Anyone else ever had the game crash this way?

[Herr Straße Laufer]

I don't see what is unreal about assaulting an empty hex when the assault was set up when the hex was still occupied. I think in real life many a building was assaulted only to find out the defenders had abandoned it a minute before.

Because it is no longer an assault when you do it?
It is technically MOVEMENT into an empty hex?

In the game you happen to have a choice (at least in Talonsoft) go through with the assault (and lose extra action points) or cancel it or move in normally and receive possible op fire and have action points to fire back. All nothing wrong with that and my initial question was technical, not ethical.

Technical smecknical. It is gamey. If that is an ethical puzzle for some, then so be it.
I was all for playing a game. I was not as much in the crowd that wanted to forsake playablility for what others believed was more realism?

Maybe it is realistic that assaults don't receive op fire. It is one of the benefits of assaulting and currently it is how the game works. The hex being empty is totally irrelevant because it was occupied when the assault was set up so therefore it cannot be gamey to carry out the assault.
I would suggest we keep the discussion limited to the technical side of the game crash.

Claiming the hex became vacant and therefore the assault was valid is not even logical, let alone "realistic". Logic would say that movement into a hex is movement and assaulting an enemy unit is an assault.
Technically, I think Umbro has it right. It is a product of the version 1.04 changes that were to add "realism" to assaults?

Now, I guess, we can see some benefit to extreme assault? It takes away the gaminess of assaulting into an empty hex? :smoke:

RR