Not all attacks cost 1 action point

[Hubert Cater]

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.

I think in this case it is not so much about having to learn new things, or even addressing a near universal concern about exploit.

It is more of an anomaly, only now discovered after 3 years of game life. So while from your end you might feel it would be a good thing, generally speaking, to slow things down, I'm not so sure this is more widely felt.

Is this what players generally really want, e.g. less movement and a slowing of the game down?

Keeping in mind for example, that this will potentially be a considerable change and have an impact on the entire game and well beyond Poland, which in Poland's case, arguably, could be addressed in other ways if Poland is such a concern etc.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

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.

I think in this case it is not so much about having to learn new things, or even addressing a near universal concern about exploit.

It is more of an anomaly, only now discovered after 3 years of game life. So while from your end you might feel it would be a good thing, generally speaking, to slow things down, I'm not so sure this is more widely felt.

Is this what players generally really want, e.g. less movement and a slowing of the game down?

Keeping in mind for example, that this will potentially be a considerable change and have an impact on the entire game and well beyond Poland, which in Poland's case, arguably, could be addressed in other ways if Poland is such a concern etc.

Yes it is not just Poland to me it seems most think the Axis are too fast and overpowering in Poland, France, Russia, China, etc...this seems like an easy small fix that would temper things a bit. Instead of for example just adding more allied units that has been done in recent patches.

Is there a way to fix this in the editor to try things out?

[Hubert Cater]

Unfortunately no, there is no setting in the Editor for this. The only way to test this in game is to play by purposefully moving a unit and deselecting it, and then selecting it again for combat. This way it registers the full AP loss for any move/attack sequences.

[stormbringer3]

Does this happen in WiE too?
Thanks.

[Hubert Cater]

Yes, this is a quirk in all the games as it is the same core game engine. Addressing this, which would reduce potential unit movement/mobility by 1 AP for any move/attack sequence without deselection of the unit would then apply to all 3 games, e.g. WiE, WaW, WWI.

This is truthfully why we are hesitant to rush fix this without getting a better handle on possible consequences. For example, what might possibly feel like a good fit for one game, might not necessarily be the same for another and so on.

[Dalwin]

I really think this should be fixed, especially after hearing details of how to take advantage of this bug consistently. If there are undesired changes to tempo something could be tweaked to allow for that, e.g. take a couple of strength points away from the Polish army perhaps.

Increasing mobility of the more mobile units might be a good way to go. Tanks and mech could be given one more AP. Also the mobility unit upgrade is quite expensive compared to other upgrades. The MPP cost of this could be reduced.

I know that my most frequent opponents do not visit this forum, so now I either have to obsess over deselecting the unit every time I want to move and attack, or I get an unfair advantage. To me both of these are worse than the possible tempo changes from fixing the bug. I do often point out subtleties of game mechanics to my opponents out of a sense of fair play, but I fear that in this case, doing so might erode their confidence in the game in general.

[Hubert Cater]

Just to add to the discussion here, there is one additional, and arguably key game mechanic difference in place here that differentiates between the following:

A) a regular move and attack without de-selection

versus

B) move, deselect and then select again and attack

With A), a player moves in boldly and attacks without any further FoW reveal of the map, whereas with B), once you deselect, the unit does a full visual FoW reveal. This can likely in some cases give a player pause on whether they wish to follow through on a planned attack.

It is subtle, but there is a difference, and perhaps it could be argued that in this case, B), when you de-select, that extra AP cost is the price to pay for the full FoW reveal, e.g. the reveal you do not receive under A) where you only lose AP for the move you have made, same as under B) when considering just the unit movement costs alone.

If this is the case, then we can reconsider whether this is truly a bug or not.

I just suggest this because if we "fix" this to have it cost you the same number of AP for either A) or B), then it would actually be more advantageous to do B) whenever you plan to move and attack as it gives you the full FoW reveal prior to an attack.

A) becomes fully disadvantageous even though it is more fluid in game and less tedious to constantly be deselecting a unit prior to an attack.

