Not all attacks cost 1 action point

[pjg100]

The manual states that an attack always costs one AP. However, I have noticed that sometimes an attack by a land unit does not cost any APs. FREX, recently I attacked a low-strength Polish CAV with a GE army that had moved two hexes, so had one AP left. It attacked, then was able to move one additional hex. WAD? If so, what are the conditions under which an attack does not cost any AP?

[BillRunacre]

If you're able to repeat this please could you post the occasion, e.g. if it's in the first turn, and how it can be repeated, or if you have a saved turn where it can be repeated then we would be interested to take a look.

[pjg100]

I've noticed it several different times at various points in the game over the past several months. Yesterday, it occurred on turn 1, GE army in Breslau moved to 107/39 (after the tanks had eliminated the Polish army there), attacked the CAV in 108/40, and lost no AP in doing so. It still had two APs, so moved up adjacent Warsaw. I did it again this morning on the same turn with the same GE army, this time moving one hex and using the attack on the Polish army, which had retreated one hex following a strike by the tanks.

[HamburgerMeat]

I have noticed it as well, usually when the attacker takes less damage than the defender (though not always). Was not sure if this was supposed to be a "breakthrough" mechanic of some sort, but it sounds like it is unintended.

However, I think it is intentional that ground and naval units who have 0 ap but have not attacked can still attack (provided they are in range) right?

[Cpuncher]

I assume it's not the "Blitz Attack" mechanic (page 121 of the manual) that doesn't cost AP that you guys are talking about.

However, the game does have AP cost issues when in bad weather. Mountain and some other terrain often cost 1 AP during bad weather and I haven't been able to track down what makes that happen.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks for the report pjg100, and after investigating this further, it does look like this has unfortunately been in the game right from the very first releases several years ago.

We are considering options, but at the moment are more inclined to simply leave it as is. Don't get us wrong, we always want to fix inconsistencies, but amending this now could possibly change the tempo and flow of the game dramatically and that's not something we would want either, e.g. "fixing" this whereby you would now be losing an extra action point for every move and attack is not without consequence to game play.

In the meantime we'll keep thinking on it.

[crispy131313]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks for the report pjg100, and after investigating this further, it does look like this has unfortunately been in the game right from the very first releases several years ago.

We are considering options, but at the moment are more inclined to simply leave it as is. Don't get us wrong, we always want to fix inconsistencies, but amending this now could possibly change the tempo and flow of the game dramatically and that's not something we would want either, e.g. "fixing" this whereby you would now be losing an extra action point for every move and attack is not without consequence to game play.

In the meantime we'll keep thinking on it.

I think this is the right approach. It would change the tempo entirely.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks for the report pjg100, and after investigating this further, it does look like this has unfortunately been in the game right from the very first releases several years ago.

We are considering options, but at the moment are more inclined to simply leave it as is. Don't get us wrong, we always want to fix inconsistencies, but amending this now could possibly change the tempo and flow of the game dramatically and that's not something we would want either, e.g. "fixing" this whereby you would now be losing an extra action point for every move and attack is not without consequence to game play.

In the meantime we'll keep thinking on it.

But isn't that what most have been asking for anyway? To slow the game down with the smaller map?

[Christolos]

If it is to be left as it is, at least for now, could we get an explanation as to what exact conditions allow it to happen, so it has some predictability that can be understood and used by both sides...or does it just happen randomly?

C

[pjg100]

It appears to happen when the defender takes a loss and the attacker does not. However, I haven't tested whether this is consistently true or there are additional conditions that must be met in order for that proposition to be true, so you may want to test it under varying conditions.

FWIW, I think it should be left as is. I think that this marginally speeds the game up under conditions approximating a "breakthrough" situation, and makes the game more fun to play.

[HamburgerMeat]

It can happen when the attacker takes a loss as well, though it doesn't appear to be consistent. Maybe it is affected by the weather in some way?

[BillRunacre]

It's to do with moving a unit then attacking, if you don't de-select the unit before the attack then the AP cost is not what it should be.

[Hubert Cater]

Example #1:

- Move one hex that costs 1 AP, deselect, select again and attack, total AP cost is 2 AP

OR

- Move one hex that costs 1 AP, do not deselect, e.g. attack while still selected, total AP cost is 1 AP


Example #2:

- Move one hex that costs 3 AP, deselect, select again and attack, total AP cost is 4 AP

OR

- Move one hex that costs 3 AP, do not deselect, e.g. attack while still selected, total AP cost is 3 AP



Essentially you lose 1 AP less in these move, followed by combat examples, from what you really should be when you do not deselect.

However, since it is very likely most players do not deselect prior to a purposeful move/combat sequence, if we were to introduce a "fix" to cost you an extra 1 AP, as it should cost you, it can likely have a significant effect on just how the game plays, and how it has been played so far.

