From: Portsmouth RI
The way the game works, you start a turn and you look at the half dozen or so areas that are adjacent to enemy held areas. Except for tanks, ground units only move 1 area to get into combat, so in the previous turn, you had to "set up" the units you want to attack with. Tanks can move two, but typically you want them to exploit into enemy held areas to surround other areas, rather than move up from behind.
I think a lot of you are thinking of this interms of games like TAOW and the SSG games where you move units considerable distances to set up attacks. In this game you have to "set up your attacks" teh turn before, so they can move into the enemy held areas in your next turn. So a lot of these "who did I move" problems just don;t occur. You will have deployed your striking forces into the areas you want to attack from using strategic movement teh previos turn. You get your turn back and you see how they weathered enemy counterattacks. Then you see what sort of attacks you can strike ot of your held areas with.
Once you move tactically into enemy areas, you then use strategic movement to set up for the next turns attacks (or to hopefully hold in the face of enemy attacks)
Naval action can involve striking out over several areas, but you typically only have a few fleets and will have had to set up your Sea Lines of Communication so that you either "hit and run" or you have a supply conduit. But since naval units only move tactically, you need supply lined up.
You just don't think in terms of "moving units around" you assemble "Armies" (ie stacks) that you send against other areas. SOmetimes you strike out of an area into multiple others, but in that case you are constatnly mousing over teh area pretty much automatically and can see what has moved and what hasn't.
IT takes a couple games to get used to - but whne you stop thinking about units in typical wargame terms and more like teh old "Hitlers war" game where you had a sheet where you assigned "factors" to each of the maybe dozen counters that appeared on the board, and the goal was not "moving the factors around" but assembling an appropriately balanced force that you sent on a "campaign".
If you think interms of "assembling an rmy to do a certain mission" you find that you see units as resources that you rail around, then strike with in teh next turn, and then backfill for teh next round.
The other thing that is not getting across is teh natur of strategic movement.
When you move strategically (by rail or transport fleet) - your units don't have "movement" - the areas have a transport capcity. Each supply point uses 1, each non-armor unit 5, armor 10 and factories 30 (and get damaged in the process). This means that in that "strategic movement" portion of your turn (you can do it anytime so often you move from one area to attack, and then backfill using strategic movement before you go on to the next attack) you can move a unit as many times as you want, but once all the transport capacity in an area is used up, then you can;t move any units into, out of, or through using strategic movement.
THe thing you watch here is that seond number in the area (the first is number of untis - the second is remaining transport capacity) You don;t care if a unit has moved or not - you can keep moving it as much as you have the capacity to do.
You watch the transport numbers like a hawk, not which units move or how much they move. Sea Transports get "locked" and can't move once they use their capacity, but youcan tell that by inspection by noting if teh transport number has been lowered.
Hopefully that helps get across why individual unit movement and figureing out who has moved and who hasn't just doesn't come up as an issue very often. When it does you typically don;t want to know who moved and who didn't, but which units used a given regions transport capcity and for that I don;t know how you would do it, other than hover the mouse over stacks and look for who had a blue "strategic movement arrow and clik on them to see the route they took.
< Message edited by Paul Vebber -- 3/20/2005 8:09:36 AM >