The Return of ZOC

[Cunningcairn]

The cavalry unit marked in red has just moved directly forward crossing the secondary ZOC exerted by the infantry unit marked in green. If these units had not been angled the cavalry unit would have not been able to do that. Is this an oversight or is it intended? If it is intended what is the rationale behind it?

angle ZOC.jpg (80.12 KiB) Viewed 3561 times

[pompeytheflatulent]

*Squints* What is this? A screenshot for ants? In all seriousness from what I can tell the cavalry moved from a non ZoC square to a non ZoC square. Can you make a higher resolution and/or zoomed in screenshot? Or maybe a MS paint diagram?

[Athos1660]

Is it that case ?

step 1



step 2





PS : in theory, there are two ways to reach the final square : one that goes through the secondary ZoC (in blue) so you can't acutally reach it, one that does not (in red). The computer chooses the red one.

[rbodleyscott]

If it really moved directly forward, then (as pompeytheflatulent says) at no point did it enter the secondary ZOC of the enemy unit.

As you can see from Athos's and my screenshots, the primary and secondary ZOCs are (perforce) placed differently for diagonally-facing units than they are for orthogonally facing units. However the logic is the same - the primary ZOC is the square directly in front of the unit and the secondary ZOCs are the squares adjacent to the ZOCer that are either side of the primary ZOC. (NOT the squares that are either side of the primary ZOC but not adjacent to the ZOCer, otherwise the ZOCer would be exerting a secondary ZOC into a square two squares away from it!)

No ZOC applies.jpg (113.2 KiB) Viewed 3513 times

[Cunningcairn]

Is it that case ?

step 1



step 2





PS : in theory, there are two ways to reach the final square : one that goes through the secondary ZoC (in blue) so you can't acutally reach it, one that does not (in red). The computer chooses the red one.

Yup your first drawing is the case.

[Cunningcairn]

If it really moved directly forward, then (as pompeytheflatulent says) at no point did it enter the secondary ZOC of the enemy unit.

As you can see from Athos's and my screenshots, the primary and secondary ZOCs are (perforce) placed differently for diagonally-facing units than they are for orthogonally facing units. However the logic is the same - the primary ZOC is the square directly in front of the unit and the secondary ZOCs are the squares adjacent to the ZOCer that are either side of the primary ZOC. (NOT the squares that are either side of the primary ZOC but not adjacent to the ZOCer, otherwise the ZOCer would be exerting a secondary ZOC into a square two squares away from it!)


No ZOC applies.jpg

Thanks Richard I can see what has happened from the drawings. I'm getting caught with the facing of the actual unit and not the square itself. I might have to resort to using the screen aids.

[Athos1660]

The two shapes of ZoCs depending on the orientation of the unit inside the square :

1) orthogonally facing units


2) diagonally facing units

[Cunningcairn]

The two shapes of ZoCs depending on the orientation of the unit inside the square :

1) orthogonally facing units


2) diagonally facing units

Yes thanks I see that now. My problem is that when I play I don't pay enough attention to the detail and don't like playing with grids, info panels, statistical info etc. I think I am going to have to change my methods and look at it more like a game of chess.

[Athos1660]

I think I am going to (..) look at it more like a game of chess.

You're absolutely right. ZoCs make the game a bit like a chessboard on which one moves one's pieces, being careful of enemy ZoCs and trying to constraint him with one's ZoCs.

btw I am trying to figure out what the new ZoC rule really changes in 1.5.24 Open Beta : "If a unit is affected by more than one enemy ZOC, movement options will be now be restricted by all of these, rather than by only one of them as previously." Anybody has concrete examples (if possible, with pics) ?

[Cunningcairn]

I think I am going to (..) look at it more like a game of chess.

You're absolutely right. ZoCs make the game a bit like a chessboard on which one moves one's pieces, being careful of enemy ZoCs and trying to constraint him with one's ZoCs.

btw I am trying to figure out what the new ZoC rule really changes in 1.5.24 Open Beta : "If a unit is affected by more than one enemy ZOC, movement options will be now be restricted by all of these, rather than by only one of them as previously." Anybody has concrete examples (if possible, with pics) ?

