I have been musing about this for some time.  I don't know how all the other actions would fit (repair, capture, stay, etc.), but would the game devs be open to the idea of maintaining distinct states for movement and action?

By this I mean: as it stands, you can do one of three things only:

1) move

2) attack

3) move then attack 

I propose we allow people to move a unit, but then "save up" the attack for later in the same turn.  This way, you could maneouver many units into the best tactical positions, then fire off all their attacks in strategic sequence.

I think we can disallow "attack then move".

Opinions?

That would be interesting - though is there any benefit from firing off the attacks in sequence after moving that you can't gain one at a time? Or am I misunderstanding how attacks work?

Of primary interest is the fact that attacking from multiple angles in one turn increases the effectiveness of one or more of the attacks.

Secondarily, though, it allows for certain tactical maneouvers that are not possible with the current system.  An example doesn't come to mind, but I am certain there have been times I wished I could move separately from my attack.

As is you can approach the enemy and shoot him, but you can you can't shoot him them move away.  This could be intentional to simulate the surprise effect of an appearing.  There could also (warning feature creep) be a set amount of "time" per unit to do what ever he can in said time.  For instance a really fast vehicle could move, attack, move, to simulate a passing hit and run.

i like your idea Pistos... and i like it a lot because it helps people who are attacking. And attack needs all the help it can get right now, in my opinion.

 The way weewar works now: defense is the best possible thing to do when you and your enemy have the same units+credits.  Attack only works now if you are racing for an enemy base. Or if you outnumber your enemy. Or if you are crazy or confident enough to charge against your enemy artillery (suposing your enemy uses that for defense purpose off course).

I think that's why I always lose.... I tend to attack

same.. I normally run headlong into a poorly thought out fight and end up losing all my units, trying to maintain their numbers (thus losing all my money) then being systematically wiped out from a distance as soon as my opponent saves up for some heavy artillery or a DFA.

Hindsight is wonderful  

We definitely need to make attacking more advantageous.  There has to be some benefit to taking initiative.  As I've said before, one thing that could be done is providing attackers first strike.  The way combat seems to work right now is everyone fires their projectiles all at the same time, even the infantry firing their rifles.  Then everyone waits, has some tea and crumpets, then finally the bullets and cannonballs and missiles and what-have-you find their targets on the opposing sides, and casualties are counted.

You could change the game dynamic (probably for the better) if you make the attacking unit strike FIRST.  For example: 10 infantry sub units (1 infantry unit) vs. 10 infantry sub units.  All 10 attackers shoot first, do their damage.  Say, 4 subunits of damage. Only THEN does the defending unit strike back, but only with *6* subunits to retaliate with.

I just encountered another instance where I want a disconnected move and attack: When you want to swap or rotate unit positions.  Right now, you are penalized for simply shuffling a few units around (they can't attack any more, or they attack without each others' help, etc.)

In my humble opinion, the first strike idea mixed with disconnected attack, would make three main things:

1. All fast/normal troops will work in many cases as authentic artillery, specially if they are at groups.

2. Like Heavy Troopers & Light artillery will turn kind of 'obsolete' .vs. Infantary & Raiders. (think about the credits, the cheapier the best)

3. Even Troopers will problably turn obsolete .vs. Raiders. (hit and run)

(I have something _very_ important to say but I forget twice while reajusting the text... oh my god!) 

So.. I think mixing the dynamic of including both first strike and disconnecting move & attack would benefit the attacking too much. I tought about 3 or 4 cases, and in almost all cases Raider seems to gain too much advantage. Otherwise, just disconnecting the move from attack seems real and give the balanced strength that the offensive players need.

Of course there any many things else which we could consider like "interception/fire rate speed" variable that could be entered in the game to have a chance of defenders fire (in range) when fast troops start the forward move. But I think devs want to keep the game as clean as possible.

 I agree on testing the game with the move and attack disconnected.

I want to repeat what I said earlier: I *don't* think we should allow attack then move.  Attack should always end the unit's actions for that turn.

Maybe for extremely specialized units, they could attack then move, but nearly every unit should not be allowed to do this.

In light of these facts, I don't see a problem.   I don't see how points (1), (2) or (3) hold.

In case it isn't already obvious: I'm also suggesting that it be allowed to perform partial moves.

Example: Unit swap.  If a trooper can move as far as 3 plains hexes, we should be allowed to move it 1 hex, move some other unit onto the hex which the first unit just vacated, then move the original unit onto the hex where the second unit used to be.

I like the disconnected attack idea... first strike to attackers i'm not so sure... i think it would uneven things too much. 

 But about disconnected attacks... i would go a bit more extreme that what Pistos is saying. I would like to see how "Move, attack and Move"  plays too!

Have you guys played Tactical Turn Based Games? (such as X-com, Jagged Alliance, Silent Storm, Email-Xcom. Just to name a few i've played). In there you could do that... you could attack and then move (as long as you had any remaining Action Points to move that is). And they are fun games to play, to me at least! I'm kind curious to see what that would do to weewar... but i think it would give less advantage to the artillery power. at least you could maneuver better and advance faster towards enemy artillery... which is what when attacking someone i think allmost everyone looks for. 

