T41/Ea42 Alt ZOC change.

[Mr Grumpy]

Some of you may have read this in your email from Volcano Man's site..

"Changed ZOC movement modifier value from 12% to 90% in desert _Alt scenarios. This was done to prevent the gamey behavior of armored cars being able to squeeze in between the cracks of units and isolate enemy armored cars even though they might start several hexes away. With the change, almost every unit will be required to start the turn adjacent to the enemy in order to pass through its ZOC. The result is that armored car screens can fall back one hex and still contain enemy armored cars instead of having to guess how many hexes they are required to fall back to prevent the enemy from infiltrating the line. Look for the change to be made to T41_Alt and E42_Alt soon."

The soft ZOC rule combined with the ability of A/C units with very high mp values (99 to 168) and a low ZOC mp modifier (12) has produced situations in T41/EA42 that many players don't like, specifically "isolation dances" where both players isolate each others units by moving through soft ZOC each turn in a endless effort to gain an advantage, as we know the ZOC rule was invented to prevent this happening in "you go, I go" type games.

While testing a updated version of the T41 Battleaxe Alt scenario VM & I decided to try a much higher ZOC modifier to see if that would help with just those sort of situations, so far we like the results and VM has decided to roll the idea out for all his desert Alt scenarios.

It should be noted that adjacent units can still move one hex through a ZOC to reflect the unique situation in the desert, i hope this change might persuade some players to try T41 out again as i think the title has real merit. :)

[Dog Soldier]

Will this produce a linear feel to the game? How will the British long range recon forces get deep behind Axis lines like they did historically to disrupt supply and communications?

Maybe the introduction of deception units in the desert games would simulate this unique battle style?

Dog Soldier

[Ricky B]

Hey DS,

In El Alamein, anyway, there are deception units for the British, and quite effective at that. The represent the deep recon probes very well. I don't know if Tobruk has enough "depth" for that to play as much of a role, but that is a good point.

Regards
Rick

[fastphil]

Good Evening:

While many might welcome this change, many others might not. Would it be possible to roll out both versions of the ALT scenarios/pdts? I have to agree that the one hex retreat per turn will turn it linear. One of the reason's for the incredible use of mines in North Africa was the fluidity of the battles and the need to setup for all-around defense to defend from such movements. The expanse of the area, the limitations on logistic support and the lack of significant terrain precluded holding positions without the extensive use of fortifications. The 'Race to the Wire' is no more. I wonder how many people play with explicit supply on? I always do if it is available. I read too much Desmond Morris and watched James Mason too many times not to use it. So again if at all possible could we have both versions? I would hate to not use the VM's mods.

[Mr Grumpy]

While this change might create a more linear feel/look i think you are overrating the staying power of a AC recon line, it is a very fragile thing that if not handled properly will be easily broken and the floodgates opened.

The ZOC rule is there to protect the non phasing player from simply sitting still and being surrounded, with high MP values, flat terrain and a low ZOC MP modifier the rule does not work very well for the non phasing player in the desert titles IMO. :chin:

Of course the change will have some negative effects, but when you weigh up the pro's vs. con's i feel it is a improvement to this title in which explicit supply is not possible in many scenarios.

What the desert titles really needs is a bespoke set of supply rules where isolation does not carry such a severe penalty as "normal" titles, if this were the case players (myself included) would not become so obsessed with surrounding your opponents units to obtain an advantage by lowering their combat values, but of course we have three sets of supply rules and we will not get a forth!. :)

I have no idea if Volcano Man would consider two sets of PDT files, of course with the editors changing the ZOC modifier back to 12 would be very easy.

[Volcano Man]

No, no two sets of PDTs. This is one of those things where some may not like it but, in the end, I think that the change is better for the experience and makes for a more historical outcome on the tactical level. Units can still pass through each other if they begin the turn next to the enemy, so it is not like a weak AC screen can effectively hold a line: they still have to fall back to delay the enemy. If they don't fall back enough and the enemy is composed of tanks then the tanks will simply move up and kill them off and it is off to the races. A defender could very well sacrifice his ACs in this manner, but gradually the attacker will pick them all off. All veteran PzC players know that once you lose your recon units in the desert, you will have placed yourself at a serious disadvantage since you become highly prone to being out maneuvered and flanked on the open desert. So, as always, it is one of those things you have to balance when trying to delay with AC units.

With the previously weaker ZOC, it was possible to drive right by and isolate enemy ACs with high movement value ACs (all other units did not have enough movement points to do this). The result was a constant ZOC "dance" because once one side isolated the other, the other side could not move far enough to avoid subsequent isolations. This is NOT a good thing. It also made it where it was more or less a guessing matter on how far to move back your forces in order to avoid enemy ACs from moving in and isolating.

