Moving through a ZOC

[MikeC_81]

One thing I will say is that whatever changes we might consider to the ZOC rules, the rules absolutely will not be changed to allow a unit to attack the flank or rear of an enemy unit directly to its front while in the primary ZOC of another enemy unit.

This is because the original primary purpose of ZOCs in this game was to facilitate flank protection. And because it is ludicrous that a unit would ignore an actual immediate threat to attack a non-threatening target of opportunity.

No one has asked for anything remotely like that at all though. We are simply asking that you close a loophole that makes no logical sense and it has zero benefit to gameplay. Lundendorf and I brought it up way back in a previous beta and we let the issue drop when you declared that it was working as intended even though we both felt it was plain wrong because we thought it would be an extreme edge case. Now it is clear that it is not just us who think a loophole like this shouldn't go unaddressed nor is it the case that it is an exceptional edge case as it is showing up in multiple games in a single tournament. As Cunningcairn succinctly put it, by not closing this loophole, you are inviting the very thing you don't want to have in your game. Snuggles could have trapped the unit in question if he had remembered the game's "arcane" geometry rules.

Getting stuck and not being able to move because of multiple ZoCs make sense within the framework of existing ZoC rules. Only allowing a charge to a frontal Zocing unit makes sense within the current framework. Suddenly allowing a unit to ignore ZoC rules arbitrarily makes no sense and absolutely does not fit in the existing framework of ZoC rules.

However, we might be able to do something about allowing a unit to attack the front of a non-ZOCing unit, even when in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, provided that a subsequent charge by that enemy unit from its current position would not contact its flank or rear.

This is something I feel that is totally different than closing the loophole aforementioned. In my opinion, changing this simply exchanges one set of geometry rules for another.

[rbodleyscott]

One thing I will say is that whatever changes we might consider to the ZOC rules, the rules absolutely will not be changed to allow a unit to attack the flank or rear of an enemy unit directly to its front while in the primary ZOC of another enemy unit.

This is because the original primary purpose of ZOCs in this game was to facilitate flank protection. And because it is ludicrous that a unit would ignore an actual immediate threat to attack a non-threatening target of opportunity.

No one has asked for anything remotely like that at all though. We are simply asking that you close a loophole that makes no logical sense and it has zero benefit to gameplay. Lundendorf and I brought it up way back in a previous beta and we let the issue drop when you declared that it was working as intended even though we both felt it was plain wrong because we thought it would be an extreme edge case. Now it is clear that it is not just us who think a loophole like this shouldn't go unaddressed nor is it the case that it is an exceptional edge case as it is showing up in multiple games in a single tournament. As Cunningcairn succinctly put it, by not closing this loophole, you are inviting the very thing you don't want to have in your game. Snuggles could have trapped the unit in question if he had remembered the game's "arcane" geometry rules.

Getting stuck and not being able to move because of multiple ZoCs make sense within the framework of existing ZoC rules. Only allowing a charge to a frontal Zocing unit makes sense within the current framework. Suddenly allowing a unit to ignore ZoC rules arbitrarily makes no sense and absolutely does not fit in the existing framework of ZoC rules.

However, we might be able to do something about allowing a unit to attack the front of a non-ZOCing unit, even when in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, provided that a subsequent charge by that enemy unit from its current position would not contact its flank or rear.

This is something I feel that is totally different than closing the loophole aforementioned. In my opinion, changing this simply exchanges one set of geometry rules for another.

None of my post (which incidentally I have since re-written for clarity), was directed at the multiple ZOCs issue, but at the details of Cunnincairn's proposal and his proposed fix for the angled line issue, which really ought to be in a different thread, because (as you say) it isn't relevant to the original subject of this thread.

However, Cunningcairn's proposal called for units to be allowed to charge a non-ZOCing unit when in the primary ZOC of another unit, and I was trying to explain why that would not fit with the game design.

Only allowing a charge to a frontal Zocing unit makes sense within the current framework. Suddenly allowing a unit to ignore ZoC rules arbitrarily makes no sense and absolutely does not fit in the existing framework of ZoC rules.

Agreed.

However, we might be able to do something about allowing a unit to attack the front of a non-ZOCing unit, even when in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, provided that a subsequent charge by that enemy unit from its current position would not contact its flank or rear.

