Action Points? Encumbrance? What?

[JimMorrison]

Well, I can't find a thread discussing the discrepancies in Action Points anywhere on this forum - I find that odd.

This has bugged me for quite some time. I realize, there MAY be some correlation to Encumbrance, but this fact is not listed in the manual (where it discusses Encumbrance, or Action Points), nor in the FAQ anywhere.

First, Mictlan Warrior (Yellow):
Base AP: 12, Enc 4, AP: 11 (This is what makes me thing Enc has something to do with it.)

Second, Mictlan Warrior (Yellow):
Base AP: 12, Enc 4, Limp (-4), AP: 5 (11 - 4 = 5?)

Next, Mictlan Warrior (Green):
Base AP: 12, Enc 6, AP: 9

And, Mictlan Warrior (Green):
Base AP: 12, Enc 6, Limp (-4), AP: 4

Now, the sacreds-

Jaguar Warrior:
Base AP: 12, Enc 4, AP: 11 (Same as above, Limp puts it at 5)

Jaguar Warrior with W9 Bless:
Base AP: 12, Enc 4, AP: 16 (With Limp AP = 7)



Now one of the strangest parts of this to me, is that in just about every instance in the game, even .2 gets rounded up. Yet here we see a unit with 11 current AP getting +50% from a bless = 5.5, but only gaining 5 rather than 6. Now, if the units are still using their base AP for attacks, so attacked take 12 AP, the bless is in fact only giving +33% more attacks, which is significantly less of a gain than +50%.

If the mechanic does have something to do with Encumbrance, I would have to suggest that it be removed altogether. Regular units already are given AP that is intended to be balanced, but then high armor infantry with low AP get further penalized? Quickness is already used infrequently in spell form, perhaps this would make it more competitive with Body Ethereal as a combat buff. And lastly, I believe the reason that Water bless is not valued more, is because this mechanic greatly reduces the effect. It seems 4/5 people would rather take a Fire bless, and now that I am looking more deeply at the numbers, I can see why. This isn't just a simple limiting of overall choice, either, some nations simply get much more attractive/efficient pretender choices in Water, and some nations don't get a pretender that starts with Fire at all.


Oh and I just closed the battle I was getting my numbers from..... My prophet, from strategic view, shows Base AP: 12, Current AP: 13.... Enc 6 and Battle Fright. O.o

[chrispedersen]

Jim, I have always found the calculation of ap, hp,etc to have a little juju in it. It rarely matches what I *think* its supposed to be.

I figure some of its bugs - and just pray the bugs average out for all players.

[JimMorrison]

Well, there is a philosophical standpoint to it, sure.

Where it bothers me is when W9 blessed units only get a few, or even 1 bonus AP, rather than their full 50%. The base can be whatever it wants to be, right? But in some cases the bless is of very little effect - and unless there is something I am totally unaware of - far from WAD.

[MaxWilson]

Jim,

As nearly as I can tell, your post relies implicitly on the assumption that attacking always costs 12 AP. I don't think this is correct. As near as I can tell, attacking costs your full movement allowance, after accounting for armor but before counting Quickness. Units with a Limp still attack once per round. I keep fairly careful track of these things because I'm into zero-net-encumbrance units that stay at the same fatigue levels for 20-30 rounds at a time. If they were attacking less frequently because of armor weight their fatigue would drop, and it doesn't.

-Max

P.S. And yes, AP is definitely affected by encumbrance. You can watch it change as you put armor on a commander. I think this is mentioned in the mod manual.

[Endoperez]

Encumberance effect is very visible with nations such as MA Ulm. Normal infantry has 9 AP, black plate infantry 8, infantry with Tower Shields less than units with similar armor and no shields.

[JimMorrison]

Endoperez said:
Encumberance effect is very visible with nations such as MA Ulm. Normal infantry has 9 AP, black plate infantry 8, infantry with Tower Shields less than units with similar armor and no shields.

Well looking at Ulm now, I see you get 3 Enc for free, and each point after reduces AP by 1.

However, this does not explain why Limp removes 6 AP, or why the Quickness effect religiously rounds down, while nearly every other observable mechanic in the game rounds up.

It very much seemed that my Jaguar Warriors in particular were not attacking as frequently as I am accustomed to, from W9 blessed units. I mean, if it really looks at the "current" AP for how much an attack costs, rather than the base, then how does it differentiate between normal current, and Quick current? I mean with full spell Quickness, you are theoretically at +100% AP, so if a human with 12 base has 18 AP with spell Quickness, does each attack actually take 9 AP? And if it doesn't, then why are we so horribly lied to about the way that Quickness (not Haste, which is only supposed to affect movement, and not attacking) actually works?

Some units all seems fine, and it's seeming to me that the more AP they start with, the better the math works out, to really show the proper frequency of attack. When the starting AP dwindles, it appears to be less reliable - partly because movement takes the normal amount of AP, whether you get what you would expect, or not.

[PvK]

It's not that "you get 3 Enc for free", it's that every unit has a base Enc value, which is the cost in fatigue of attacking. Base Enc does not reduce AP's, and Enc from equipment or age or whatever is added to that to get the total fatigue costs for actions. Most but not all humans have base Enc 3. Non humans may have more or less or zero base Enc. And if you have zero base Enc, you don't incur fatigue by attacking but you do from spellcasting (and equipment encumbrance is added for spellcasting - hence the thread someone created warning about putting marble armor on spellcasters).

Oh, and another thing to factor in is that some use of AP's carry over to the next turn. The typical way this shows up is while someone can always attack once per turn, they can't move as far on a turn after they have attacked.

[ano]

Also blindness lowers AP by smth. about 6 in average. And this isn't stated anywhere.

[JimMorrison]

Also, elephants go from 16 > 8 with a Limp.

I understand how spellcasting encumbrance is greater than melee, that much is shown in a presumably accurate fashion.

I'm just saying that while the inconsistencies may be fine in a general sense, since everyone's units are subject to the same penalties, whether they're the ones we see or not - but I am wondering if perhaps the way that AP costs for attacks are calculated, if perhaps Quickness is not providing the benefit that it claims that it should, and possibly more so for W9/10 Quickness bless, than for spell/item Quickness.


Also, I get it, of course, I didn't think it would be the base Enc that is free, that makes total sense. But the rest of the mechanic seems to be misrepresented at best, and possibly broken in ways that hurt some people more than others.

And good catch Ano. I had noticed that a couple of times, but wasn't concerned with the AP of Blinded units, since they're, well, Blind.

I'm trying to think of a way to make this seem like a fun thing to fix. I know W9 would be really awesome if it worked right. I don't have much material here. >.>

[Edi]

Encumbrance from armor reduces AP unless the unit is mounted, in which case it does not. Base encumbrance has no effect on AP. Limp IIRC cuts AP in half. Crippled cuts AP to 2, no matter the base value.

Attacking uses up all remaining AP for that round, but I'm not certain if it cuts into the AP allowance for movement of the next round (e.g. a unit with 12 base AP moves 6, then attacks, does it cost just the 6, or does it cost 12 and leave only 6 points of AP for movement the next round?).