Question about movement
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 3:21 am
This is probably a situation where the correct answer is RTFM.
Suppose I want to move an activated stack to a final destination 40 days away. Let's say that to reach the final destination I have to move it across two areas, and that each area will take twenty days to cross.
Is there a difference between giving it a single order to reach the final destination after 40 days (one and a fraction moves), and giving it an order to march across one area for twenty days, and on the next turn giving it a new order to march across the second for twenty days?
In the first case, is the army marching for thirty days in the first turn and only ten in the second, as opposed to marching twenty days and pausing for ten, followed by marching another twenty days and pausing for ten.
I would expect the longer continuous march to impose more wear and tear at the end of thirty days than a march deliberately broken up into two smaller pieces.
Or does the game system automatically break the forty day march into twenty day marches because the unit couldn't get to a new destination after thirty days?
Is one method going to leave the marchers with more cohesion, and/or would one method get the marchers into the destination area at an earlier point in the turn (assuming that that would make any difference in anything).
Suppose I want to move an activated stack to a final destination 40 days away. Let's say that to reach the final destination I have to move it across two areas, and that each area will take twenty days to cross.
Is there a difference between giving it a single order to reach the final destination after 40 days (one and a fraction moves), and giving it an order to march across one area for twenty days, and on the next turn giving it a new order to march across the second for twenty days?
In the first case, is the army marching for thirty days in the first turn and only ten in the second, as opposed to marching twenty days and pausing for ten, followed by marching another twenty days and pausing for ten.
I would expect the longer continuous march to impose more wear and tear at the end of thirty days than a march deliberately broken up into two smaller pieces.
Or does the game system automatically break the forty day march into twenty day marches because the unit couldn't get to a new destination after thirty days?
Is one method going to leave the marchers with more cohesion, and/or would one method get the marchers into the destination area at an earlier point in the turn (assuming that that would make any difference in anything).