This is something I feel that is totally different than closing the loophole aforementioned. In my opinion, changing this simply exchanges one set of geometry rules for another.

Agreed

When time permits I will be looking at the feasibility of re-coding the game to apply all applicable ZOCs rather than just one, without changing any of the other ZOC rules, and then we can see how it feels in a beta.

[SnuggleBunnies]

That is good news, and I look forward to trying it out.

[rbodleyscott]

The following are examples of various situations under the current rules, and the same situation when the code enforces all applicable ZOCs. I have used light horse as the affected unit so that the only restrictions on movement are due to the ZOCs.

1) Unit in three primary ZOCS.

Unit pinned by three primary zocs - current rules.jpg (109.22 KiB) Viewed 2561 times

Unit pinned by three primary zocs - new rules.jpg (56.92 KiB) Viewed 2561 times

[rbodleyscott]

2) Unit in two secondary ZOCs and one primary ZOC.

Unit pinned by two secondary ZOCs and a primary ZOC - old rules.jpg (52.13 KiB) Viewed 2560 times

Unit pinned by two secondary ZOCs and a primary ZOC - new rules.jpg (55.51 KiB) Viewed 2560 times

[rbodleyscott]

3) Unit in two secondary ZOCs.

Unit pinned by two secondary ZOCs - old rules.jpg (71.36 KiB) Viewed 2559 times

Unit pinned by two secondary ZOCs - new rules.jpg (53.51 KiB) Viewed 2559 times

[rbodleyscott]

4) Unit in one secondary ZOC and one primary ZOC.

Unit pinned by a primary ZOC and a secondary ZOC - old rules.jpg (78.37 KiB) Viewed 2558 times

[melm]

Does new rule make the game more geometry?

[rbodleyscott]

Does new rule make the game more geometry?

Yes, and no doubt it will be used to further disadvantage players who aren't so focussed on making maximum use of the details of the rule mechanics.

However, as has been pointed out previously, having the effect of more than one ZOC indeterminate actually favours players who use the vagaries of game mechanics to their advantage, because they will know when to avoid double-ZOCing an enemy unit to avoid the risk of paradoxically increasing its options. Whereas the average player is more likely to be caught out by the current rules.

To be honest, I was happy with the rules as they were, but am willing to at least test the alternative in view of the pressure being bought to bear, including from some of the more measured analysts.

It is also worth noting that the movement of the light horse unit in the second two examples is not really as restricted as it looks from the screenshot, because if it simply moves back one square out of the ZOC of the enemy units, its movement options open up again.

Last example after moving back one square.jpg (54.07 KiB) Viewed 2527 times

[Cunningcairn]

Does new rule make the game more geometry?

Yes it will but they would but in saying that there is "geometry" in the real world that cannot be ignored. It will however remove a lot of the current gamey geometric play like the angled line defense. It will also prevent units being frozen without any opportunity to attack when in multiple ZOC's when there is a unit to their front as they will be allowed to charge it. A surrounded unit will always be in a lot of trouble but it now has the ability to act like a cornered rat instead of like a rabbit caught in the headlights. Further to that there will be a more predictable response to multiple ZOC's that will comply to the games "Laws of Physics" by which all worlds real or imagined are governed. Thank you Richard for giving this a go.

[Cunningcairn]

2) Unit in two secondary ZOCs and one primary ZOC.



Unit pinned by two secondary ZOCs and a primary ZOC - old rules.jpg

This is an example of another current issue which I have not seen discussed but have noticed in a lot of games. The ZOC'd unit can transport itself beyond the units ZOCing it without being able to stop on any of the squares en route to its destination.

[rbodleyscott]

It will however remove a lot of the current gamey geometric play like the angled line defense. It will also prevent units being frozen without any opportunity to attack when in multiple ZOC's when there is a unit to their front as they will be allowed to charge it. A surrounded unit will always be in a lot of trouble but it now has the ability to act like a cornered rat instead of like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

It won't do any of these things, as the only change is to enforce the existing ZOC rules for all applicable ZOCers, rather than only one. So they will only be able to charge if they could do so under the current rules - as can be seen from the above screenshots.

