Matrix Games Forums

Picture the scene:

One unit stands between you and your pocket.

You have envelloped a bunch of enemy divisions, but a single hex remains between the jaws of your panzer pincers. All you've got left is 3MP in one of your pincer units, so you launch a hasty attack, the enemy unit retreats, and that last hex converts to your control. You havent got enough MP to physically occupy the hex, and the pocket will inevitably be broken next turn, but never mind, the loss in supply and MPs for the trapped enemy units will be fatal, and you will repocket decisively the following turn.

All good, game WAD.

Now, replay that scene, only the final hex between the pincers is empty. There is no enemy unit there. But the enemy has ZOC on the hex from one of the units inside the 'pocket'. In this scenario, you again get to within 1 hex of closing the pocket, and have 3MP left on a panzer, only this time the pocket does not close. There is noone to attack in the target hex, so it remains in enemy hands.

In this scenario, the pocket is easier to form when there is an enemy division between the jaws of your pincers than when there isnt!

Solution: hasty attacks can be launched against empty enemy hexes at the expense of MPs, and the associated attrition.

That hex is "contested" so what would the odds be especially if enemy units from multiple different hexes projected zocs into the hex?

This has always been an issue with many war games - the ability to expend all MPs to move into a hex next to an enemy unit, attack it causing it to retreat, and then being to advance after combat into the hex despite having no MPs left.

Marquo

Yeah, I think an attack against an empty hex should be allowed, for the reasons you state. It doesn't make sense for the defender to be able to control the hex when there is no unit defending, but lose the hex if they have a defender. If a hex adjacent to an enemy is 'controlled', then they must have some forces there and those forces shouldn't be immune to attack.