Slitherine

quote:

I was rereading this thread and I agree with the design that Joel described in the game being a combined movement/combat turn-based system in order to increase the enjoyment of the game. Yet DiT's comments are not lost on me either. You need to limit a system to prevent multiple attacks on defenders that defy time and space due to the "activity point" system in play. And I agree with DiT that TOAW's system is too flawed to be implemented in other games due to distortions among widely separated units.

The key, to me, isn't in adjusting the AP levels of the phasing player, but in assigning an "activity point" limit to defending units in the opposing player's turn as well. When a defending unit is attacked, the movement used by the phasing player's attacking units, plus a variable amount of APs due to combat, is expended by both the attacking and defending units. Combat results would be partially a function of the length of time spent engaged with the enemy. Once a defending unit's AP level is expended in the other player's turn, that unit may not be attacked again in that turn. And if there are only a few AP's remaining, any additional attack would have a less extensive result than an initial attack that could use as much time as needed for combat resolution.

So, with this approach, a defending unit that, say, retreats after combat would be using APs to do so which would limit the ability of other phasing units to attack it. This approach also doesn't need any "proximity" or "universal" deduction of APs from other units of the phasing player. It automatically differentiates between attacks that are made by units already in attack position at the beginning of the turn and attacks by units made after making large AP expenditures just to move into contact with the enemy.

This approach would likely require standard AP levels and increments for all units, but different rates of expenditure depending on movement class and terrain (e.g. an AFV would spend less APs to cross a hex than an infantry unit, even though they'd have the same number of APs).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
There is no AP cost for combat, nor for disengaging with the enemy. It's my opinion that there is simply too much movement available after combat. But I guess such is the cost of an effective AI?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffreys
The exception to this is a combat where your advantage is so overwhelming that you get an overrun and do not use up your "action" for the turn.

quote:

But you still use up an attack bullet. If a unit makes a whole series of foverruns in one turn that unit can theoretically run out of attack bullets - and the it takes some turns to build up the attack supplies again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

I started a hotseat game against myself to look at the opening moves and what the Germans have available along with their movement capabilities.  Wow.  It's just amazing how even with the artillery, they can start waaaay back behind the lines, move forward even adjacent to enemy units, fire on a target behind Soviet lines, then move back waaay behind their own lines again.  All without any risk of loss.  Now, the motorized units have double the movement of the artillery units; it's absolutely amazing.