Moving through a ZOC

[Paul59]

The OP screenshot illustrates the problem succinctly. Why should the unit just be able to ignore the secondary ZoC? This leads to situations where it is actually better for your unit to be surrounded than facing one enemy to the front. That is absurd! The option to either be trapped, charge, or turn, seems much more logical to me. If your unit ends up surrounded, its options should be limited and terrible!

However, the idea of being able to charge a unit to the front but turned 45 degrees away from a unit, even if primary ZoC'd from behind, could be worth looking into. Currently, you can do some silly stuff with those ZoC to delay an advance.

I am obviously not explaining myself clearly, I will give it one more go and then give up.

You all seem to think that one side should be able to move it's units and impose it's ZOCs wherever it wants, while the other side just sits idly by and watches it all happen. Even though the game is turn based, it is trying to simulate real life, and in real life both sides would be able to move at the same time. In real life it is not so easy to surround and trap an enemy, because they can react to the opponents moves as they are happening. I believe that is what the game is trying to simulate with the current ZOC rules.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Yes, I understand that. What I don't understand is how that relates to a unit suddenly being able to ignore secondary ZoCs.

[MikeC_81]

I am afraid I do not agree. In a "Real Time" game the "trapped unit" would probably not sit still and let itself be trapped in the first place!

It would if the the player maneuvers them in such a spot. Which is what is represented here. A unit that is in the midst of being trapped is allowed to escape the jaws of death and defy ZoC rules simply because the game arbitrarily picks one ZoC to apply only.

I assume you are referring to Cunningcairn's first screenshot? That does not look to me like the Scutatoi have been manoeuvred into such a spot. They are positioned behind their army's front line, and for all we know have been relatively stationary while the enemy units have approached them.

To quote myself from a few posts back:

"Mike seemed to suggest that in a real time game the surrounding units would not let the trapped unit simply walk past them to safety, they would react and stop that happening.

My point is that in such a real time game, the trapped unit would probably not have been trapped in the first place, because they would have seen the surrounding units moving into place and escape while they still could.

The real time analogy works both ways!"

You are wrong because you are conflating a rule used to prevent a turn based system from generating a movement that would be considered absurd in a realistic setting (letting units slip and slide around each other without friction within a single turn) and a mistake made by the player controlling the trapped infantry unit who allowed his unit to end its turn in a precarious situation. The real time aspect does not apply here because that cavalry unit didn't appear out of thin air. Such a threat would have been spotted several turns ago and action should have been taken.

As pointed out, it is nonsensical for a unit to ignore a universal movement rule on the basis of having to choose one ZoC arbitrarily. The only action allowed should be to turn and face one of its antagonists and if enough AP is present, be allowed to charge and attack.

[Paul59]

Yes, I understand that. What I don't understand is how that relates to a unit suddenly being able to ignore secondary ZoCs.

Because in real time the unit that is going to be trapped would be able to react, and do something about the situation. As the game is turn based it cannot move until it has it's next turn, so allowing the unit to ignore ZOCs simulates the unit reacting to the developing situation.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well... that still makes no sense. Why even have secondary ZoC then, if it can be ignored? It's a situation that can penalize a player for playing well. The unit has time to react in the preceding turns. It shouldn't get extra time/a rule exception.

[Cunningcairn]

Yes, I understand that. What I don't understand is how that relates to a unit suddenly being able to ignore secondary ZoCs.

Because in real time the unit that is going to be trapped would be able to react, and do something about the situation. As the game is turn based it cannot move until it has it's next turn, so allowing the unit to ignore ZOCs simulates the unit reacting to the developing situation.

But not if all the threats were manifesting simultaneously in real time. I don't see the relevance of real time at all.

[Cunningcairn]

No problem, the Triarii have to move directly away from the enemy unit whose ZOC they are in. Therefore they cannot move directly forward, as that is not counted as being directly away from the enemy unit. If the Hastati move, the Triarii can then move into that square, as that is deemed to be moving directly away.