Thus our hesitation at the moment to change it.

[DaveS]

A "fix" appears to be more trouble...
Maybe just change the manual to account for the extra MP.
It really is a risk/reward move for rushing into an attack, it could be blunted.
A purposeful move/combat sequence is thinking ahead.
I've played both ways during a game, deselect/continuous movement, never really noticed. I should read the manual closer.

[pjg100]

If it is simply an artifact of whether the player deselects before attacking then it would be my preference to have it changed, either to always cost the attacker 1 AP or to something more like a breakthrough mechanism in which the attacker only loses an AP for attacking under certain circumstances. I can see scenarios in which you would want to move a unit into attack position, then move another unit - possibly to cut off a retreat route, or to lift FOW further ahead, etc. -- then attack with the first unit. Why should this sequence be penalized? I can also see scenarios in which simple mistakes in unit movement sequencing could lead to frustration. Given that armies only have 3/4 AP to begin with, this is a non-trivial issue. Of course, this assumes that the fix would be a rifle shot not a blunderbuss - don't know how difficult or how tailored it would be.

Anyway, it's good to know how the mechanic actually works. Won't hinder my enjoyment of the game.

[Hubert Cater]

This could potentially be semantics, but moving a unit and deselecting it does not technically penalize you since this is the way it should work, e.g. this part of the mechanism is accurate and any "fix" or change that would possibly be considered is to simply have a move/attack without deselection cost you the same.

Initially I wrote above you gain 1 AP, but really you lose one AP less from the error and I amended my response above to reflect that.

In terms of frustration from the examples you've provided, I can halfway see the point, and I only say this as the game has literally worked this way since the first day of the War in Europe release, over 3 years ago, and has only just been caught now etc. Sure, now that we see how it works one might be counting those APs more closely, but at the same time, there have been zero complaints about this mechanic for over 3 years as no one even knew there was an issue, e.g. that's how subtle and unnoticeable it has been.

The fear really is that if we change it now, it will be very noticeable in game and we are not sure that is what we really want at this point.

For an example, most attacks on Poland and France are probably to the point of muscle memory for long time players. Trying that now with a purposeful move, deselect, and then attack for each unit move to use all APs as you should (e.g. to mimic what the "fix" would implement) is likely to play out very differently. Perhaps trying a game up until the Fall of France by doing this and one can have a better idea of the potential concerns here.

[Christolos]

Interesting discussion.

If we are to think of it as not gaining an AP but rather losing one if a unit is deselected, we could think of it as merely losing attack momentum/initiative. I.e., as though hesitating before an attack delays the attack long enough as to not be able to happen within the timeframe of the same turn. Of course, pjg100 makes a good point about wanting to coordinate with/move other units in place/scout ahead before attacking, but not being able to do this could perhaps also be thought of as one unit charging ahead alone and attacking alone not to lose an AP...


I imagine the same thing happens in SC-WiE and in SC-WWI, right?

C

[HamburgerMeat]

If it is to remain for the time being, perhaps it would be best to remove the AP loss on attack for now while the issue is still under consideration?

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Christolos

I imagine the same thing happens in SC-WiE and in SC-WWI, right?

Yes, this is the same for all games since day one. pjg100 definitely wins the prize here for finding this after so many years.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

This could potentially be semantics, but moving a unit and deselecting it does not technically penalize you since this is the way it should work, e.g. this part of the mechanism is accurate and any "fix" or change that would possibly be considered is to simply have a move/attack without deselection cost you the same.

Initially I wrote above you gain 1 AP, but really you lose one AP less from the error and I amended my response above to reflect that.

In terms of frustration from the examples you've provided, I can halfway see the point, and I only say this as the game has literally worked this way since the first day of the War in Europe release, over 3 years ago, and has only just been caught now etc. Sure, now that we see how it works one might be counting those APs more closely, but at the same time, there have been zero complaints about this mechanic for over 3 years as no one even knew there was an issue, e.g. that's how subtle and unnoticeable it has been.

The fear really is that if we change it now, it will be very noticeable in game and we are not sure that is what we really want at this point.

For an example, most attacks on Poland and France are probably to the point of muscle memory for long time players. Trying that now with a purposeful move, deselect, and then attack for each unit move to use all APs as you should (e.g. to mimic what the "fix" would implement) is likely to play out very differently. Perhaps trying a game up until the Fall of France by doing this and one can have a better idea of the potential concerns here.

But again people complain you can capture Poland in one turn and this would slow that down. I'm all for this fix especially if it can be exploited by players. Having to learn new things for people set in their ways? People are also having to relearn not being able to reveal every unit on a coast with ships which has only made the game better. What is the difference? To me it would refresh the series and like the ship scouting change would only improve the series.