How can this be correct?

[tcarusil]

I may be missing something obvious, but there is something I do not quite get. Let’s say I have an enemy unit surrounded on 5 sides by units that have all of there movement allowance left. I move another unit to close the circle, but in the process use all of its movement allowance. Now I plan an attack with only the five units that have all of their movement allowance and the result of the attack is that the enemy evaporates. After the battle I have 90% of my turn remaining.

Next, I have the same setup except that instead of closing the gap, I leave it open and run the attack. The enemy unit slips out the gap with say 40% losses and I still have 90% of my turn left.

This does not seem right to me. If the unit that closes the gap uses all of its movement to get to where it blocks the enemy retreat, how can only 90% of the turn be used? The blocking unit, though not participating in the attack clearly has an impact on the outcome, but its movement does not seem to be accounted for. In other words if it took it all of its movement to get to the blocking position, shouldn’t more than 90% of the turn been used.

Or put another way, when the attack occurred and only 90% was used, the blocking unit would not have arrived in position yet. He’d still be at least 80% of his movement away from where he needs to be to block the retreat.

Does any of this make sense? How is this explained? Thanks.

[Panama]

[:D][:D][:D][:D]

Welcome to the world of turn based gaming.

Something could be done to account for what you describe but I have never seen anyone in any game take a poke at it. Try playing GG WiTE. It's even worse there.

[Curtis Lemay]

Fixing it would be very difficult - see the "Time Stamp" suggestion in the Wishlist.

But, in TOAW's defense, note that it has features that mitigate the issue:

1. The defender in the case described wouldn't, normally, have been unsupplied. Therefore, since it was supplied, when it evaporated, a significant fraction of its equipment would return to the On Hand pool. Only if the unit was surrounded in a previous turn would it have been unsupplied, sending all of its losses to the dead pool. In that case, all the surrounding units would begin their turn ready to attack the surrounded unit and none would be late.

2. You chose an extreme example, where the attackers were unmoved, the blocker was out of MPs, and the attack lasted only one round. In the average, TOAW fares better. Remember that the blocker doesn't have to be in position at the beginning of the attack, only at the end of it. So, if the attack lasts several rounds, a blocker that would have been late to the attack could have been on time to block.

[tcarusil]

Units returning to the on Hand Pool is at least some consolation.

I seem to remember a game maybe 10 years ago or so, I can't remember the name, it was a tactical level game and it involved a movement system where you would plot a unit's movement, but the unit would not actually move until you ended your turn. It was very difficult to coordinate getting units to the right place at the right time to join in an attack. That's probably why I can't remember the name.

I have picked up the manual for Battles from the Bulge and watched a tutorial video on that system. It seems to be be more in line with realistic movement, but it also looks like it could be a chore to try and coordinate units. Somewhere in the equation the system, whatever it is has to be enjoyable, and TOAW is certainly enjoyable.

Thanks for your input.

TomC