Paul

But if the triarii moves to its front it is moving directly away? "Directly away" is a very ambiguous term.

The following statement is copied directly from the manual (Section 12.1.1):

A unit that is already in an enemy ZOC cannot make a normal move except
away from that enemy – which (owing to turning restrictions) means that this is
mostly only possible for light troops. The direction of movement must be less
than 45 degrees from directly away from the enemy unit. Movement off to the
sides is not permitted – this is specifically intended to reduce the slipperiness of
light troops. If a unit is in the ZOC of multiple enemy units, the game will decide
which one it must move away from – prioritizing primary ZOCers.

Yes and that is ambiguous. It clearly states the game will decide. In one instance the rules are definitive and in the next it becomes a truly random decision. My understanding is that the ZOC is there to represent a psychological barrier created by troops in close proximity. It is also trying to mitigate "gamey" play but due to complexity of code cannot always comply with the ZOC rules. It also has a logical interpretation based on what might happen in a real life situation. This has been stated in various form in this thread. The triarii in the second screenshot is facing away from a secondary ZOC (minimum psychological barrier) yet cannot move away from the unit pinning it despite not crossing a ZOC or moving into a new one because of 1 degree? It simply just does not make sense, contradicts other arguments and I don't see the logic behind it.

[Cunningcairn]

You are wrong because you are conflating a rule used to prevent a turn based system from generating a movement that would be considered absurd in a realistic setting (letting units slip and slide around each other without friction within a single turn) and a mistake made by the player controlling the trapped infantry unit who allowed his unit to end its turn in a precarious situation. The real time aspect does not apply here because that cavalry unit didn't appear out of thin air. Such a threat would have been spotted several turns ago and action should have been taken.

In fact that cavalry unit did appear there miraculously. It had been in front of the skoutatoi's line in the previous turn. It ended up where it is after a bizarre pursuit move.

[melm]

In my view, secondary ZOC should have some difference with primary ZOC. If one wants to make secondary ZOC working as locking lasso, it diminishes the purpose and importance of primary one. So if you want to lock enemy's unit, why not use your primary ZOC instead of secondary one?

[Cunningcairn]

Well the league has started and once again the weirdness appears. Can anyone please explain why my Roman bow can walk straight passed the Legionary to his front? This is one of about 3 weird ZOC events in the last week.

No ZOC.jpg (779.26 KiB) Viewed 2371 times

[SnuggleBunnies]

It's the weird ZoC stuff discussed in your previous thread. The primary ZoC of the Mediocre Legionaries behind them is prioritized over the Secondary ZoC to the front. Not a bug, working as intended as far as I know.

...not that I think that state of affairs is ideal. Hopefully the ZoC stuff will be revisited at some point, as this is a bit silly.

[Cunningcairn]

It's the weird ZoC stuff discussed in your previous thread. The primary ZoC of the Mediocre Legionaries behind them is prioritized over the Secondary ZoC to the front. Not a bug, working as intended as far as I know.

...not that I think that state of affairs is ideal. Hopefully the ZoC stuff will be revisited at some point, as this is a bit silly.

It is totally unpredictable and makes a farce of the ZOC rule. I have had numerous situations now when I have plenty of places to move but I'm not allowed and cannot charge. There have also been instances when I'm pinned but not in a ZOC which forces me to move diagonally away from the closest enemy element but not straight ahead. Really weird.

[melm]

I recall that unit can't go through the secondary ZOC. In this case, the unit is already in the secondary zone. Does such "moving away" mean "going through secondary ZOC" which contradicts the rule?

[Cunningcairn]

I recall that unit can't go through the secondary ZOC. In this case, the unit is already in the secondary zone. Does such "moving away" mean "going through secondary ZOC" which contradicts the rule?

I don't understand how it works and will just have to live with it. Very disappointing.