I explained in a previous post why allowing them to charge a non-ZOCer (when in another enemy unit's primary ZOC) would not be a good thing. (With one possible exception, the added complication of which probably isn't worth it).

Further to that there will be a more predictable response to multiple ZOC's that will comply to the games "Laws of Physics" by which all worlds real or imagined are governed.

It will, however, do this.

However, it should be borne in mind that these are more "Laws of Psychology" than "Laws of Physics" and psychology is even less predictable than physics. Whether its effect would be to paralyse the unit (apart from being allowed to charge in the same circumstances as they would under the previous rules) to this degree is open to debate.

But we can beta test it and see whether it really improves the game or not.

[rbodleyscott]

2) Unit in two secondary ZOCs and one primary ZOC.



Unit pinned by two secondary ZOCs and a primary ZOC - old rules.jpg

This is an example of another current issue which I have not seen discussed but have noticed in a lot of games. The ZOC'd unit can transport itself beyond the units ZOCing it without being able to stop on any of the squares en route to its destination.

Yes, the new version certainly looks tidier.

[Cunningcairn]

It will however remove a lot of the current gamey geometric play like the angled line defense. It will also prevent units being frozen without any opportunity to attack when in multiple ZOC's when there is a unit to their front as they will be allowed to charge it. A surrounded unit will always be in a lot of trouble but it now has the ability to act like a cornered rat instead of like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

It won't do any of these things, as the only change is to enforce the existing ZOC rules for all applicable ZOCers, rather than only one. So they will only be able to charge if they could do so under the current rules - as can be seen from the above screenshots.

I explained in a previous post why allowing them to charge a non-ZOCer (when in another enemy unit's primary ZOC) would not be a good thing. (With one possible exception, the added complication of which probably isn't worth it).

Further to that there will be a more predictable response to multiple ZOC's that will comply to the games "Laws of Physics" by which all worlds real or imagined are governed.

It will, however, do this.

However, it should be borne in mind that these are more "Laws of Psychology" than "Laws of Physics" and psychology is even less predictable than physics. Whether its effect would be to paralyse the unit (apart from being allowed to charge in the same circumstances as they would under the previous rules) to this degree is open to debate.

But we can beta test it and see whether it really improves the game or not.

Sorry Richard I misunderstood. I thought you wee going to test the algorithm I posted which would allow an attack on a unit directly to the front irrespective of how many ZOC's were being applied i.e. cornered rat vs rabbit in headlight psychology. Your screenshots did not give an example of a unit directly to the front with the gamey geometrical 45 degree angle. That was my primary issue as it is the mechanic used in the angled line technique.

[rbodleyscott]

It will however remove a lot of the current gamey geometric play like the angled line defense. It will also prevent units being frozen without any opportunity to attack when in multiple ZOC's when there is a unit to their front as they will be allowed to charge it. A surrounded unit will always be in a lot of trouble but it now has the ability to act like a cornered rat instead of like a rabbit caught in the headlights.

It won't do any of these things, as the only change is to enforce the existing ZOC rules for all applicable ZOCers, rather than only one. So they will only be able to charge if they could do so under the current rules - as can be seen from the above screenshots.

I explained in a previous post why allowing them to charge a non-ZOCer (when in another enemy unit's primary ZOC) would not be a good thing. (With one possible exception, the added complication of which probably isn't worth it).

Further to that there will be a more predictable response to multiple ZOC's that will comply to the games "Laws of Physics" by which all worlds real or imagined are governed.

It will, however, do this.

However, it should be borne in mind that these are more "Laws of Psychology" than "Laws of Physics" and psychology is even less predictable than physics. Whether its effect would be to paralyse the unit (apart from being allowed to charge in the same circumstances as they would under the previous rules) to this degree is open to debate.

But we can beta test it and see whether it really improves the game or not.

Sorry Richard I misunderstood. I thought you wee going to test the algorithm I posted which would allow an attack on a unit directly to the front irrespective of how many ZOC's were being applied i.e. cornered rat vs rabbit in headlight psychology. Your screenshots did not give an example of a unit directly to the front with the gamey geometrical 45 degree angle. That was my primary issue as it is the mechanic used in the angled line technique.

