Matrix Games Forums

So,

1. Withdrawing units needs to be seriously looked at.

2. The end of game PBEM needs to be fixed.

3. Supply needs to be clarified

4. Either fix or take out the "PBEM send file" button. It doesn't work as it is now.

Is there a master list of what we would liked fixed. Shouldn't be to long, there aint' that many of us playing this thing. (I might be surprised at the actual #)

These "seem" like small issues that could be readily addressed in a patch, and explained, but only your developer knows for sure.

LarryP might even give this another shot if our resident ghost gets this taken care of.

ORIGINAL: sabre1

LarryP might even give this another shot if our resident ghost gets this taken care of.

Hey, I'm playing Horse & Musket right now from the same developer. Even though I can't read most of the tooltip text for the units that pop up due to fuzziness of text. Both games have great potential.

Ok so new scenario: Carentan in the lower South of the map against JMass.

I moved mechanized infantry next to a town with an enemy engineer unit. No enemy units were around for the first engagement. I wanted to pull back and retreat. I "should" have been able to disengage with mechanized infantry from the direction I came from. I realize this is all anecdotal, but the withdrawing rules/movement whatever is whacked IMHO.

So now in this scenario I'm messed up. No mehcanized infantry to screen the South. Shoot what good is being mechanized when you can't recon in force and disengage when the enemy force is too much. That's why its "mechanized infantry."

The engage and fight till you die/or they die part of this game is annoying.

Where's the dang developer...[>:][:@][8|][&:]

@Larry P.,
Until Michael Cooney posts here, this will be my last.
Horse and Musket, is buried down amongst the plethora of current games, yet not 1 post to here support the newer of the two; despite a chorus of polite shout outs.
It is hard to see the potential of this game when it's treated like abandonware.
Yes we've had a reply from Erik, but the current issues, regarding withdraw need a more definitive response.
There are too many other games calling for my attention, and until then, this one's archived on my drive.
Good luck guys.

Experimenting with withdrawal again, this time with the Djebel El Guessa scenario.

Ordered withdrawals and withdrawals as a result of Assault combat seemed to be working fine in the first few turns then this occured



B/6 Arm Inf (the 0/1 (Attack / Defence) unit in the pic) was set to withdraw in the German assault phase but nothing happened just stayed where it was in an attack posture.

My questions from this situation are

1. Why didn't the unit withdraw 1 hex to the SW then continue its withdrawal to the NW thus avoiding all EZOCs ?

2. If it has stayed in place having been unable to withdraw why is it in Attack posture rather than Defense posture ?

From what I can tell it looks as if a Withdrawal phase just didn't happen with the turn moving straight from the German (with initiative) Assault Resolution phase through the Allied Command phase to the Allied Movement phase (when the screen shot was taken.

Continued the game on through the Allied turn, put B/6 in withdrawal posture but it stayed exactly where it was and was in Attack posture by the next German turn.

The following was in the log for my turn

B/6 Arm Inf's W/D Check Roll+Mod/Qual = 18+10/50
B/6 Arm Inf's W/D Check Roll+Mod/Qual = 69+30/50
B/6 Arm Inf Disruption is now 4

My understanding of Withdrawal is that Quality Checks done as part of withdrawal don't effect in any way the ability to withdraw (though it may make a withdrawal mandatory) only the damage / disruption received in withdrawing and the subsequent length of the withdrawal (defined by the units current level of disruption)


P.S. Agree fully with Agent S and hope to see him back sooner rather than later. I'm also getting close to the point of giving up and moving on to something else.

ORIGINAL: Agent S

@Larry P.,
Until Michael Cooney posts here, this will be my last.
Horse and Musket, is buried down amongst the plethora of current games, yet not 1 post to here support the newer of the two; despite a chorus of polite shout outs.
It is hard to see the potential of this game when it's treated like abandonware.
Yes we've had a reply from Erik, but the current issues, regarding withdraw need a more definitive response.
There are too many other games calling for my attention, and until then, this one's archived on my drive.
Good luck guys.

I agree. Between this Combat Command and Horse & Musket, I'm done with buying anymore games from this company.

Hi Wolfe

1. Why didn't the unit withdraw 1 hex to the SW then continue its withdrawal to the NW thus avoiding all EZOCs ?

I can make a stab at this one. I bet the chosen withdrawal route was SW and the Axis Fog of War units stopped it - hence the 2nd W/D check with a +30 modifier (+20 from withdraw not possible due to EZoCs or Enemy Units and +10 as adjacent enemy-occupied hex with more than 1 unit)

2. If it has stayed in place having been unable to withdraw why is it in Attack posture rather than Defense posture ?

This one I know The game automatically leaves a withdrawing unit (whether it actually withdrew or not) in Attack posture.

Cheers

ORIGINAL: LarryP

ORIGINAL: Agent S
@Larry P.,
Until Michael Cooney posts here, this will be my last.
Horse and Musket, is buried down amongst the plethora of current games, yet not 1 post to here support the newer of the two; despite a chorus of polite shout outs.
It is hard to see the potential of this game when it's treated like abandonware.
Yes we've had a reply from Erik, but the current issues, regarding withdraw need a more definitive response.
There are too many other games calling for my attention, and until then, this one's archived on my drive.
Good luck guys.

I agree. Between this Combat Command and Horse & Musket, I'm done with buying anymore games from this company.

