the minimum but I am sure I have lost as many as 5 AP.  It seems to be related to the odds as well as the roll for your casualties.  It makes sense to me so I just assumed that is how it was supposed to be.  I am using no mods just the latest patch.
 

[doomtrader]

Attack cost is related to warfare level

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Dear Mike,

Are you playing with an unmodified WW2:RtV or are you using Uxbridge's Mod?  He has adjusted ZoC costs, and may well have adjusted AP costs to attack too.

Chuck

Chuck, awaiting Balto's correction, as far as I know, the only change we made was to the US line of code in the country.csv file. If Ux has modified zoc costs, I wasn't aware of it and don't think we're using it.
Pan Doomtrader, I had 4 action points when I initiated my attack. My understanding is that an attack burns a single AP. I somehow lost all 3 of the AP I expected to have after the attack resolved. What am I missing here?[&:]

[doomtrader]

What is your warafre level?
 
At level 0 you need 5AP and at level 1 you need 4 AP to perform attack (however you are able to attack with 1AP left)

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

Attack cost is related to warfare level

AH HA! Well. that would explain it, wouldn't it. Is there a chart somewhere that quantifies these variable AP costs? It would be a handy thing to know! (I WAS at level 1.)
Thank you, sir.[&o]

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

What is your warafre level?

At level 0 you need 5AP and at level 1 you need 4 AP to perform attack (however you are able to attack with 1AP left)

Hmmh, this begs for a clarification.

Does that mean that an attack with only 1 AP left is weaker than an attack with 2,3, or 4 APs left?

[cpdeyoung]

So, this is all about making it difficult to make many attacks in a single turn.  Thus if a 12-9 unit starts next to four 1-4 infantry units it will not be able to attack all four, even though you never have to move.  Interesting, and something that, after over five months of play, I did not fully understand.  Thanks, for the clarification.
 
Michael, as I understand it the air units only support the attack by actually making air strikes on the defender, thus allowing better odds on the combat of the ground forces.  I do not believe that their presence, as such, helps in ground combat.
 
Chuck

[doomtrader]

Checked manual and there is no such info [X(]
lvl 0 - 5AP
lvl 1 - 4AP
lvl 2 - 3AP
lvl 3 - 2AP
lvl 4 - 2AP
lvl 5 - 1AP
 
 

Hmmh, this begs for a clarification.

Does that mean that an attack with only 1 AP left is weaker than an attack with 2,3, or 4 APs left?

No and it's WAD

[doomtrader]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

So, this is all about making it difficult to make many attacks in a single turn.  Thus if a 12-9 unit starts next to four 1-4 infantry units it will not be able to attack all four, even though you never have to move.  Interesting, and something that, after over five months of play, I did not fully understand.  Thanks, for the clarification.
Chuck

This is something what should represent bad commanding etc.

[Michael the Pole]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

So, this is all about making it difficult to make many attacks in a single turn.  Thus if a 12-9 unit starts next to four 1-4 infantry units it will not be able to attack all four, even though you never have to move.  Interesting, and something that, after over five months of play, I did not fully understand.  Thanks, for the clarification.

Michael, as I understand it the air units only support the attack by actually making air strikes on the defender, thus allowing better odds on the combat of the ground forces.  I do not believe that their presence, as such, helps in ground combat.

Chuck

Hi Chuck,
Well hasn't this been interesting! As you say, after all this time...
Yeah. I realize that about the air units -- I just meant that I had them available to soften up the poor ba*@$rds before I sent in the Limeys. As it turned out, I'd have been better off playing in the garbage disposal. Kind of reminded me of the first time I tried to tackle Earl Campbell,[>:]
Thanks for the data, Doomtrader. I have no problem with the concept (for once, right?![8|])
Thanks, all