V1.5.25 ZOC changes

[Cunningcairn]

Attached below are 2 screenshots of the movement allowed to a ZOC'd LF. The LF is still able to magically get to positions without passing through squares on its way. Second screenshot is after a hoplite moved giving the LF more options of magical movement, I would have thought the LF would not have been able to move as it could not move directly away from a primary ZOC. I assume this is a bug.

New ZOC1.jpg (71.34 KiB) Viewed 5867 times

NewZOC2.jpg (66.77 KiB) Viewed 5867 times

[Paul59]

I know I am in a minority on this, but I dislike these new restrictive ZOC rules. So I say, good luck to them!

My concern looking at these screenshots, is why the Light Foot cannot pass through the Thracians directly to their rear.

[Athos1660]

Hi, I tried to dissect the situation :

1) ZoC(s) :
I guess you all agree about the following ZoC. Only the nearest Enemy Cavalry exert a ZoC on our LF. And PA of the LF = 12.



2) Let's add the nearest friendly units :



There are 4 squares where the LF can move to, thanks to "Pass Through" and the unit being rotated by 45°. According to the manual (p. 62) : "Light foot can pass through friendly units, but only directly from front to back or back to front. They cannot pass through friends that are in close combat." It costs 10 AP.

Besides, the LF can also go to square A, following this path (that costs 12 AP) :



... which is the only thing that surprises me a bit. It seems to be at odds with the passage in bold (manual, p. 60) : "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." Does it only take into account the final position of the LF ?

3) Questions :

Shouldn't A be a 'pass through' square like B ? What's the difference between them ?
If so, as there is a B', shouldn't there be also A' and C 'pass through' squares ?

I know I am in a minority on this, but I hate these new restrictive ZOC rules. So I say, good luck to them!

What kind of ZoC rules would you prefer : those of the previous FoG version, those of P&S, etc. ? Why ?

[Paul59]

I know I am in a minority on this, but I hate these new restrictive ZOC rules. So I say, good luck to them!

What kind of ZoC rules would you prefer : those of the previous FoG version, those of P&S, etc. ? Why ?

I prefer the original (previous) ZOC rules.

In another thread a few weeks ago Richard said this:

"The FOG2 paradigm is emphatically not a "time-slice" model, it is an episodic "action-counteraction" model.......Real battles were not clockwork automatons with everyone moving synchronously. As units were not moving at full speed thoughout the battle, there was time in the interstices for some units to move further than average in the excitement of the moment while other troops are inactive or moving at their normal sustainable pace."

This statement perfectly sums up why I disagree with the new ZOC rules. These new rules go completely against the episodic "action-counteraction" model. Basically the "Surrounded" unit has to sit and do nothing during the opponents turn, while the "Surrounding" units leisurely move into place. Then, during the "Surrounded" units turn, they can still do nothing useful because they are locked in place by the secondary ZOCs!

ZOCs are not a "real" phenomena, they do not exist in the real world, they are only an artificial game rule. I can't see why a unit that is in danger of being surrounded has to obey them.

All the new ZOC rules achieve is to give more of an advantage to armies with large numbers of low cost units.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but you did ask for my reasons!

[Athos1660]

(...)
I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but you did ask for my reasons!

Thanks for your informative answer. Indeed, I did ask for your reasons as I have no strong views on current and past ZoCs.
So your opinion is very interesting

ZOCs are not a "real" phenomena, they do not exist in the real world, they are only an artificial game rule.

Well, ZoC1 represents realistic 'intercept' charges. I too will quote RBS : "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."

As for ZOC2s, they are "a way to prevent it being too easy for mobile units to slip through small gaps in the enemy line." Depending on one's regarding the glass as either half full or half empty, one can consider it as historical or a choice of game design.

I can't see why a unit that is in danger of being surrounded has to obey them.

Not to 'obey them' but to 'freeze'. I could see why an unit wouldn't expose (more) its flanks or back to an enemy's intercept charge (except if it is an agile and dispersed LF). A fleeing unit is a unit that is exposing its back to the enemy unit it previously faced.

[Athos1660]

(delete)

[Athos1660]

(delete)

[SnuggleBunnies]

Except a unit caught in two primary zocs can still charge, it's not frozen. Further, there were other oddities that resulted in the old system that could result just as much in players 'gaming' the rules, without even the added benefit of being consistent to the rest of the system. I have a good example in an old thread somewhere I'll dig up.

