Bug ? Disengagement and MP

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Bug ? Disengagement and MP

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great >> Bug ? Disengagement and MP

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Bug ? Disengagement and MP - 2/21/2010 10:38:30 PM

Gribeauval

Posts: 242
Joined: 9/6/2009
Status: offline

According to the rules, disengagement costs all the unit's MP.
I have disengaged two cavalry units and after their disengagement, they both had some MP left and they could move further.
Is it not a bug ?

Post #: 1

RE: Bug ? Disengagement and MP - 2/22/2010 1:07:57 PM

jackx

Posts: 353
Joined: 7/8/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

Don't think it's a bug, at least it's been that way in PG as well and it works well to simulate the ebb and flow of a cavalry battle...

_____________________________

no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be ... no peace

(in reply to Gribeauval)

Post #: 2

RE: Bug ? Disengagement and MP - 2/24/2010 3:12:19 AM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

IMO Calvary should have the option to disengage with available MP points , seems logical.

When and if the engine moves on to later eras as the AWI I would like to see the rule covering rifle units as well, at least a restricted variation.

_____________________________

(in reply to jackx)

Post #: 3

RE: Bug ? Disengagement and MP - 2/24/2010 6:33:17 AM

Sumter

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline

I agree with Sarge. Cavalry and light troops should have some capacity to decline combat with any unit possessing less movement capacity than themselves.

(in reply to Sarge)

Post #: 4

RE: Bug ? Disengagement and MP - 2/24/2010 9:37:42 AM

jackx

Posts: 353
Joined: 7/8/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline

Well, skirmishers already get the option to disengage and fire, provided the target is still in range and LOS... so you can fall back, rally cheap, and fire without risk of return fire (normally), and all without disruption, too.
What I'd be wanting most with regard to skirmishers/lights in the AWI is the option to initiate assault combat...

_____________________________

no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be ... no peace

(in reply to Sumter)

Post #: 5

RE: Bug ? Disengagement and MP - 2/24/2010 3:36:54 PM

AlAmos

Posts: 32
Joined: 9/27/2009
Status: offline

"What I'd be wanting most with regard to skirmishers/lights in the AWI is the option to initiate assault combat... "

Definitely, especially considering Indians would be in this group, and we have historical evidence they closed for hand to scalp combat, from time to time.

_____________________________

Al Amos
U.S. Postal Letter Carrier
"Serving Tulsa one address at a time."

(in reply to jackx)

Post #: 6

RE: Bug ? Disengagement and MP - 2/25/2010 12:10:37 AM

Sumter

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline

On a related note, the AWI will need provision for mounted infantry for the southern campaigns.

(in reply to AlAmos)

Post #: 7

RE: Bug ? Disengagement and MP - 3/4/2010 4:10:08 AM

Sarge

Posts: 2841
Joined: 3/1/2003
From: ask doggie
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jackx

Well, skirmishers already get the option to disengage and fire, provided the target is still in range and LOS...� so you can fall back, rally cheap, and fire without risk of return fire (normally), and all without disruption, too.�
What I'd be wanting most with regard to skirmishers/lights in the AWI is the option to initiate assault combat...

As the rules are now the attacker get no terrain mod when fired upon in assault, that would need tweaking or putting light/skirmishers exposed like that would result in slaughter .

_____________________________

(in reply to jackx)

Post #: 8