I'm not sure. I posted an algorithm that would have made ZOC's more logical and negated the chess like aspects but I'm not sure if that is what has been implemented or not.

[Cunningcairn]

*Squints* What is this? A screenshot for ants? In all seriousness from what I can tell the cavalry moved from a non ZoC square to a non ZoC square. Can you make a higher resolution and/or zoomed in screenshot? Or maybe a MS paint diagram?

Your eye sight is obviously deteriorating with age even if your mind is still sharp

[Athos1660]

To be clear, I for one like what you call "the chess like aspects"

[Cunningcairn]

To be clear, I for one like what you call "the chess like aspects"

And to be clear I don't have a problem with that. What I'm struggling with is if the game is supposed to be chess like or not. I'm obviously a bit slow but once I know if it is or isn't I will be content

[Athos1660]

What I'm struggling with is if the game is supposed to be chess like or not.

I guess it depends on what you call 'chess-like'.

There is a big difference between :

• a chess rule like 'The bishop has no restrictions in distance for each move, but is limited to diagonal movement"

• and the ZoC rules of FoGII.

ZoCs translate an historical reality during battles, it is logical. The chess rule is just a made-up rule, conceived only for game design purpose.

On the other hand, both in FoG2 and chess, players have to move pieces on a chessboard according to movement rules, trying to 'get rid of' the opponent's pieces/forces.

Not to mention the difference between chess and FoGII in terms of predictability/chance (dice).

[rbodleyscott]

I think I am going to (..) look at it more like a game of chess.

You're absolutely right. ZoCs make the game a bit like a chessboard on which one moves one's pieces, being careful of enemy ZoCs and trying to constraint him with one's ZoCs.

btw I am trying to figure out what the new ZoC rule really changes in 1.5.24 Open Beta : "If a unit is affected by more than one enemy ZOC, movement options will be now be restricted by all of these, rather than by only one of them as previously." Anybody has concrete examples (if possible, with pics) ?

I'm not sure. I posted an algorithm that would have made ZOC's more logical and negated the chess like aspects but I'm not sure if that is what has been implemented or not.

It isn’t. There were problems with it as I mentioned in the thread.

The actual ZOC rules have not changed. All that has changed is that game now takes into account all of the units ZOCing a square, and not just the first one it finds.

[Barrold713]

What I'm struggling with is if the game is supposed to be chess like or not.

I guess it depends on what you call 'chess-like'.

There is a big difference between :

• a chess rule like 'The bishop has no restrictions in distance for each move, but is limited to diagonal movement"

• and the ZoC rules of FoGII.

ZoCs translate an historical reality during battles, it is logical. The chess rule is just a made-up rule, conceived only for game design purpose.

On the other hand, both in FoG2 and chess, players have to move pieces on a chessboard according to movement rules, trying to 'get rid of' the opponent's pieces/forces.

Not to mention the difference between chess and FoGII in terms of predictability/chance (dice).

3D Chess combined with Rock, Paper, Scissors, Shotgun, Lizard, Spock

[nyczar]

My understanding is that the new ZOC coding seeks to avoid the issue that was debated some time ago; the issue of a unit getting the ability to "choose" which ZOC to ignore or not when it was trapped in two opposing units Primary ZOCs. What I am curious to see is if this means there will still be an escape option or not when one hex is not covered by a secondary ZOC. I don't anticipate it but that is my question.

[rbodleyscott]

My understanding is that the new ZOC coding seeks to avoid the issue that was debated some time ago; the issue of a unit getting the ability to "choose" which ZOC to ignore or not when it was trapped in two opposing units Primary ZOCs. What I am curious to see is if this means there will still be an escape option or not when one hex is not covered by a secondary ZOC. I don't anticipate it but that is my question.

All ZOC restrictions will apply. There will be no escape route if the normal ZOC restrictions prevent it.