Edit: see my screenshot towards the bottom of this page of the massive zoc thread: viewtopic.php?f=477&t=93948&start=80

[TheGrayMouser]

I didnt have the capacity to beta test the new changes so will reserve my opinion until I get some games in, however its probably not going to matter much, although I am concerned (like Paul ) that it benefits armies with more and cheaper units..

What really still drives me nuts is non(intuitive)sense like this ( the Ai did this to me BTW!!)
So, none of my 3 lancers can strike any of the Vikings EXCEPT the bezerker simply due to the fact that they are facing on a diagonal...
I have had enough opponents do this stunt of geometry and now the AI is doing it , good grief!!
To be clear I understand the rules behind th ephenomenom, and I understand the intent but to be blunt, its an expoit when purposefully done, its non intuitive, and its an imersession killer...

Can we consider options to prevent this? I know there is fallout for everything but I much rather have a game where the ACTIVE unit can Always charge a unit in its own primary ZOC, regardless of what "dangers" might exist from enemy units.
Even worse, geoetrically speaking, the enemy units (whom the lancers put in their PZOC if they try and charge straight) centers of mass are geometrically closer to the lancers than the enemy unit on a diagonal preventing the charge in the first place...

Screen_00000000.jpg (932.64 KiB) Viewed 5679 times

[Cunningcairn]

I know I am in a minority on this, but I hate these new restrictive ZOC rules. So I say, good luck to them!

My concern looking at these screenshots, is why the Light Foot cannot pass through the Thracians directly to their rear.

Darn you are correct. I didn't even see that. This movement is not a product of the new rules, it was a problem with the previous ZOC rules which I thought had been corrected.

[MVP7]

...
Can we consider options to prevent this? I know there is fallout for everything but I much rather have a game where the ACTIVE unit can Always charge a unit in its own primary ZOC, regardless of what "dangers" might exist from enemy units.
...

I think a rule like this would just create another geometrical exploit where people would move their units in a way that effectively avoids the primary ZOC rule completely. Aren't you also able to attack the shieldwall unit (the one with general) below the mouse cursor if you first move into the square directly ahead of the cavalry?

---

As for Cunningcairn's situation (which indeed does not involve the new rules), I don't see much of a problem with the light foot escaping to the square A. You can think of it as the light troops moving through or in between the heavy infantry units or just passing them close by even if mechanically they are making a prohibited move in the process. It's not an unrealistic escape in that situation.

As for the actual new ZoC rules, I happily take all ZoCs applying over random ZoC(s) getting ignored. I still think it would be nice to have a "retreat" move option in a gridlock where a surrounded unit could make a move to a "safer" direction with a heavily penalized cohesion test.

[TheGrayMouser]

...
Can we consider options to prevent this? I know there is fallout for everything but I much rather have a game where the ACTIVE unit can Always charge a unit in its own primary ZOC, regardless of what "dangers" might exist from enemy units.
...

I think a rule like this would just create another geometrical exploit where people would move their units in a way that effectively avoids the primary ZOC rule completely. Aren't you also able to attack the shieldwall unit (the one with general) below the mouse cursor if you first move into the square directly ahead of the cavalry?

Well yes, but why is the end unit of a 3 unit front on a diagonal immune from attack? Sure I could attack the middle viking unit with my left flank lancer, but then that disordered end unit simply turn face next turn and now Im flanked. All because the enemy had the "forsite" to turn on a diagonal... Also, If I do as you say, sure my middle unit can then attack the bezerker BUT then My right most lancer cant engage. In essance the diagonal play of 3 units is trumping my 3 lancers and I can only use two effectively, despite a very NORMAL positioning in the battle. The only way to allow All three of my cavalry units to actually charge is by odd sequencing of my attacks ( and hoping they dont bounce off becaue f the first or second bounces Im back to square one)... So I could attacked from right to left in order... Arent the ZOC rules supposed help to prevent geometric exploits?

This is certainly one and as their is no random uncertainty in it like the old ZOC rules, players ( and the AI) apparently can and do use it.

