Why Encicrlement is confusing and doesn't work well IMO

[Gwaylare]

Dorky I do not see your problem here. Yes an encirclement is quite easy to establish, especially if you lock down an unit with two units from opposite positions.
On the other hand an encirclement does not have an major impact to the encircled unit itself for a strong unit. It does harm weak or already suppressed units a lot and this is fine I think.

In a frontline there will occur several short term encirclements to units. But they will have minimal effect to those units. Encirclements just threaten units which are already isolated and that is fine.
To summarise this, it is easy to get an encirclement, but it is hard enough to get an effective encirclement.

The ZOC of an opponent units is not affected by your own units. So you cannot guide supply through your own units. That is fine for me either. That is why you cannot pass your own units, when they are in a ZOC of an opponent. There is a commander trait to ignore this and this does have a major effect to suppling and positioning units. It is much to easy then, because ZOCs are almost disabled then. Try this trait to get feeling what does it mean to reduce the mights of a ZOC.
What is really great about ZOCs is its simplicity. It is a very simple rule without any exception. Changing this might get thing even more complicated. It would be very helpfull to mark opponent ZOCs in some way. May be with the ability to toggle this on and off to avoid harming the nice looking terrain.

The encirclement mechanic does give additional opportunities to a player and for multiplayer any additonal opportunities are fine.
I locked down an islolated elephant with two infantry units. But the problem here is not the encirclement but the isolated elephant.

Best regards
Gwaylare

[Hemi]

I posted the following in another thread

Friendly units do not negate EZOCs unless you have the perk that does this.

The reason people are having issues with encirclement is the ZOC rules are too strict. Your enemies ZOC blocks supply even if you have a unit there, therefore encircling. This makes encircling way to easy and confusing.

Excerpt from the attached article on ZOC & supply: The game would be better served with a "Suppressive" ZOC IMO

EFFECTS ON SUPPLY LINE AND RETREAT
Interdicting – Prohibits the path of retreat or supply from being traced through an Enemy Controlled hex regardless of the presence of Friendly units.’
Suppressive – Prohibits the path of supply or retreat from being traced through an Enemy controlled hex if the hex is not occupied by Friendly Units.
Permissive – Does not affect the path of supply or retreat in any way.






https://wargamehq.com/mechanics-monday- ... ol-basics/

From the article you quote:

How can I use Zone of Control to maximize my “front?”

Many games that employ ZOC expect players to incorporate the rules into the way they position their units. It is critical to figure out how to best use ZOC to take advantage of the rules. This is something to consider if your opponent is outflanking your lines.

Are there opportunities to force my opponent into an unfavorable position using Zone of Control?

ZOC typically creates severe penalties for retreating units. This often means additional step losses. You can also consider forcing units out of supply using ZOC since many supply rules do not allow supply lines to pass through an enemy controlled ZOC. This can be a subtle way to outfox your opponent since many wargamers (myself included) can be myopic when reviewing the board state.

[Kerensky]

What is really great about ZOCs is its simplicity. It is a very simple rule without any exception. Changing this might get thing even more complicated.

Oh, is that why I'm such a fan of it. I guess I consistently prefer straightforward rule sets that govern consistently instead of overly complex rule sets with a laundry list of sub-rules that have ultra low discoverability and are difficult to communicate when they are explained.

[Dorky8]

Thank you Gwaylare & Hemi for taking the time to write thoughtful responses. With all dues respect I disagree with some of your analysis. I have edited your comments for simplicity.

On the other hand an encirclement does not have an major impact to the encircled unit itself for a strong unit. It does harm weak or already suppressed units a lot and this is fine I think.

In a frontline there will occur several short term encirclements to units. But they will have minimal effect to those units. Encirclements just threaten units which are already isolated and that is fine.
To summarise this, it is easy to get an encirclement, but it is hard enough to get an effective encirclement.

The ZOC of an opponent units is not affected by your own units. So you cannot guide supply through your own units. That is fine for me either. That is why you cannot pass your own units, when they are in a ZOC of an opponent.

What is really great about ZOCs is its simplicity. It is a very simple rule without any exception. Changing this might get thing even more complicated. It would be very helpfull to mark opponent ZOCs in some way. May be with the ability to toggle this on and off to avoid harming the nice looking terrain.


