|
Curtis Lemay -> RE: Movement prediction vs actual (1/23/2012 3:49:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doctor Zaius
Finally, if I first evaporate the Northwest-most fixed Arty unit with the adjacent 17th Panzer Div, 39th Rgt, I get the following screenshot.
Two questions:
1) The first entered hex now costs only 2 points instead of 3. It's still enemy-held and still adjacent to an enemy unit though. Is there an extra movement penalty for moving between enemy units?
Let's review the manual (section 11.9.3):
- Enemy Adjacent: 12.5% to 25% of the original Movement Allowance.
This depends on the unit’s Reconnaissance Capability.
This penalty is doubled if the unit is moving from one such location
to another. The cost is assessed upon leaving a hex adjacent
to the enemy, not upon entering it.
- Enemy-Controlled Terrain: Up to 10% of original Movement Allowance.
This depends on the unit’s Reconnaissance Capability.
This cost also applies throughout the entire Turn in which a location
first becomes friendly-controlled.
So, before, your unit was moving from an adjacent location to another. After the enemy unit was destroyed, it wasn't moving from such a location at all. It still had to pay the hex conversion cost, though.
quote:
2) The hex that fooled me the first time (that hex immediately North of the Arty unit outside Brest which predicted as 3, but cost 4) is now back to only 3 (predicted = actual = 3). Why the change from 4 to 3?
It's as I explained in my second paragraph: The unit's recon level mitigates the cost of hex conversion (and I should have said ZOC costs, as well). But, as the unit moves, it expends supply and readiness. That expenditure dynamically lowers the unit's recon level. It appears that if the unit expends three MPs in the first hex, it's recon level is too low to pay only one MP for the adjacent to adjacent penalty, but if the first hex only costs two MPs, it still has enough recon to do so. Hard to believe that expending just one MP could make that difference, but it's possible - you just got unlucky.
Now, you may ask why the estimate isn't sophisticated enough to include the recon adjustments in its estimates. I can only guess that it was either too complicated or wasn't thought of by old Norm. Plus, note that if the unit suffers a disengagement attack, that will radically affect its recon levels in an unpredictable manner. And, of course, fog-of-war may be hiding unseen enemy units that the friendly unit may try to pass - greatly changing the costs. So, trying to account for recon changes may have been considered a pointless task.
quote:
[image]local://upfiles/40556/CC6FBA4601EB4E51BDEF95AA3700BFCA.jpg[/image]
Note that it looks to me like you have No Borders turn OFF, not ON.
|
|
|
|
