Slitherine

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:50 am The only (minor) issue I can see is the final example - no way for new players to know that moving only one square has many more options. But I assume the programming to show that path from the start is far too complicated.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Tue Nov 26, 2019 1:50 am Embarrassingly, I never noticed those icons before. This all looks excellent to me. The only (minor) issue I can see is the final example - no way for new players to know that moving only one square has many more options. But I assume the programming to show that path from the start is far too complicated.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:57 pm 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.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:18 pm

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 3:16 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:51 pm

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 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.

melm wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 6:07 am Honestly, I'd like to know the logic(detail is better)behind the the current ZOC rule. Why, in tabletop game, players are allowed to choose which ZOC to obey?

And what kills DBM for you say better players exploit certain rule?

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:23 pm Richard I have been thinking about your design philosophy wrt the angled line issue and think this change to the algorithm might satisfy both your design criteria and negate most of the angled line issues. All that will be required is this change to the Attack function in the algorithm.

Movement Types {Normal rules for movement apply prior to ZOC modifiers}
Attack – Initiate combat with any enemy unit exerting CPZ1 OR any enemy unit in a square directly to the front of the friendly unit if this enemy unit itself is exerting a CPZ2 {Prevents gamey ZOCing with angled lines and gamey moves to get units out of trouble by exerting CPZ1 and CPZ2’s and also maintains integrity of design philosophy as flanks are still protected.}

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:51 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:23 pm Richard I have been thinking about your design philosophy wrt the angled line issue and think this change to the algorithm might satisfy both your design criteria and negate most of the angled line issues. All that will be required is this change to the Attack function in the algorithm.

Movement Types {Normal rules for movement apply prior to ZOC modifiers}
Attack – Initiate combat with any enemy unit exerting CPZ1 OR any enemy unit in a square directly to the front of the friendly unit if this enemy unit itself is exerting a CPZ2 {Prevents gamey ZOCing with angled lines and gamey moves to get units out of trouble by exerting CPZ1 and CPZ2’s and also maintains integrity of design philosophy as flanks are still protected.}

This presumably for a unit in a ZOC1, otherwise it would already be able to do so.

I will certainly give this one some serious thought. I can't immediately see any issues with it, but I will need to set up some situations and see what effect it has.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 6:23 pm Richard I have been thinking about your design philosophy wrt the angled line issue and think this change to the algorithm might satisfy both your design criteria and negate most of the angled line issues. All that will be required is this change to the Attack function in the algorithm.

Movement Types {Normal rules for movement apply prior to ZOC modifiers}
Attack – Initiate combat with any enemy unit exerting CPZ1 OR any enemy unit in a square directly to the front of the friendly unit if this enemy unit itself is exerting a CPZ2 {Prevents gamey ZOCing with angled lines and gamey moves to get units out of trouble by exerting CPZ1 and CPZ2’s and also maintains integrity of design philosophy as flanks are still protected.}

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:47 am I am not happy with the blue unit (in the middle) being allowed to charge in these circumstances:



Example.jpg

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:19 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:47 am I am not happy with the blue unit (in the middle) being allowed to charge in these circumstances:



Example.jpg

Why are you not happy for it to charge?

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2019 6:57 pm 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.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:49 pm With both ZOCs applied what movement options would remain for the blue unit in that situation?

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:20 am

MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:49 pm With both ZOCs applied what movement options would remain for the blue unit in that situation?

Not sure, probably none under the current proposal, but I was discussing Cunningcairn's extra proposal.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:40 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:20 am

MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:49 pm With both ZOCs applied what movement options would remain for the blue unit in that situation?

Not sure, probably none under the current proposal, but I was discussing Cunningcairn's extra proposal.

Interesting! The blue unit in 'checkmate' or kind of encircled, forced to stay still. After several turns without friendly assistance, shouldn't the blue unit be allowed to fight to death against both enemy units at once (splitting its force) or forced to surrender (after cohesion tests because of the encirclement) ?

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 7:20 am

MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 29, 2019 10:49 pm With both ZOCs applied what movement options would remain for the blue unit in that situation?

Not sure, probably none under the current proposal, but I was discussing Cunningcairn's extra proposal.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat Nov 30, 2019 1:19 pm Would a lot of these counter intuitive situations be avoided( especially the angled line) if along with RBS proposal, to have a rule that no active unit can enter an enemy primary zoc unless it is charging the unit exerting said pzoc?