As it stands I won't be buying another Boku game and would not recommend one of their games to anybody. There would have to be a big change in how they operate to change my mind.

As far as I'm aware Boku has 2 games - this one and Horse & Musket - there is nothing going on with either. So what ARE they doing?

Cheers

PirateJock - thanks for your reply

1. Why didn't the unit withdraw 1 hex to the SW then continue its withdrawal to the NW thus avoiding all EZOCs ?

I can make a stab at this one. I bet the chosen withdrawal route was SW and the Axis Fog of War units stopped it - hence the 2nd W/D check with a +30 modifier (+20 from withdraw not possible due to EZoCs or Enemy Units and +10 as adjacent enemy-occupied hex with more than 1 unit)

So this implys that withdrawals have to be made in one straight line, as the unit could have withdrawn 1hex SW then the remainder NW avoiding all EZOCs. If this is the case (i.e. straight line withdrawal) then it is just plain stupid and for me a game breaking bug that needs to be sorted with the upcoming patch

2. If it has stayed in place having been unable to withdraw why is it in Attack posture rather than Defense posture ?

This one I know The game automatically leaves a withdrawing unit (whether it actually withdrew or not) in Attack posture.

Not according to the manual which states "If a unit cannot withdraw due to the presence of EZOCs or enemy units, it takes a Withdrawal Check, assumes a Defensive Posture, and remains in place. It loses any previous Fort Levels."

ORIGINAL: PirateJock

As it stands I won't be buying another Boku game and would not recommend one of their games to anybody. There would have to be a big change in how they operate to change my mind.

Agree totally.

^ YUP!

Original: PirateJock

This one I know The game automatically leaves a withdrawing unit (whether it actually withdrew or not) in Attack posture.

Original: Wolfe

Not according to the manual which states "If a unit cannot withdraw due to the presence of EZOCs or enemy units, it takes a Withdrawal Check, assumes a Defensive Posture, and remains in place. It loses any previous Fort Levels."

That'll teach me to be cocky! I was remembering the next line in the Manual ... "At the end of a Withdrawal, a withdrawing unit automatically assumes an Attack Posture." and fitting that to what had happened.

Cheers

ORIGINAL: PirateJock

Original: PirateJock

This one I know The game automatically leaves a withdrawing unit (whether it actually withdrew or not) in Attack posture.

Original: Wolfe

Not according to the manual which states "If a unit cannot withdraw due to the presence of EZOCs or enemy units, it takes a Withdrawal Check, assumes a Defensive Posture, and remains in place. It loses any previous Fort Levels."

That'll teach me to be cocky! I was remembering the next line in the Manual ... "At the end of a Withdrawal, a withdrawing unit automatically assumes an Attack Posture." and fitting that to what had happened.

Cheers

[:)]

Now the developers are here we'll have it cleared up in no time [:'(]

Here's hoping!

Cheers

ORIGINAL: Wolfe
So this implys that withdrawals have to be made in one straight line.....

You can manually withdraw a unit one hex at a time. It does not have to be in a straight line.
-

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: Wolfe
So this implys that withdrawals have to be made in one straight line.....

You can manually withdraw a unit one hex at a time. It does not have to be in a straight line.
-

Never got the option to do that in the initial withdrawal phase (which didn't seem to actually happen) following the German assault then "Continued the game on through the Allied turn, put B/6 in withdrawal posture but it stayed exactly where it was and was in Attack posture by the next German turn."

It seems to be that once EZOCs get involved things stop working properly.

Sure the devs will clear it up / patch it.

Admittedly I might be missing something, though at this stage I don't really have the enthusiasm to keep experimenting to find out if that is the case.

I'm back from a little trip and doing my studies etc.

Now.... here we go again!

I did warn multiple times before about the risks of withdrawing. This is NOT Panzer General where anyone can just snap-off a unit out of E-ZoC and expect to get away scott-free without a care in the world. As mentioned many times, that is NOT very realistic. At least TOAW ended up moving a step into the right direction with this...

I suppose there could be an arguement about tanks being allowed an easier method to break-off from the enemy, to be honest I'm not a military tactician so I really don't know. It's possible breaking off is a little harder here than it should be, again I don't know because I'm not the Desert Fox.

What I do know is in a real-world situation, breaking off IS SUPPOSED TO BE VERY HARD... and one of the hardest of all movements is infiltration, which is another movement involving moving through E-ZoC.

I will do a little research on my own in this and maybe learn something though...

What I am having problems with is still the combat/movement issues. I completely surrounded 3 stack units ALL the way around San Pieto and assaulted it at least 6 turns before finally capturing the city, and feeding fresh meat into it as units were disrupted. I hit it with all my artillery that was allowed. There was only a PZG unit and Anti-tank unit in the town. It took two turns to take out the antitank unit with ifantry and machinegun units.

Something is not right with that.

I'd like to see the save of what the situation looks like during the assault. Totaly surrounding should give you up to a 50% bonus to your attack for flanking effects, but if the stack you're attacking is in good terrain, has high quality, fortified, time of day... etc.. etc.. it all has its effects.  And then there is the age old method of getting 'Dice Screwed', which is a real-life phenomena in wars.

Let me see if I can ressurrect LarryP and my game. I didn't keep my files with Larry, I don't think, I will check.

JMass might have a copy of the Herkalion scenario we played.

Armor should always be allowed to move. Take damage for moving? Absolutely!