Right, but my point is that we've already got a fundamentally unrealistic situation—the target remains motionless during the attacker's entire turn, and for that matter the attacker's team's entire turn. This proposal would end up with us acting as if the target is stationary part of the time (if you move or shoot at something else, the target will still be in the same square in the same posture when you finish), but acting as if it's moving at other times (when the attack gets the target-moved penalty). The end result doesn't feel any more realistic to me.
That said, the way combat works now renders such philosophical discussions moot.
~J
For me the turn-based combat system is a presentation of a reality (albeit a virtual, fictious one) where events occur simultaneously, as they would in the real world, it's just the represantation that happens to be turn-based; viewing it any other way would deny player's immersion in to the game world. To that effect, we already have reaction fire, allowing action during the opposition's turn which is a huge step away from purely turn based action.
As a side note I recall that in the original x-com, movement during the opponent's turn was also possible (when a soldier panicked). Seeing it was possible to move, I always wondered why soldiers and aliens alike would not take cover when under fire if they had TU's left, even simply crouch when unexpectedly shot at - or turn to look where the fire came from, if a fellow combatant nearby just recieved a hit.
But then of course it's just a game and not a hard simulation of reality, if you take my meaning, and like any game it's to be taken for what it is and to be played by it's rules which are what they are.
Moot or not, now it's said
