Slitherine

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Christolos

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

quote:

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.

quote:


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

quote:


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.

quote:

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.