So look at this sample. This lancer is in 2 enemy PZOC and 1 SecZOC and has MORE options... The AI screwed up here and if the end viking had remain in line then I wouldnt have the choice t attack it... Sorry, that is counter intuitivee and leads to exploits . If I was the viking player and THAT end unit was disrupted, I certainly would have made sure it was facing orthagonally...

Screen_00000001.jpg (921.5 KiB) Viewed 5640 times

[SnuggleBunnies]

Mouser, the diagonals are a different issue entirely that remain untouched from previous versions. There was also a discussion on why fixing it isn't straightforward, I think in the previous 8pg zoc thread

[pompeytheflatulent]

This whole thing seem to have nothing to do ZOC, and everything to do with light foot not being able to pass through friendly units. In the OP's first 2 screenshots, the spots the slingers are allowed to move are consistent with ZOC rules - in a 90 degree arc away from the ZOC unit. The anomaly is that they move in a crazy dog-leg path as shown in Athos' screenshots, instead of straight through friendly troops.

[Athos1660]

This whole thing seem to have nothing to do ZOC, and everything to do with light foot not being able to pass through friendly units. In the OP's first 2 screenshots, the spots the slingers are allowed to move are consistent with ZOC rules - in a 90 degree arc away from the ZOC unit. The anomaly is that they move in a crazy dog-leg path as shown in Athos' screenshots, instead of straight through friendly troops.

Indeed.

Except a unit caught in two primary zocs can still charge, it's not frozen.

well, if I am not mistaken, Paul and I were talking about the ability to flee, not to charge. Attacking one of two enemies may seem more logical than turning its back to both and flee.

Further, there were other oddities that resulted in the old system that could result just as much in players 'gaming' the rules, without even the added benefit of being consistent to the rest of the system.

It is certainly possible.

I have a good example in an old thread somewhere I'll dig up.
Edit: see my screenshot towards the bottom of this page of the massive zoc thread: viewtopic.php?f=477&t=93948&start=80

Sorry, I can not understand the situation you showed. Could you 'reenact' it in the scenario editor to make it clearer (with the initial and final situations) ?

(...)

It seems to be a complex matter.

(btw in SP games, if you move your 3 cavalry units in front of the 3 enemy units, then during the next AI turn, the 3 enemy units will often turn to face yours, whether to instantly attack or not).

[TheGrayMouser]

Mouser, the diagonals are a different issue entirely that remain untouched from previous versions. There was also a discussion on why fixing it isn't straightforward, I think in the previous 8pg zoc thread

Certainly true and I do believe I am now guilty of thread hijacking

I dont recall what RBS' thoughts were on the "diagonal issue", or if he even posted one.

[MVP7]

I think the main issue of diagonals was considered fixed with the change in major losses required before and between pushbacks. It prevented the single turn push into flanking position.

In any case, while the pathfinding algorithm struggles to recognize the valid melee targets with the diagonal line(?), there's fairly little actual difference when compared to orthogonal line: In either case any unit can only attack one possible enemy, in diagonal line that unit just isn't orthogonally in front of the unit but in the diagonal square. In both situations a desired melee target can be chosen by maneuvering into right square from the right direction, the diagonal line just makes that a bit more cumbersome due to the way the movement costs and distances are rounded.

I think the current situation is fine with the pushbacks nerfed. There is mathematically no way to make a square grid based movement system perfectly linear and the possible exploits and other downsides of relaxing the ZoC rules far outweigh the perceived benefits in my opinion.

[rbodleyscott]

... which is the only thing that surprises me a bit. It seems to be at odds with the passage in bold (manual, p. 60) : "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." Does it only take into account the final position of the LF ?

Yes

[rbodleyscott]

3) Questions :

Shouldn't A be a 'pass through' square like B ? What's the difference between them ?

The facing of the unit it would pass through.

As you quoted yourself:

According to the manual (p. 62) : "Light foot can pass through friendly units, but only directly from front to back or back to front."

In practice, this means that they can only move to the square(s) directly behind the passed through unit. This is what the game code is testing. This logic does have the side effect that the light infantry unit does not have to start in the square directly in front of the passed through unit in order to pass through, but I don't think tightening this up would have a beneficial effect on the game, it would just make it harder for light foot to pass through friends on the basis of an artificial geometry.

[Athos1660]

@rbodleyscott : thank you for the explanation.