Locking Zones of Control: Do you use them?

[ComradeP]

There is not always much of a practical difference between locking zone of control and no locking zone of control with ZOC multiplier 0. You only benefit from it if you can move a unit into a position so that another can retreat. If you don't have (many) reserves, your units still can't pull back.

I guess there might for some scenarios be a substantial difference in movement between locking ZOC and a multiplier higher than 0, but if it's 0 you'll still need a second line full of units that can move forwards in order to prevent encirclement.

[Liebchen]

Nope. Never use them.

They lead to unnecessarily gamey tactics, and IMHO negate the mobility that makes this game system so much fun.

[milrevko]

That is interesting and I am glad that I asked because we have never used weak ZOC in all of our PBEM games. This includes the campaigns of Salerno, Tunis, Market-Garden, Budapest, North German Plain and Korea.

It just seems like a fundamental difference in the style of play. The obvious reason is that units can not march with impunity under the guns of another unit or in between two units

The best example of how the locking zone of control work is from Middle East '67. With out locking zones a Arab unit can be hit time and time again and retreat across the desert while taking losses but retreating each time. (unless surrounded by 6 units) Of course the fatigue will increase and it could or will eventually break.

The locking Zoc is exactly what happen historically. A unit would be surround by Zoc,s and captured, surrendered or destroyed. (Unless relived by its buddies)

[Liebchen]

undefined

---

undefined

[ComradeP]

milrevko: what you're describing is more like what currently happens with ZOC modifier/multiplier of 0. At least a unit can retreat if another unit can assist it by reestablishing contact.

I have not yet played with locking ZOC's either, as I prefer to give both attacker and defender a chance to rescue units.

ZOC's tend to be problematic in many wargames, as most tend to go to extremes of either having a locking ZOC or a ZOC that charges a certain number of additional movement points (or whatever the equivalent of movement points is called in that particular wargame) to move from one enemy ZOC hex to the next. In the former case, advances can quickly bog down as even small units have ZOC's. In the latter case, there can be situations where an attacker speeds through a defensive line. That is particularly problematic for fortified areas. There isn't much of a middleground.

A company can't control a 3km wide and deep frontage, a battalion also wouldn't be able to put up more than a screening force. They would, however, prevent an enemy force from simply storming through. Likewise, a single division stopping an entire enemy corps from moving out of a pocket is also not entirely historically accurate (although it would depend on the morale and resolve of the defenders) which is why I prefer some sort of movement point multiplier, but I like the "middleground" ZOC multiplier 0 Operational Campaigns system as well.

[Liebchen]

A company can't control a 3km wide and deep frontage, a battalion also wouldn't be able to put up more than a screening force. They would, however, prevent an enemy force from simply storming through. Likewise, a single division stopping an entire enemy corps from moving out of a pocket is also not entirely historically accurate (although it would depend on the morale and resolve of the defenders) which is why I prefer some sort of movement point multiplier, but I like the "middleground" ZOC multiplier 0 Operational Campaigns system as well.

Don't forget, they're not "stopping" anyone, they're just impeding progress for a couple of hours.

A company holding three klicks by itself implies that the next unit in line is three klicks away, i.e. there are two unoccupied hexes between them. This formation and disposition will not hold off a regiment very long at all, and will likely allow a breach in the line during the course of a turn.

[JDR Dragoon]

A company can't control a 3km wide and deep frontage, a battalion also wouldn't be able to put up more than a screening force.

Most battalions with 3 or more companies would be eminently able to defend a frontage of 3 kilometers, in both width and depth.

[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.

[JDR Dragoon]

A battalion of 600 men would be able string out a front of 3km but certainly not a position of 9 sq. km.

You don´t "string out" IRL. You dominate the ground by fire from mutually supporting and interlocking positions, primarily utilizing heavier weapons such as machineguns and mortars (plus autocannons and ATGMs, which might be vehicle mounted, in the MC series). Most WW2 battalions would expected to be able to man a 3 kilometer frontage fully and be able to hold it against all comers, holding at least a company or two in positions in depth behind the frontline companies (depending on whether the battalion has 3 or 4 rifle companies). And with that depth and reserve comes the ability to dominate terrain to the sides and rear by the shifting of fires and/or men to alternate targets and positions. This is how you dominate a position of 9 sq. km. (IRL you would of course not be able to direct an equal amount of fire outwards from each part of the position, but the game isn´t really detailed enough to reflect this).

[ComradeP]

Maybe with prepared positions, yes, but a company per kilometre isn't going to cut it when you're being attacked by any serious concentration of enemy forces. You would get the historical situation mid-late war situation of the Soviets rushing through gaps between strongpoints, taking them out one by one.

In a game situation, there will in many cases be no trenches or even improved positions, which means you have a company holding a kilometre of ground with nothing to fall back on/to and with little means to stop the enemy after the exposed heavy weapons have been taken out.

Also, by their nature, strongpoint defenses are vulnerable to infiltration.