Locking Zones of Control: Do you use them?

[goomohn]

A battalion of 600 men would be able string out a front of 3km but certainly not a position of 9 sq. km. The way I see it with Locked ZOCs the only difference as ComradeP pointed out is that men may not escape between enemy ZOCs. With a multiplier of 3 even foot soldiers would be able to move about the open enemy flank 1km without firing in good weather. Armor would be able to cruise through these kilometer gaps.

To say it is historically accurate to have ZOCs that impede enemy movement isn't true. Armored vehicles were made to cut through enemy fronts, infantry in mass will spread out between gaps towards the enemy rear.

As for the game system. I hate when I see a unit 2km away from an isolated unit who is facing an assaulter, and the stranded unit cannot move. Unless you're in advance and can rescue this unit it has become a worthless blip of gamey bullshite. Keep in mind that moving across the enemy flank is not teleportation and is open to opportunity fire.

I think the main problem with multiplying movement through enemy ZOCs in this system doesn't take into account that AT rifles and guns are forward deployed, so that really you should be firing in increments of 500m between hexes. So, by increasing weapon ranges to realistic measures an indepth defense would itself be a locked ZOC. Not by gamey forcefield, but by hellacious opportunity fire. I'd also suggest a bonus to attack with these opportunity attacks.