Best regards
Gwaylare

First I like the encirclement concept in the game, its possibly a great improvement, I just feel the ZOC rules for encirclement (blocking supply when there is a unit) are too rigid. The game creates too many encirclements, even in classical formations, and the ZOC rules aren't logical.

Encircled troops can't retreat, lose supply and have limited effectiveness the next turn even if they become "un encircled". That's a big deal.

If you go back to my primitive example its actually not logical (or realistic) that the two forward units would be encircled. The games ZOC blocks supply even when there is a unit there. I argue the games ZOC isn't simplistic or logical for this reason and a "suppressive" ZOC would be much more simplistic & logical. The games strict ZOC actually over complicates the concept and creates "gamey" outcomes. Again, changing ZOC to a suppressive approach would make the game less complicated, more realistic and more logical.

Many games that employ ZOC expect players to incorporate the rules into the way they position their units. It is critical to figure out how to best use ZOC to take advantage of the rules. This is something to consider if your opponent is outflanking your lines.


ZOC typically creates severe penalties for retreating units. This often means additional step losses. You can also consider forcing units out of supply using ZOC since many supply rules do not allow supply lines to pass through an enemy controlled ZOC. This can be a subtle way to outfox your opponent since many wargamers (myself included) can be myopic when reviewing the board state.

I understand the game ZOC rules I just feel they produce too many "gamey" outcomes. The outflanking you mention is far to easy and very unrealistic, in MP recons become the most important unit on the board. MP players take advantage by moving recons behind enemy lines (should be out of supply) taking advantage of the poor border supply concept and encircling. A less restrictive ZOC would be more realistic, logical and produce better game play.

In my example I was attacking (not retreating) with a superior force. There was no logic or realism in my opponents 2 units ZOC blocking the supply line of my two forward units thus encircling them

I've played wargames for more years than I liked to admit. I feel the games ZOC rules that produce encirclement to be "gamey" and unrealistic. A simple fix would improve the game greatly IMO.

On another note just dismissing any logical critique of the game as "well both sides can do it" is lame.

Again Thanks for the responses

[NightPhoenix]

Implementing a rule that ZOC gets blocked by a physical enemy unit will still allow you to explain encirclement in an easy way and doesn't have to be complicated.

Units exert a zone of control on all adjacent hexes, except on hexes where an enemy unit is present.
A unit is encircled if it cannot trace back supply to a supply point. Units can trace supply through any hex the enemy doesn't have a zone of control in or hexes with the no-supply trait.

Clean and simple. The only change is in italics.

[Horseman]

Implementing a rule that ZOC gets blocked by a physical enemy unit will still allow you to explain encirclement in an easy way and doesn't have to be complicated.

Units exert a zone of control on all adjacent hexes, except on hexes where an enemy unit is present.
A unit is encircled if it cannot trace back supply to a supply point. Units can trace supply through any hex the enemy doesn't have a zone of control in or hexes with the no-supply trait.

Clean and simple. The only change is in italics.

So does that mean that units can also pass through those hexes without bring stopped by ZOC? I'm not sure I like that at all.

And then we end up in a confusing situation where ZOC counts for one thing and not another. I rather keep it simple to understand as it is now, its not so difficult to manage encirclement IMO as it stands.

Occasionally one of my forward units will get cut off for one turn but as mentioned by someone else (in this thread or another I can't remember), this is not a problem. The problem comes if the unit is isolated or too weekly supported. And in that instance the real problem is that I let my unit get isolated/didn't support it properly, not that it is encircled.

[NightPhoenix]

Implementing a rule that ZOC gets blocked by a physical enemy unit will still allow you to explain encirclement in an easy way and doesn't have to be complicated.

Units exert a zone of control on all adjacent hexes, except on hexes where an enemy unit is present.
A unit is encircled if it cannot trace back supply to a supply point. Units can trace supply through any hex the enemy doesn't have a zone of control in or hexes with the no-supply trait.

Clean and simple. The only change is in italics.

So does that mean that units can also pass through those hexes without bring stopped by ZOC? I'm not sure I like that at all.