In the end the result is a more realistic representation of reconnaissance assets, allowing them to screen and delay rather than be overrun and isolated by enemy recon units. To some this might seem like it was already that way to begin with, and it was, but for the most aggressive players amongst us this was a fatal flaw which caused the destruction of your most valuable asset in the desert.

As far as making it feel more linear, I don't think it will restrict it in an extensive way since, as mentioned above, the only units that were able to move through a ZOC and still have MPs remaining to fire or continue on where AC units. Also as mentioned, you can still squeeze through (albeit slower), but a more linear feel is desired in the sense that recon assets in the desert must be capable of effectively delaying and screening enemy recon assets since they are the ones that form the front lines on the peripheries. Without this, the desert battles turn into a mass of intermixing nonsense.

[FLG]

Without this, the desert battles turn into a mass of intermixing nonsense.

I'm no expert but considering such things as the Cauldron battle, weren't many of the open desert battles "a mass of intermixing nonsense".

[fastphil]

Without this, the desert battles turn into a mass of intermixing nonsense.

I'm no expert but considering such things as the Cauldron battle, weren't many of the open desert battles "a mass of intermixing nonsense".

Yes, they were. That is why the Brits resorted to brigade boxes and at night the both sides learned to laerger (sp) for all around defense.The Italian retreat of 1940 and Axis/Allied retreats of 41 & 42 were a 'mass of intermixing nonsense'. That sounds like a Monty term:cool: He was always liking a 'tidy' battle. But the battles were seldom tidy but more often confused melees with one side or the other trying to outflank the other. But to each his own. If people want to make the desert war play like the bigger battles of the Eastern/West Fronts, that's up to them.

[Ricky B]

It is tough to pick the best way of doing things, but in this case, there are choices that allow anything the engine can do to be used, already setup in one set of scenarios or the other. I know that in playing T'41 years ago, the game as it played out with my opponent, using extremely loose ZOCs, turned into an isolation fest as my opponent started sending recon units to surround about 80% of my force, taking up every other or third hex spacing, so then I did it to him, and it was just silly. If the loose ZOCs was coupled with no zoc bloc for supply, then it would play out reasonably well, but as mentioned, boxes were formed at night to make an easily protected perimeter, as it had no major impact on supply - made it easier as a matter of fact.

But do that in T'41 and all your units are low fuel, low ammo and all the penalties related to that as soon as they do, because of the ability to block supply so easily. Personally, I would think you would still get reasonable results in the desert, but would have to play with VM scenarios using this change to really judge - no way of saying that it does it without playing it, you are just guessing on the results.

Regards
Rick

[Volcano Man]

FLG and fastphil,

The definition of "intermixing nonsense" is relative. The fighting at the Cauldron and the British tactic of brigade boxes in other battles is NOT "intermixing nonsense" in the sense of what I am describing. The method of brigade boxes is still useful, especially since you often do not have enough recon to cover the entire desert. As Rick says, you can still surround a brigade box and cut off the supplies to it, but that would require that you have a lot of units assigned to that task and the surrounding force would be spread out and vulnerable to attack from the rear. Assuming that you have your brigade boxes arrayed properly so that they can mutually support each other then it becomes even more useful since you can attack from both boxes. That said, my definition of "intermixing nonsense" is what was possible previously, that high movement value ACs could slip in and through the line and isolate units causing the isolated unit to move back and be isolated again and again since they could not move far. A ZOC isolation dance ensued which is NOT a good representation of desert warfare but rather it was a bad representation of how the desert titles can be exploited. In the example of brigade boxes, soft ZOCs could not effectively keep such high MP value AC units out of their perimeter.

Regardless of all the confusion and fluidness that is inherent in the historical battles in the desert, it was still coherent and had enough definition that it could be directed and controlled by their respected commanders. But with it possible to have AC units in the game passing by each other and ZOCs exerted on the passed through units, the ZOC dancing began and the battles would degenerate into an a-historical mass of uncontrollable and undirected zig zagging dances until the surrounded force of ACs was eventually wiped out. Once this happened, one side is denied their recon asset and could be rather easily dealt with. This is not how the historical battles played out and, as I said, if you were not a very aggressive player or have never played against a very aggressive player then you probably never noticed this flaw (it took an aggressive player to use it on me before I noticed it myself... something I referred to as the "Mongol horde AC attack").

Anyway, I am not sure how much plainer I can say it: this change ONLY effects the high movement value AC units. With the lower ZOC modifier, other units still did not have enough MPs necessary to move and then pass by other units. If you think it will suddenly play like an East Front or West Front battle because of this change then you are mistaken. For one thing, in none of those titles can you actually move through an enemy ZOC like you still can do in the desert. Beyond that there are still a vast quantity of other differences in the PDT to model desert warfare as well.

The problem with mentioning something like this is that it causes everyone who has not played it to speculate on what it *might* do. Just load it up in E42_Alt and see for yourself that overall it does not drastically change anything. Of course be sure to look at it subjectively and not through a pessimistic lens. ;)