What is so wrong about Hit And Run? Weewar seems like a conventional warfare only game. Why not let people use some guerrilla warfare too? Raiders would win a even stronger part in the game. You could attack and still get out of artillery range or block enemy path or even hide behind other unit. If Heavy Tanks could have some extra armor added (more resistance to everyone) they could be even used as shields for Faster units.

 One thing i allways think about with this kind of moves is: wouldn't that kill some maps? (and only because of that question i like Pistos idea better than my own idea)

I have played Jagged Alliance and a couple of the XComs.  I think I could go for an "action point" system, but attacking should probably take quite a few action points.  Unless you want to start getting into a "quick, weak strikes and slow, powerful strikes" sort of system.  Part of me likes the idea that raiders should be able to do drive-by shootings against infantry on foot.  It only makes sense.  At the same time, you'll definitely want to make sure the unit costs are adjusted appropriately to ensure game balance.  200 may be too inexpensive for Raiders that can do that sort of thing.

One thing is clear from this discussion: players are itching to try some new system rules in beta! 

DHTML XCom..  hmmm   

I don't think hit and run actions would be too bad as long as the infantry was able to fire back during the 'hit'... The raider would still have the advantage of attacking and moving away, but not without the chance of receiving damage itself. I think it would lead to more of a combined arms type of strategy for the game - you couldn't just send troopers out without tanks or raiders with them.

If this were implemented I also think that some sort of tank killing unit would be needed. Perhaps add a hit and run ability to heavy troopers but only when attacking tanks. This would force a combined arms strategy here.

 But we may be getting ahead of ourselves, or well the devs, with the seemingly imminent addition of ships and airpower I have a feeling things are going to get shaken up some...

We may consider giving heavy troopers normal movement.  I'm not sure why they should be slow, other than the possible reason of having literally "heavier" equipment to lug around.  But is that a good reason?   I think we should think of heavy troopers as troopers with more bang.  That doesn't necessarily mean they're carrying more weight around.  Normal troopers could be riflemen, whereas the heavy troopers are the guys with HE grenades, RPGs, frag grenades, etc.  In that case, they should do more damage to infantry as well.  Of course, if these changes were implemented, you'd want to up their cost as well, probably to 150.

If troopers could hide in forests, then you could setup tank ambushes.  But otherwise, I think tanks rightfully have the upper hand on open plains. 

RoamingB: Good point about the infantry being able to fire back at hit-and-run raiders.

I have always thought of heavy troopers as the equivalent of a heavy weapons platoon - mortars, anti-tanks weapons, heavy machine guns, etc. - and let me tell ya, those things are a freakin' pain to lug around. So I understand their slow movement; now if they were more of a mechanized infantry then speeding them up would make sense.

Tanks definitely have an advantage over infantry I agree. I was just trying to come up with a way that would cause you to not just build a bunch of tanks but rather make you send them out with raiders, infantry, etc - the whole combined arms thing 

I think Heavy soldiers have too much power to move faster!!

Okay, I concede on the heavy trooper speed. 

Makes me think: Maybe if we had personnel-carrying vehicles... (humvees, trucks, hovercraft, boats...) 

Yeah!! Boats carrying people + map editor = Beach maps with players coming from sea and others defending the beach!!!

Sweeeet....

Or even using rivers to quickly get places.

roamingb has a point hit and runs would make sense but some of your pieces get damaged in the attack anyways ive had many a time tryin to kill a trooper with atank only to have my tank suicide instead, i think a way to allow all characters to have a separate movement set so maybe one trooper can move back and let a tank go by and then move forward since troopers can move 3 they should be able to go forwrd then backward without having to wait for another turn also i think artillery shoud be allowed one move -to - attack from the base only

Here's another radical idea: Assume we introduce the Action Point system.  Then give every unit type a reload time, measured in action points.  Example: Infantry might have 3 APs per turn.  Moving onto plains hexes might cost 1 AP.  Infantry firing would cost 1 AP.  Reload time: 1 AP.  Meaning, after firing, the infantry would not be able to fire again until it had expended 1 AP doing something else, whether moving or waiting or what have you.  Heavy Artillery might have 2 APs per turn and a reload time of 3 APs.  So, at the beginning of a turn, it could fire (using up 1 AP), but then it would need to use up 3 APs doing something else (waiting, moving, etc.) meaning it wouldn't be able to fire again until the beginning of the turn, 2 turns later.

With a system like this, people can freely mix and match all actions (move, fire, capture, repair), because it would all boil down to simply spending APs.  Capture might take 6 APs for a 3 AP/turn unit. 

but sticking to your ap idea with the trooper he coud only move 2 spaces then fire, the next turn he would have to waste another ap then move 2 or fire again and wait,  but i think the devs could work out a little more inuitive way of using that in the game, also more expensive units can get more ap to make the disconnect move and attack idea also a reality

djdarkstar187: I don't see a problem with it.  If you have decided to engage the enemy with that particular rhythm of attacking your enemy as your final AP, then that's your business.  You simply will not be able to fire with your first AP in the next turn.  It won't hurt you to use a "wait" action on the first AP, then fire on the second AP.  I agree though that this is a bit more complex to get your head around.  However, I think we can give our players a bit of benefit of doubt here regarding their ability grasp concepts.