Action Points? Encumbrance? What?

[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?).

[ano]

Edi, I think that second variant is right. At least that is what I noticed and, probably, read somewhere.
It may be easily noticed that very often units who didn't perform attack in the combat round leave those, who did, behind the next round.

[Edi]

ano said:
Edi, I think that second variant is right. At least that is what I noticed and, probably, read somewhere.
It may be easily noticed that very often units who didn't perform attack in the combat round leave those, who did, behind the next round.

That's my suspicion as well, but I have not paid quite enough attention to make a definitive call on it. It would explain a lot, though.

[tombom]

According to the manual, attacking costs all of your total action points and if you've already used some the debt carries over to next round. Not sure how accurate this is.

[thejeff]

It certainly seems to be true. It's most obvious when you're watching your troops run down fleeing enemies. You'll see someone make a long move and attack then not move at all the next turn.

I'm still not quite sure how those AP numbers with Limp add up. Is it possible that Limp is actually half, but the displayed penalty is wrong?

[JimMorrison]

Well and my problem here is rooted in that.

Attacking is supposed to use a full turn of AP, not just what is remaining, but the entire sum, and will subtract from the next turn. This seems to work fine, especially as everyone operates in the same fashion.

What I am trying to figure out, is with 50%(ish ) Quickness, how is that determined? Because Quickness is clearly differentiated from "Haste" in game mechanics. Quickness, in all instances, states that it increases ability to move faster AND attack, while Haste only gives the ability to run farther.


So, here is my dilemma - A human unit with Base AP of 12, Armor Enc leaves him at 9 AP, Quickness puts him at 13 AP - how many AP does it actually end up costing him to attack?

This is really driving me mad, because the behavior I am seeing in SP settings with W9 blessed sacreds - the higher the Base (or Current, after armor etc) AP of a Quickened unit, the more reliably it seems to produce extra attacks - and the lower the AP of the Quickened unit, it starts to produce behavior that more resembles simple Haste.

[Agema]

Well, attacks must cost the 100% AP limit after armour, otherwise heavy infantry (say from base 12 down to 6APs) without quickness would attack every second turn, and they attack every turn. At least as far as I've seen anyway.

I'd imagine 50% quickness could work either as:
1) leaving the armour-adjusted AP cost, just modifying APs.
2) altering the attack AP cost equal to the new quickness-modified AP total
...a) then giving alternate 2 attacks - 1 attack each round.
...b) discounting the attack AP cost (67% in this case) depending on quickness type.

If you're seeing fewer attacks with low AP units, I'd expect you are seeing either (1) or (2a), both being different routes to the same result. This would be because a fast unit could move and afford to attack twice (18APs mean 5APs move and two attacks at 12 each), whereas a slow unit would be more impaired by movement (6APs, only 1 AP free to move for two 4AP attacks.)