Perceptions: Zones of Control

[CptCav]

[Dog Soldier]

[Mike Bowen]

Its most of teh above my problem is size.

Why should 1 man exert a ZOFC the same as 72 Tigers or whatever. In the Napoleonic games hexes have a zofc number that affects a units disruption results square changes etc IIRC.

Now IF (and I know it will not happen) we had something similar with 3 levels of ZofC eg none fluid and locking based upon total factors exerted into a hex by the enemy life would be more realistic but I think for years to come we just have to accept that this is the best we will get (and in case I up set anyone) this is by far and away the best system we have IMO.

Mike

[Dog Soldier]

That is an very interesting concept Mike. How would you factor in the one man in that hex with a radio connected to 4 batteries of artillery? Like all games every man in our armies carries a radio implanted in his head to call on air strikes and artillery.

Again I have to stress the concept of ZOC in PzC is an abstract, not a tactical absolute concept.

Mike's example of a small force still exerting the ZOC equal to a more powerful force can be explained, ( in some measure), by:

1. This is an operational game not a tactical one, even thought there are some tactical elements. Thus FOW theory would hold that our units do not know as much as we know. That area where the one man sits, could contain 72 Tigers concealed in ambush. (Or in the B44 game all German tanks were reported as Tigers by retreating and shocked American troops the first few days.)

2. In game terms a weak force could appear stronger than it is, but during your next turn this weak force will have It's ZOC quickly removed by your attacks.

3. Remember that a in a two hour turn the sequence of events should be considered blurred a little from the hard sequence we observe as a game mechanic. those reinforcements that arrived in the enemy's turn could have, (in reality) arrived during your attacks. If games could be more realistic, then a mechanism for both sides moving at the same time would be needed. Movement costs, ZOC etc. try to simulate the actual effect of movement being slowed by moves that do not occur until the next players turn. I could argue that a group of T-34's, and mech infantry would not sit still while a few German flak guns run through a breech in the line and surround them. Proper placement of units behind your main lines (when you have the units) will over come some of the negative effects of a turn based system. As players, we just have to compensate for those effects.

Dog Soldier

[Mike Bowen]

The radio point is I think mute as you can not do that anyway although that would be a neat idea to have the ability to call in defensive artillery fire rather than have the AI do it for you or rather not where you want.

I know its abstract but given the question first asked this was just a comment on that. I stress again this is the best we have and its fine the abstractations work but it might some day be worth looking at some areas and this was a thought for the future.

I also think fog of war could give the 1st number of the 100s there is a big difference between 900 and 100 men

I agree you get rid of the weak force quickly most times but they can hold you up beyond what seems reasonable but it is a reasonable model of a cautious commander SNAFU etc.

I agree about the problems of IGO UGO and agree the only answer is WEGO one day we may get PZ Camp II with WEGO which would be very good

Matrix have a WEGO game that may appear sometime and it might be interesting to compare and contrast BUT PC in my view is eassy to play and that is worth a lot of abstract detail.

Mike
Mike

[Landser34]

Two new Zone of Control rules i would like to see

1) In the old AH games Panzer Blitz, Panzer Leader a Armor unit could preform a overun assault where if sucessful would advance past the unit assualted and leave it in place and not just push it back one hex just to do it all over the next turn.

2 ) In the Attack a unit shoould be able to move between two units in the attack but use all its movement because in alot of these games you have companys or platoons in each hex they would have hard enoughtime to defend the Hex that they occupy much less controling another hex to keep a enemy unit from moving into it.

These in my humble opinion would make game more realistic
just my two cents

[CptCav]

[Dog Soldier]

If I understand you correctly CptCav, you think a more fluid ZOC is required in all PzC titles since the attackers are too weak to make much headway under the default ZOC rules?

I find that conclusion a little wrong, IMHO. Just my personal observation on the PzC series...the offense is the strongest part of the game. This is mainly due to the AI running the defensive phase. The Igo Ugo turn based system requires extra foresight for the defender than the attacker.

Momentum is everything in PzC. the defender must not only inflict casualties and try to hold ground, he must wear down the attacker or usurp that momentum in a selected sector.

The tactic of sending a small unit to surround defenders only works if the defender does not has a reserve to counterattack such units. Esp. in low light days, this can lead to a lot of small units dieing. Air and artillery can blast some small units off the map to create an escape. Even a surrounded 500 man infantry battalion, if undisrupted can assault a small flak or AT gun out of the way when it it is isolated or low ammo. The key is to time the assault in the turn when the attackers artillery is either moving up or has already fired defensive fire on other "soak off" units. Positioning even one such battalion well ahead of the breakthrough can help.

1. Always keep a reserve.
2. Position it well.
3. Strike with the fist, not feel with the fingers.

And you will break encirclements more often than you thought you could.

Dog Soldier

[Glenn Saunders]

[Dave68124]

First of all, I would agree that ZOC is purely abstract and would also acknowledge there are methods within the game to handle ZOC anyway you choose (as long as it fits within the 3 options!).

However, what I struggle with ZOC in the game is the size element (brought up in a previous post). The game goes through the process of specifically identifying armor, infantry, artillery, etc. and specific attributes to those type of units. But when it comes to ZOC, all units are painted with the same brush regardless of the type or size of the unit. (with exception for HQ and AT)

Watchout - here comes the soapbox:

What would be interesting is to provide each unit with its ZOC modifier. For instance, armor ZOC would extend 2 hexes (rough estimate of its df weapon), infantry would extend 1 hex, arty would be 0 hexes, etc. In addition, there should be a modifer for the size of unit. A COY element would not exercise ZOC, but a combined btln would.

From an attacker standpoint, an armor unit could move within ZOC, but an infantry unit could not.

What I absolutely struggle with is when a btln of M-1 tanks get surrounded by a 150 man helo-infantry squad and they cannot move due to ZOC settings. (Sure, you can change the pdt for the game, but then you have to worry about fixing one issue and breaking something else in the game- Law of Unintended Consequences.) I always come back to the rationale that a btln of M-1 tanks (choose your model) can generally go any damn place they want to go on the battlefield