Zoc?

[Wodin]

Ive read a few times about people complaining about ZOC and gamey tactics.

I also read that some people play without ZOC checked in the rules.

If Im playing against the AI should I have the box checked or not?

Thanks

[trauth116]

I think there is an article somewhere on effects of the optional rules- which iirc was either a post on these boards-- or more probably off of Glenn's unofficial PzC site. (Don't have the link atm) -- also I think it might depend upon the game being played as well.

E.G. - that in Normandy 44 - without the interlocking ZoCs rule being used it is far to easy to swarm the relatively limited German defenders and isolate them.

[lezgo killemall]

i noticed that both games i have have different alt rules checked, so for solo game play i am sticking w/ what they have selected.

[Cabron66]

Ive read a few times about people complaining about ZOC and gamey tactics.

I also read that some people play without ZOC checked in the rules.

If Im playing against the AI should I have the box checked or not?

Thanks

Unfortunately, the locking ZOC is a bit of a hangover from the board game days that can be used by less scrupulous players in questionable ways.

For example, with locking zones of control on, it is possible to defend a hex without actually being in it. Since you cannot assault into a unit's ZOC and cannot move into another unit's ZOC, it is possible to position your units in such a way that a critical hex can be defended indefinitely without actually placing a unit in it. Needless to say, this can be a real source of tension, if for example, one player defends a critical bridge hex using this gamey tactic.

As a general rule, If I can break my battalions down into companies I don't use locking ZOC. If I cannot then I am forced to use them and must simply play a little more honestly. :)

Not using locking ZOCs will allow your units to move through ZOCs at the cost of their full turn of movement. IMO this is infinitely more realistic and avoids the kinds of problems that a hex-based engine like PzC can be vulnerable to.

Cheers

Paul

[trauth116]

Having a fair bit of experience in the "old style boardgames" - I think the statement about locking ZoCs is a gross oversimplification. There are boardgames that treat ZoCs differently - and different unit types have differing ZoCs - as well as differing nationalities. Some games have ZoCs for unit facings and differing effects...

Yeh you can defend a hex without actually having your counter in it - but then again maybe a unit is meant to effect more than just the phyiscal hex it is actually in --- wouldn't that compell one to -still- take out that defender? I don't understand how exactly that is gamey - in that a counter, its placement, and ZoC rules are an abstraction of the effect of a particular unit as a whole.

Some games -only certain size units have ZoCs- some games -have different movement costs depending upon the type of unit moving through - it is all at the discretion of the designer ( and mind you I am talking about wargames in general - not this specific series). Some games - weather conditions effect ZoCs... basically passing off the ZoC as some uniform effect implies a basic-ness in designs - that -aside from the most simplistic gaming system - is not even an accurate statement.

[Glenn Saunders]

Ive read a few times about people complaining about ZOC and gamey tactics.

I also read that some people play without ZOC checked in the rules.

If Im playing against the AI should I have the box checked or not?



We re-evaluated Locking ZOCs during the test of MG44 both from a HTH and AI POV and determined there was less gamey lock up of units by ZOCs from weak units with it OFF. Since then I believe all the newer titles have Locking ZOCs OFF and I think we've set this OFF in the Default Optional Rules too. I just did a bunch of test loads back all the way to Sicily and its off.

Be sure your using the latest ver from the HPS website and when you start a new Scn - press the DEFAULT button on the Optional Rules dialog and check it.

Glenn

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The fact of the matter is that Locking ZOCs in PzC makes defending generally more difficult, because it makes surrounding and trapping units more easy.

The article about optional rules is at Glenn's site: http://members.shaw.ca/gcsaunders/PzC_Options.html

[RickyB]

...
Not using locking ZOCs will allow your units to move through ZOCs at the cost of their full turn of movement. IMO this is infinitely more realistic and avoids the kinds of problems that a hex-based engine like PzC can be vulnerable to.

Cheers

Paul
Hi Paul,

Actually, this isn't quite true, depending on the game. With locking ZOC off, movement through enemy ZOCs is still impossible in most games, unless the destination is occupied by a friendly unit, in which case it does take the entire movement allowance for the turn, and only that single hex of movement can be made. However, a few games, such as Tobruk and El Alamein have settings that allow this type of movement at a cost of a multiple of the regular movement cost, so units can move between multiple enemy ZOCs in a single turn.

Regards
Rick

[Cabron66]

stuff

Fascinating.

ZOC is most definitely an abstraction that has its foundation in one of the inherent weaknesses of the hex and counter style of wargame. That being, the counter can inhabit only one hex and cannot generally be broken down into smaller units. I think most gamers are aware of this so I will not go into more detail.

Of course, in reality, a unit could be ordered to defend or attack on vastly varying frontages or could be broken down into smaller units and could exert influence over a wider area. Hex-based board games have wrestled with this for years and have come up with solutions that go from idiotic to inventive.

Unfortunately, all of the solutions suffer from one inevitable flaw. They are abstractions. They can come closer to reality, but can never actually arrive at it. In truth, even up to modern day, most computer wargames still do not make a serious effort to try to overcome these old problems.

Why not? I am not sure. My opinion is that there is a sort of "old guard" in the wargaming community that refuses to let go of its hex-based favourites, but of course, that is just an opinion. Maybe it is just human nature to resist change? Maybe a lot of the old wargame conventions just became sort of entrenched to the point where most gamers do not even consider them anymore? Who knows?

Cheers

Paul