Generally speaking, we would assume players would want less tedium, e.g. less clicks, in their game play, and right now that exists in game if we acknowledge the differences and keep everything as is.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Just to add to the discussion here, there is one additional, and arguably key game mechanic difference in place here that differentiates between the following:

A) a regular move and attack without de-selection

versus

B) move, deselect and then select again and attack

With A), a player moves in boldly and attacks without any further FoW reveal of the map, whereas with B), once you deselect, the unit does a full visual FoW reveal. This can likely in some cases give a player pause on whether they wish to follow through on a planned attack.

It is subtle, but there is a difference, and perhaps it could be argued that in this case, B), when you de-select, that extra AP cost is the price to pay for the full FoW reveal, e.g. the reveal you do not receive under A) where you only lose AP for the move you have made, same as under B) when considering just the unit movement costs alone.

If this is the case, then we can reconsider whether this is truly a bug or not.

I just suggest this because if we "fix" this to have it cost you the same number of AP for either A) or B), then it would actually be more advantageous to do B) whenever you plan to move and attack as it gives you the full FoW reveal prior to an attack.

A) becomes fully disadvantageous even though it is more fluid in game and less tedious to constantly be deselecting a unit prior to an attack.

Generally speaking, we would assume players would want less tedium, e.g. less clicks, in their game play, and right now that exists in game if we acknowledge the differences and keep everything as is.

Hmm interesting are you saying the game already works this way with FOW unit deselect or that you guys would change it to do this? If it already works that way that certainly does add to the conundrum...

[Dalwin]

It is not as simple as getting the bonus AP because you "rushed in there." You get the same effect of not having deselected the unit whether you go three hexes in one click or go one hex three times without deselecting. All that matters for the bug is that on the last hex moved you do not deselect.

I reject the implied reconnaissance argument.

[Simulacra53]

If it has been in the game since the beginning, keep it in and call it a feature.
Because it was actually a clever design that favors the bold and you just forgot about it.

“Pour les vaincre, messieurs, il nous faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace, et la France est sauvée.” meets “Attaque à outrance“

The decisive player who takes direct action after moving is provided a bonus point.
Generals like the German Von François or Patton would agree.

[:D]

[Hubert Cater]

Hmm interesting are you saying the game already works this way with FOW unit deselect or that you guys would change it to do this? If it already works that way that certainly does add to the conundrum...

Correct, it currently works this way now.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Dalwin

It is not as simple as getting the bonus AP because you "rushed in there." You get the same effect of not having deselected the unit whether you go three hexes in one click or go one hex three times without deselecting. All that matters for the bug is that on the last hex moved you do not deselect.

I reject the implied reconnaissance argument.

When you move 1 hex at a time, the previous hex is considered a committed move where an AP point is deducted, and that previous location will have a fog of war reveal. But the final hex, where you stop moving, does not have a FoW reveal, until you deselect.

It comes down to the final hex where you need to deselect prior to gaining the FoW reveal at that particular hex, and that deselection commits the unit and the final AP cost is deducted.

From just testing this now on my end, as far as I can tell it remains consistent then with what I described in the earlier post on the differences between movements and attacks with my A) and B) examples.


EDIT: One correction to all of this (after testing it again), we did make a change a little while back to eliminate an exploit where players would move one hex at a time to eliminate surprise encounters.

The change made was that whether you moved one hex at a time without deselecting, or one hex at a time with deselecting, the only FoW reveal for your unit moves was only going to be to the very first hex you moved to. Any subsequent hexes moved to after that would not provide any further FoW lifted information and this is currently how it works in game as well. In this case, I would think it reinforces the key differences in the game mechanics of A) and B) even further.

[Hubert Cater]

ORIGINAL: Simulacra53

If it has been in the game since the beginning, keep it in and call it a feature.
Because it was actually a clever design that favors the bold and you just forgot about it.

“Pour les vaincre, messieurs, il nous faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace, et la France est sauvée.” meets “Attaque à outrance“

The decisive player who takes direct action after moving is provided a bonus point.
Generals like the German Von François or Patton would agree.

