From: NE Pa, USA
Vic.... thanks for the positive response! I appreciate it!
Of course <g>, considering such a system would beg the question as to if units pay a greater AP cost to attack or move into hexes that were part of a combat that was resolved..... would it be to get them up to that level of AP expenditure at the point that they started their current movement.... or at the point they moved into the hex... and IMO it should be the former (yeah, this point is kinda confusing I'm afraid).
IMO a game should motivate a player to do their strategic movement and stuff FIRST, then go to the tactical situations and the first scheme would motivate players to do this. In other words, if you want a unit that is not part of a combat to exploit an area after the combat is resolved, you should move that unit as close as possible to that combat before it is resolved.
The other thing.... and TOAW in fact does a good job on this one... unit cooperation. It's just a point of fact that units under different HQs in general all had their own objectives and did not cooperate in attacks. AGC had it's objectives, and AGN had it's.... and they handled them separately.
In TOAW, this is handled by unit color coding..... allowing some units to cooperate fully, some just giving limited cooperation, while others cannot cooperate at all. But, something like this can be handled easily at the HQ level (e.g. units under the same 1st line HQ can all coorperate fully, units under different 1st line but the same 2nd line HQ can cooperate on a limited level, while units under different 2nd line HQs cannnot cooperate at all) assuming you have a chain of command which AT has and TOAW... does not have.
Hmmmm.... I guess I am hoping you are working on a game that will ultimately replace TOAW. I like TOAW a lot but I do not see the problems that it does have ever getting fixed.
Again, thanks for the positive response!