Page 4 of 5

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:14 pm
by Cunningcairn
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:33 pm
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:53 pm
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.
At some stage in the evolution of these rules these current events were not possible. Why can't we go back to the way it was? What was the problem with the way it was?

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:16 pm
by TheGrayMouser
Cunningcairn wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:14 pm
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:33 pm
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:53 pm
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.
At some stage in the evolution of these rules these current events were not possible. Why can't we go back to the way it was? What was the problem with the way it was?
Ok, but RBS already has stated nothing has changed re the phenomenon in this thread. So what is the rule change you propose? Its not so simple to say you can’t move thru a zoc; the archer in your example was already in the far cohorts secondary zoc and simply moved out of the zoc.

Also note that the red player in your screen could have faced the archer with its primary zoc of the top cohort. if it had, the archer still would have able to move away to the northeast but wouldn’t have been able to drive by and behind that cohort. The situation is not random and can predicted easily. Seems not all that common either, I just tried to test things in hotseat and it took some effort just to replicate the archers situation.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:10 am
by Cunningcairn
At some stage in the evolution of these rules these current events were not possible. Why can't we go back to the way it was? What was the problem with the way it was?
[/quote]

Ok, but RBS already has stated nothing has changed re the phenomenon in this thread. So what is the rule change you propose? Its not so simple to say you can’t move thru a zoc; the archer in your example was already in the far cohorts secondary zoc and simply moved out of the zoc.

Also note that the red player in your screen could have faced the archer with its primary zoc of the top cohort. if it had, the archer still would have able to move away to the northeast but wouldn’t have been able to drive by and behind that cohort. The situation is not random and can predicted easily. Seems not all that common either, I just tried to test things in hotseat and it took some effort just to replicate the archers situation.
[/quote]

The legionary to the front right of my archers has just been charged in the flank by my lancer. Before that charge my archer had no possible move except to charge the legionary to his left in rough going. Once I charged the right hand side legionary with my lancer my archer was allowed to move passed the other legionary. But yes your statement regarding testing this on hotseat is 100% correct. You will find it difficult to replicate because it is totally random. The ability to move anywhere once you are in more than one ZOC is random and can then allow movement that isn't normally possible. To be able to move passed a unit to your front one square to either side should not be allowed and especially not because you are in a secondary ZOC of another unit. That should limit movement even more. My understanding of a ZOC is that it represents a threat negating normal movement due to the close proximity of enemy troops. And something has changed because what we are discussing did not happen from day 1 of the FOG2 release.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:46 am
by SnuggleBunnies
Uhh... this sort of thing did happen from day one, it's just always been rare. There hasn't been a rule change.

I would think that just making sure that a unit can never simply ignore secondary ZoC would take care of this issue? At that point, the archers in the screenshot could either turn around to face the unit whose primary ZoC they are in, or just stay put. Either way they're totally screwed, which, under the circumstances, they absolutely would be. I fail to see how such a rule change would be exploitable, but perhaps I'm missing something?

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 4:32 am
by Cunningcairn
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:46 am
Uhh... this sort of thing did happen from day one, it's just always been rare. There hasn't been a rule change.

I would think that just making sure that a unit can never simply ignore secondary ZoC would take care of this issue? At that point, the archers in the screenshot could either turn around to face the unit whose primary ZoC they are in, or just stay put. Either way they're totally screwed, which, under the circumstances, they absolutely would be. I fail to see how such a rule change would be exploitable, but perhaps I'm missing something?
I never experienced this until recently. I suppose games are getting more competitive and players are better at playing the game and this is highlighting these issues.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 10:04 am
by Paul59
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:46 am
Uhh... this sort of thing did happen from day one, it's just always been rare. There hasn't been a rule change.

I would think that just making sure that a unit can never simply ignore secondary ZoC would take care of this issue? At that point, the archers in the screenshot could either turn around to face the unit whose primary ZoC they are in, or just stay put. Either way they're totally screwed, which, under the circumstances, they absolutely would be. I fail to see how such a rule change would be exploitable, but perhaps I'm missing something?
Surely, if secondary ZOCs were never ignored it would greatly increase the effectiveness of spam armies with large numbers of crap units?

Oh, and you are absolutely right about the "rule change". I have played FOG2 since the initial pre release Beta, and the ZOC rules have always been the same.


cheers

Paul

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 1:02 pm
by SnuggleBunnies
Spam armies need to be addressed anyway, though I think that problem is not as large as many think. In any case, this is a rare occurrence without too much effect on overall balance, it's just really annoying because it's so random and really doesn't make much sense. I think the two issues need to be addressed separately. The spam issue can be addressed by a slight cost tweak, or making medium foot slightly more brittle or vulnerable to shock. In addition, getting rid of the ability to use lights to lock units in place to set up a flank would weaken the spam.

And to be clear, I think a unit engaged in melee should not exert secondary zoc.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:32 pm
by rbodleyscott
Cunningcairn wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:14 pm
At some stage in the evolution of these rules these current events were not possible.
This is not true. It has always been like this.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:58 pm
by Cunningcairn
I think this could be a possible solution to the ZOC issues. Comments, criticism and highlighting of any errors in logic are welcomed.

