ZOC and IZ

Jilu · Post by **Jilu** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:30 pm

Strange that the Interception zone and the ZOC do no have the same range.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:55 pm

A 4MU ZOC. Is there a reason it should be so large? That would be great. Pinning some foot from 4 MU away. Get it right against undrilled rubbish and they'd hardly ever move.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:19 pm

And this part of the forum is for suggesting areas of the rules that need improvements. It would also help if you suggest how.

lawrenceg · Post by **lawrenceg** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:49 pm

philqw78 wrote:A 4MU ZOC. Is there a reason it should be so large? That would be great. Pinning some foot from 4 MU away. Get it right against undrilled rubbish and they'd hardly ever move.

They don't move much anyway. But it could be a handy way to curtail all that pesky drilled stuff and skirmishers. Even a 6 MU restricted area would be worth looking at.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:14 pm

lawrenceg wrote:
philqw78 wrote:A 4MU ZOC. Is there a reason it should be so large? That would be great. Pinning some foot from 4 MU away. Get it right against undrilled rubbish and they'd hardly ever move.
They don't move much anyway. But it could be a handy way to curtail all that pesky drilled stuff and skirmishers. Even a 6 MU restricted area would be worth looking at.

Especially for the drilled infantry and cavalry turning in front of your nose...

Jilu · Post by **Jilu** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:39 am

Strategos69 wrote:
lawrenceg wrote:
philqw78 wrote:A 4MU ZOC. Is there a reason it should be so large? That would be great. Pinning some foot from 4 MU away. Get it right against undrilled rubbish and they'd hardly ever move.
They don't move much anyway. But it could be a handy way to curtail all that pesky drilled stuff and skirmishers. Even a 6 MU restricted area would be worth looking at.
Especially for the drilled infantry and cavalry turning in front of your nose...

That is just what i was thinking of.
i done it myslef this weekend and found it not very logical to be able to pass the front of an ennemy within its charge range without any risk.

Strategos69 · Post by **Strategos69** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:26 pm

Indeed you can't imagine, if you don't play very often, how hard is to remember all the different distances that have to be kept in mind every time you play again. I would fix one and go for that. 6 MU is basically the arrow distance, where troops would not go for fancy rounds. I would only make the exception if other friendly troops are in between, thus allowing reserves to move around instead.

Jilu · Post by **Jilu** » Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:18 pm

Strategos69 wrote:Indeed you can't imagine, if you don't play very often, how hard is to remember all the different distances that have to be kept in mind every time you play again. I would fix one and go for that. 6 MU is basically the arrow distance, where troops would not go for fancy rounds. I would only make the exception if other friendly troops are in between, thus allowing reserves to move around instead.

2 is not enough for sure !
i was thinking charge distance ... but indeed 6 MU seems logical as it stops your double move so means you are engaged in 'combat zone'

2 MU for me seems not much how many battles show troops moving freely 'let us choose where to hit the ennemy and avoid those pikes or elephants doing moves that even Frederick the 2 Royal Guard could not do in 1753'

But i would do it more subtle 5 MU (cavalry charge distance) and ignore LF and LH except if LF in front of LH