[TheGrayMouser]

Although we can argue how “silly or not “ this is, is it more or less silly than the archer unit getting into this situation in the first place? Turn based games and player intentions lead to these things, rules upon rules can’t always cure it. I don’t what happened prior but it’s not so hard to envision the archers trying to get away from the legions giving chase and being able to slip by the second cohort trying to cut them off...
When zoc’s were invented, I don’t believe they were meant to portray anything explainable, they were there to simply prevent the active player from doing things completely outrageous.

[Cunningcairn]

Although we can argue how “silly or not “ this is, is it more or less silly than the archer unit getting into this situation in the first place? Turn based games and player intentions lead to these things, rules upon rules can’t always cure it. I don’t what happened prior but it’s not so hard to envision the archers trying to get away from the legions giving chase and being able to slip by the second cohort trying to cut them off...
When zoc’s were invented, I don’t believe they were meant to portray anything explainable, they were there to simply prevent the active player from doing things completely outrageous.

The archer broke a legionary with a flank charge in the previous turn. What is your point?

[TheGrayMouser]

Although we can argue how “silly or not “ this is, is it more or less silly than the archer unit getting into this situation in the first place? Turn based games and player intentions lead to these things, rules upon rules can’t always cure it. I don’t what happened prior but it’s not so hard to envision the archers trying to get away from the legions giving chase and being able to slip by the second cohort trying to cut them off...
When zoc’s were invented, I don’t believe they were meant to portray anything explainable, they were there to simply prevent the active player from doing things completely outrageous.

The archer broke a legionary with a flank charge in the previous turn. What is your point?

Your terse response indicates perhaps your taking this too seriously. However, an ancient archer unit flank attacking a legion and winning wilst surrounded by other legions is how you explain the situation leading up to your screen shot? That IS my point. This was not some poke at players tactics or play style, just a commentary on the fact that the game , to be a game, allows great latitude for players to get individual units in unbelievable situations...the purpose of zoc’s in games is to try and mitigate the most common what the heck moves a player can make, not explain real life phenomena or cover every situation.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Sure, but couldn't we try testing a change to the code so that you couldn't just waltz through two enemy units like that?

[TheGrayMouser]

Sure, but couldn't we try testing a change to the code so that you couldn't just waltz through two enemy units like that?

Of course, but how? What is the RULE? You could just simplify the rules and allow NO movement into any ZOC primary or secondary ever...( normal movement for sake of argument, no evades, break offs, fall backs, push backs ) Too tired to think of possible ramifications.. Likely an emergence of new micro tactics to pin many enemy units with a single throw away unit. It would be so much easier as the effect would be guaranteed.

For a fun theory, I was thinking of something like this: Units Only exert secondary ZOCs if they hadn't MOVED in the owning players last ACTIVE turn.. . They keep their primary ZOC no matter what. It would certainly help prevent players keeping a-historical gaps in their battle lines while going on the offensive.

[Cunningcairn]

Although we can argue how “silly or not “ this is, is it more or less silly than the archer unit getting into this situation in the first place? Turn based games and player intentions lead to these things, rules upon rules can’t always cure it. I don’t what happened prior but it’s not so hard to envision the archers trying to get away from the legions giving chase and being able to slip by the second cohort trying to cut them off...
When zoc’s were invented, I don’t believe they were meant to portray anything explainable, they were there to simply prevent the active player from doing things completely outrageous.

The archer broke a legionary with a flank charge in the previous turn. What is your point?

Your terse response indicates perhaps your taking this too seriously. However, an ancient archer unit flank attacking a legion and winning wilst surrounded by other legions is how you explain the situation leading up to your screen shot? That IS my point. This was not some poke at players tactics or play style, just a commentary on the fact that the game , to be a game, allows great latitude for players to get individual units in unbelievable situations...the purpose of zoc’s in games is to try and mitigate the most common what the heck moves a player can make, not explain real life phenomena or cover every situation.

My answer was not intended to be terse. It was what it was, a question. I still do not understand your point. You appear to be saying the rules are trying to do what they don't want the players to do. The point or rather problem is that it is not working and has exasperated the problem it was trying to overcome. It would be far better to go back to the way it was.