I perfectly understand the point of your algorithm. I refer you to my previous detailed response as to why it doesn't fulfil the design goals without a list of exceptions that would complicate the rules more than its beneficial effect on angled lines would justify.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

And I should also draw your attention to the fact that this thread, which you started, is about moving through multiple ZOCs and not the angled line issue.

[Cunningcairn]

It won't do any of these things, as the only change is to enforce the existing ZOC rules for all applicable ZOCers, rather than only one. So they will only be able to charge if they could do so under the current rules - as can be seen from the above screenshots.

I explained in a previous post why allowing them to charge a non-ZOCer (when in another enemy unit's primary ZOC) would not be a good thing. (With one possible exception, the added complication of which probably isn't worth it).



It will, however, do this.

However, it should be borne in mind that these are more "Laws of Psychology" than "Laws of Physics" and psychology is even less predictable than physics. Whether its effect would be to paralyse the unit (apart from being allowed to charge in the same circumstances as they would under the previous rules) to this degree is open to debate.

But we can beta test it and see whether it really improves the game or not.

Sorry Richard I misunderstood. I thought you wee going to test the algorithm I posted which would allow an attack on a unit directly to the front irrespective of how many ZOC's were being applied i.e. cornered rat vs rabbit in headlight psychology. Your screenshots did not give an example of a unit directly to the front with the gamey geometrical 45 degree angle. That was my primary issue as it is the mechanic used in the angled line technique.

I perfectly understand the point of your algorithm. I refer you to my previous response as to why it doesn't fulfil the design goals without a list of exceptions that would complicate the rules more than its beneficial effect on angled lines would justify.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The quote can be applied to my algorithm being the complex problem and the design philosophy being the answer I jest but and understand your point. However the design philosophy is only challenged when by gamey geometry a unit directly to the front of a unit under multiple ZOC is angled by 45 degrees and my understanding is that it is the games design philosophy to prevent this type of thing.

[rbodleyscott]

However the design philosophy is only challenged when by gamey geometry a unit directly to the front of a unit under multiple ZOC is angled by 45 degrees and my understanding is that it is the games design philosophy to prevent this type of thing.

True, but another key feature of the design philosophy is to keep down the complexity, and try to avoid having multiple exceptions. I recommend re-reading my previous post:

With regard to the issue of charging non-ZOCing enemy while in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, I think I ought to first explain the logic on which ZOCs in FOG2 are based.

FOG is attempting to simulate real-time simultaneous movement as far as is possible in an IGOUGO turn-based system. In reality, nearby enemy would not always stand still while opposing troops were moving.

In the Field of Glory tabletop rules, to mitigate the artificiality of the IGOUGO system, the non-phasing player's unit is actually able to make an "intercept" charge (in the enemy turn) against any enemy unit whose charge passes in front of it within its charge range, and this intercept charge, if it contacts the original chargers' flank or rear, completely cancels their charge.

The computer version does not have intercept charges, because these would break the flow of play in multiplayer games, but instead uses the ZOC1 rules to simulate the deterrent effect of potential intercept charges.

The primary purpose of intercept charges is to allow units to protect the flank of other units without actually being lined up level with them.

ZOC1s are an abstract way of simulating the effect of intercept charges. This is the design logic on which ZOC1s are based. (ZOC2s were added later as a way to prevent it being too easy for mobile units to slip through small gaps in the enemy line.)

Hence, it would be against the game's design principles:

1) To allow a unit to charge the flank or rear of an enemy unit directly to its front while in the primary ZOC of another enemy unit.
2) To allow a unit to charge even the front of a non-ZOCing unit to its front, if it is itself ZOCd by an enemy unit to its flank or rear. In the tabletop version (and in reality), intercept charges would deter the player from charging in these circumstances, and if he did so anyway, the intercept charge would contact his unit's flank/rear and cancel its charge. (If anything, the computer version is more lenient, as it does allow the unit to charge if it can move out of the ZOC first).

However, we might be able to do something about allowing a unit to attack the front of a non-ZOCing unit, even when in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, provided that a subsequent charge by that enemy unit from its current position would not contact its flank or rear. (As a means of mitigating the artificial effects of angled lines, but without changing the intended design in the cases discussed above).

The main problem with that is that it would be adding an exception to the general rule, and this might be enough to make keeping the current ZOC1 rule simple (and hence unchanged) the preferred option from a game design point of view, even though the angled line thing can be irritating. One of the design goals of FOG2 was to have a simpler (and hence easier to understand) system of priority charge targets than Pike and Shot.