[:D]

At this point I would agree as there is also the distinct possibility this was the intention all along from our design end.

This part of the code was implemented over 3 years ago, and from what I can tell hasn't been touched since then, and if I'm going to be completely honest I can't really remember at this point. There is over 250,000 lines of code for the game now and sometimes we lose track of things and forget to mention them in the manual, or just figure if it ever comes up we can explain it as not everything necessarily goes into the manual and so on.

As mentioned previously, this is the first time it has been noticed/called out, in over 3 years, e.g. since initial release of War in Europe, so I really can't say for sure one way or the other, but all things considered now, officially considering it a game mechanic going forward works for us.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

ORIGINAL: Dalwin

It is not as simple as getting the bonus AP because you "rushed in there." You get the same effect of not having deselected the unit whether you go three hexes in one click or go one hex three times without deselecting. All that matters for the bug is that on the last hex moved you do not deselect.

I reject the implied reconnaissance argument.

When you move 1 hex at a time, the previous hex is considered a committed move where an AP point is deducted, and that previous location will have a fog of war reveal. But the final hex, where you stop moving, does not have a FoW reveal, until you deselect.

It comes down to the final hex where you need to deselect prior to gaining the FoW reveal at that particular hex, and that deselection commits the unit and the final AP cost is deducted.

From just testing this now on my end, as far as I can tell it remains consistent then with what I described in the earlier post on the differences between movements and attacks with my A) and B) examples.


EDIT: One correction to all of this (after testing it again), we did make a change a little while back to eliminate an exploit where players would move one hex at a time to eliminate surprise encounters.

The change made was that whether you moved one hex at a time without deselecting, or one hex at a time with deselecting, the only FoW reveal for your unit moves was only going to be to the very first hex you moved to. Any subsequent hexes moved to after that would not provide any further FoW lifted information and this is currently how it works in game as well. In this case, I would think it reinforces the key differences in the game mechanics of A) and B) even further.

This now makes me question why FOW is revealed with deselecting in the first place? Why is it just not removed per AP move period deselecting or not? If it was then the bug could be fixed.

Ah I see now above to prevent the one move at a time FOW exploit. Well damn it sounds like you cannot fix the AP move issue without breaking the FOW move issue? Yep quite the conundrum so maybe it is best to leave as is.

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks Tanaka

[Cpuncher]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

As mentioned previously, this is the first time it has been noticed/called out, in over 3 years, e.g. since initial release of War in Europe, so I really can't say for sure one way or the other, but all things considered now, officially considering it a game mechanic going forward works for us.

Honestly, I don't know how the rest of you guys study the manual and play this game. The reason this is only called out in 3 years, is perhaps many players like me, have always regarded this mechanic by design. The menu does mention the special mechanic of "Blitz Attack". Although it doesn't mention specifically that this doesn't cost AP, it's quite implied as it's called "Blitz Attack". I have always used this mechanic since the very first time I played this game, and this has always been part of my planing phase when I map out the entire attack sequence in each area/war front, before I make the first move.

Changing this will dramatically change the pace of this game, and will impact the Axis most. If we do want to make this game to resemble the historical outcome more closely, then it might be worth trying. However, without this mechanic the game will feel far less dynamic and can be frustrating to play.

[David Hansen]

WIE "feature" also?

[Hubert Cater]

Yes, the same for WiE, WaW and WWI.

[Dalwin]

There are other cases in the UI where deselecting on the last AP has an effect that is probably not intended. For example, if a transport arrives at a port (level 5+) on its last AP, it can still unload that same turn. The transported unit is even allowed to move (and if you don't deselect, it can even attack).

The problem is that if that transport which is arriving on its last AP is deselected (probably by accident), it then loses its ability to unload on the same turn. Worse still, it is now blocking the port if there had been other transports in range. It seem hard for me to believe that this behavior is intentional. A problem having gone unnoticed does not make it less of a problem. Either it is right or it is wrong.

[Simulacra53]

Call that a feature too, it is the decisive invasion mechanism.
Mars favors the bold.

[:D]