Move, then attack--or attack, then move?

[Heldenkaiser]

Two forces hostile to one another (A1 and B1) co-exist in a region (1), both on defensive posture. One force (A1) wants to move into an adjacent region (2), then attack another hostile force (B2) there. Can it do so by plotting a move and simultaneously changing to offensive posture? Or will that make it attack the hostile force in the region of origin (A1), rather than in the target region (A2)? So that to achieve its goal it would have to move off while being in defensive posture, then change into offensive posture next turn?

If so, should there be something like a "delayed" change of posture? A combined "move first, then change to attack" order?

Thanks!

[runyan99]

You will attack both the enemy in the region of origin and the region of destination.

Limitation of the engine and the 15/30 day turns. You are telling the unit in question to be aggressive for the full turn. Best perhaps to use defensive posture when in doubt.

[Heldenkaiser]

Thank you--I rather thought so. Maybe something that could be improved upon so to allow just a tad more finetuning of the behaviour?

Afterall, the absolutely feasible order "general, you will slip away over the river and attack the enemy encampment there" does not necessarily have to include "... after having attacked the enemy on this side as well", nor "... next month", or?

[Jabberwock]

AACW has an evade combat special order which can be used to tell a stack "only initiate a fight at the destination". Don't know about BOA.