ZOC Rules

Possible Movement Square Identifiers {Identifies squares that you could move into under normal movement rules w.r.t. ZOC’s}
Z1 – Primary ZOC
Z2 – Secondary ZOC
Z3 – No ZOC

Current Position ZOC Assessment
CPZ1 –Currently in Primary ZOC
CPZ2 – Currently in Secondary ZOC
CPZ3 – Currently in No ZOC

Movement Types {Normal rules for movement apply prior to ZOC modifiers}
Move – Movement into any square that does not initiate combat
Attack – Initiate combat with any enemy unit exerting CPZ1 OR CPZ2 OR any enemy unit in a square directly to the front of the friendly unit in a CPZ1 OR CPZ2 even if this enemy unit is not exerting a CPZ1 OR CPZ2 itself {Prevents gamey ZOCing with angled lines and gamey moves to get units out of trouble by exerting CPZ1 and CPZ2’s.}
Turn – Change facing
Retire – move 1 or 2 directly to rear as allowed by normal movement rules ignoring Z1 OR Z2

If CPZ1 AND CPZ2 then apply CPZ1 rule

If CPZ1
No initial Move into any Z1 OR Z2 OR Z3 unless Z3 one square away from any units exerting CPZ1 OR CPZ2 {Prevents unit moving alongside unit exerting secondary ZOC- see archer example in this thread}
OR
Attack
OR
Turn towards any CPZ1 unit or any square between any 2 units which are both exerting CPZ1
OR
Retire {This can be easily justified and does not need any special ZOC rule to prevent it happening}

If CPZ2
No initial Move into any Z1 + Z2 OR Z3 unless Z3 one square away from any units exerting CPZ1 OR CPZ2 {Prevents unit moving alongside unit exerting secondary ZOC}
OR
Attack
OR
Turn
OR
Retire {This can be easily justified and does not need any special ZOC rule to prevent it happening}

If CPZ3
Move unit until move complete OR unit enters a Z1 or Z2 then apply CPZ1 OR CPZ2 Move rule.
OR
Attack including initiating combat on units that are not directly to the units front. If at anytime during the course of the Attack move the unit enters a Z1 OR Z2 then CPZ1 OR CPZ2 rules immediately come into play.
OR
Turn
OR
Retire {This can be easily justified and does not need any special ZOC rule to prevent it happening}

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:59 pm
by Cunningcairn
rbodleyscott wrote:
Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:32 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:14 pm
At some stage in the evolution of these rules these current events were not possible.
This is not true. It has always been like this.
OK Richard I have been told by others as well. I have just not experienced it until recently. See my post above.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:01 pm
by Cunningcairn
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:16 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:14 pm
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 3:33 pm


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.
At some stage in the evolution of these rules these current events were not possible. Why can't we go back to the way it was? What was the problem with the way it was?
Ok, but RBS already has stated nothing has changed re the phenomenon in this thread. So what is the rule change you propose?
See my post above

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:16 am
by SnuggleBunnies
By retire I assume you mean Fall Back and take a cohesion test if in charge range as usual?

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:50 am
by Cunningcairn
SnuggleBunnies wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:16 am
By retire I assume you mean Fall Back and take a cohesion test if in charge range as usual?
Yes my retire is Fall Back in the rules without any changes. The cohesion test could include an additional negative modifier if you fall back into a ZOC increasing the risk of such a maneuver when surrounded if deemed necessary. And at risk of mixing topics a break-off should also ignore all ZOC's.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:55 pm
by MVP7
Fall back style cohesion test when moving out of multi-ZOC-lock could be a nice addition. It would definitely add a cost to the otherwise consequence free movement in these specific situations and it seems realistic enough. At the same time it would be nice if the "ignorable" ZOC was chosen specifically rather than randomly.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:42 pm
by MikeC_81
@GrayMouser. The rule change is easy. A move is only allowed by a unit if it does not conflict with any ZoC rules instead of arbitrarily picking one and ignoring the others.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:16 pm
by TheGrayMouser
MikeC_81 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:42 pm
@GrayMouser. The rule change is easy. A move is only allowed by a unit if it does not conflict with any ZoC rules instead of arbitrarily picking one and ignoring the others.

Maybe, Im not so sure its desirable though based on some things I just observed. Its hard to think of "changes" when what we have now is so byzantine,. I will shortly follow with some screenies and maybe someone can confirm which rules are being applied...

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:35 pm
by TheGrayMouser
These are the rules form the manual:
When ZOC’d …”The direction of movement must be less than 45 degrees from directly away from the enemy unit.
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.”

Situation A: seems clear what is happening: the South red unit is determined to be the ”primary zoc and is “prioritized”. ( the north red unit zoc is ignored) The green unit thus can move away from the south red unit but still must obey the rules of movement: Apparently the code measures the angle into x as < 45 degrees.

Situation B: again, the game still believes x is < 45 degrees allowing the movement into x

Situation C: This is what puzzles me. The south red unit clearly should be the primary ZOCer and the north units ZOC should be ignored. Based on Samples a and B, moving into x in c should still be less than 45 degrees and so should be legal. What gives?

Is the manual wrong and there is a random chance that the north red unit has been determined to be the ZOCer? And thus the South reds zoc is ignored? If this is the case, why cant the green unit then use “fall back” a grid if south red has no effective ZOC???
b.jpg
b.jpg (192.42 KiB) Viewed 168 times

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:44 pm
by TheGrayMouser
Sorry, what mess trying to upload files... The middle one is A...

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:56 pm
by Cunningcairn
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 6:44 pm
Sorry, what mess trying to upload files... The middle one is A...
Your pictures make the point clearly. The current ZOC rules don't make any sense. Try applying "the code" in my "possible solution" post above to these drawings.

Re: Moving through a ZOC

Posted: Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:34 am
by melm
How about an example that unit is in two primary ZOC?