To which MikeC_81 responded:

However, we might be able to do something about allowing a unit to attack the front of a non-ZOCing unit, even when in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, provided that a subsequent charge by that enemy unit from its current position would not contact its flank or rear.

This is something I feel that is totally different than closing the loophole aforementioned. In my opinion, changing this simply exchanges one set of geometry rules for another.

With which I agree.

So I am addressing the original subject of this thread, and leaving the other issue that has crept into the thread (like a cuckoo into the nest) for another time (maybe).

[Cunningcairn]

However the design philosophy is only challenged when by gamey geometry a unit directly to the front of a unit under multiple ZOC is angled by 45 degrees and my understanding is that it is the games design philosophy to prevent this type of thing.

True, but another key feature of the design philosophy is to keep down the complexity, and try to avoid having multiple exceptions. I recommend re-reading my previous post:

With regard to the issue of charging non-ZOCing enemy while in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, I think I ought to first explain the logic on which ZOCs in FOG2 are based.

FOG is attempting to simulate real-time simultaneous movement as far as is possible in an IGOUGO turn-based system. In reality, nearby enemy would not always stand still while opposing troops were moving.

In the Field of Glory tabletop rules, to mitigate the artificiality of the IGOUGO system, the non-phasing player's unit is actually able to make an "intercept" charge (in the enemy turn) against any enemy unit whose charge passes in front of it within its charge range, and this intercept charge, if it contacts the original chargers' flank or rear, completely cancels their charge.

The computer version does not have intercept charges, because these would break the flow of play in multiplayer games, but instead uses the ZOC1 rules to simulate the deterrent effect of potential intercept charges.

The primary purpose of intercept charges is to allow units to protect the flank of other units without actually being lined up level with them.

ZOC1s are an abstract way of simulating the effect of intercept charges. This is the design logic on which ZOC1s are based. (ZOC2s were added later as a way to prevent it being too easy for mobile units to slip through small gaps in the enemy line.)

Hence, it would be against the game's design principles:

1) To allow a unit to charge the flank or rear of an enemy unit directly to its front while in the primary ZOC of another enemy unit.
2) To allow a unit to charge even the front of a non-ZOCing unit to its front, if it is itself ZOCd by an enemy unit to its flank or rear. In the tabletop version (and in reality), intercept charges would deter the player from charging in these circumstances, and if he did so anyway, the intercept charge would contact his unit's flank/rear and cancel its charge. (If anything, the computer version is more lenient, as it does allow the unit to charge if it can move out of the ZOC first).

However, we might be able to do something about allowing a unit to attack the front of a non-ZOCing unit, even when in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, provided that a subsequent charge by that enemy unit from its current position would not contact its flank or rear. (As a means of mitigating the artificial effects of angled lines, but without changing the intended design in the cases discussed above).

The main problem with that is that it would be adding an exception to the general rule, and this might be enough to make keeping the current ZOC1 rule simple (and hence unchanged) the preferred option from a game design point of view, even though the angled line thing can be irritating. One of the design goals of FOG2 was to have a simpler (and hence easier to understand) system of priority charge targets than Pike and Shot.

To which MikeC_81 responded:

However, we might be able to do something about allowing a unit to attack the front of a non-ZOCing unit, even when in the ZOC1 of another enemy unit, provided that a subsequent charge by that enemy unit from its current position would not contact its flank or rear.

This is something I feel that is totally different than closing the loophole aforementioned. In my opinion, changing this simply exchanges one set of geometry rules for another.

With which I agree.

So I am addressing the original subject of this thread, and leaving the other issue that has crept into the thread (like a cuckoo into the nest) for another time (maybe).

Fair enough. Thanks again for looking at resolving the issue of this thread.

[SnuggleBunnies]

In example 1, can the light horse charge the primary ZoCing units to its front? In example 4, can it charge the primary ZoCing unit to its front left?

[rbodleyscott]

In example 1, can the light horse charge the primary ZoCing units to its front? In example 4, can it charge the primary ZoCing unit to its front left?

Yes to both. (You can see the crossed swords icons on the tile in the screenshots)