And then we end up in a confusing situation where ZOC counts for one thing and not another. I rather keep it simple to understand as it is now, its not so difficult to manage encirclement IMO as it stands.

Occasionally one of my forward units will get cut off for one turn but as mentioned by someone else (in this thread or another I can't remember), this is not a problem. The problem comes if the unit is isolated or too weekly supported. And in that instance the real problem is that I let my unit get isolated/didn't support it properly, not that it is encircled.

You are right. That wouldnt do. let's reprase to keep it as simple but keep ZOC as it is:

Units exert a zone of control on all adjacent hexes. A unit is encircled if it cannot trace back supply to a supply point.
Units can trace supply through any hex, unless the hex is in the enemies zone of control and no allied unit is present on that hex, or the hex has the no-supply strait.

Again the only change in rules is the part in italics. This leaves movement the way it is,and supplies can now be traced through a friendly unit as the only exception to the current rules.

[Hemi]

Thank you Gwaylare & Hemi for taking the time to write thoughtful responses. With all dues respect I disagree with some of your analysis. I have edited your comments for simplicity.

On the other hand an encirclement does not have an major impact to the encircled unit itself for a strong unit. It does harm weak or already suppressed units a lot and this is fine I think.

In a frontline there will occur several short term encirclements to units. But they will have minimal effect to those units. Encirclements just threaten units which are already isolated and that is fine.
To summarise this, it is easy to get an encirclement, but it is hard enough to get an effective encirclement.

The ZOC of an opponent units is not affected by your own units. So you cannot guide supply through your own units. That is fine for me either. That is why you cannot pass your own units, when they are in a ZOC of an opponent.

What is really great about ZOCs is its simplicity. It is a very simple rule without any exception. Changing this might get thing even more complicated. It would be very helpfull to mark opponent ZOCs in some way. May be with the ability to toggle this on and off to avoid harming the nice looking terrain.


Best regards
Gwaylare

First I like the encirclement concept in the game, its possibly a great improvement, I just feel the ZOC rules for encirclement (blocking supply when there is a unit) are too rigid. The game creates too many encirclements, even in classical formations, and the ZOC rules aren't logical.

Encircled troops can't retreat, lose supply and have limited effectiveness the next turn even if they become "un encircled". That's a big deal.

If you go back to my primitive example its actually not logical (or realistic) that the two forward units would be encircled. The games ZOC blocks supply even when there is a unit there. I argue the games ZOC isn't simplistic or logical for this reason and a "suppressive" ZOC would be much more simplistic & logical. The games strict ZOC actually over complicates the concept and creates "gamey" outcomes. Again, changing ZOC to a suppressive approach would make the game less complicated, more realistic and more logical.

Many games that employ ZOC expect players to incorporate the rules into the way they position their units. It is critical to figure out how to best use ZOC to take advantage of the rules. This is something to consider if your opponent is outflanking your lines.


ZOC typically creates severe penalties for retreating units. This often means additional step losses. You can also consider forcing units out of supply using ZOC since many supply rules do not allow supply lines to pass through an enemy controlled ZOC. This can be a subtle way to outfox your opponent since many wargamers (myself included) can be myopic when reviewing the board state.

I understand the game ZOC rules I just feel they produce too many "gamey" outcomes. The outflanking you mention is far to easy and very unrealistic, in MP recons become the most important unit on the board. MP players take advantage by moving recons behind enemy lines (should be out of supply) taking advantage of the poor border supply concept and encircling. A less restrictive ZOC would be more realistic, logical and produce better game play.

In my example I was attacking (not retreating) with a superior force. There was no logic or realism in my opponents 2 units ZOC blocking the supply line of my two forward units thus encircling them

I've played wargames for more years than I liked to admit. I feel the games ZOC rules that produce encirclement to be "gamey" and unrealistic. A simple fix would improve the game greatly IMO.

On another note just dismissing any logical critique of the game as "well both sides can do it" is lame.

Again Thanks for the responses

You completely missed the point of my post, which is all quotes from the article you quoted to open the discussion, and which doesn't agree with you at all.

[Dorky8]

Actually you are completely missing my entire point. I'm not arguing against knowing & optimizing zones of control in strategy. I'm arguing the ZOC from a standpoint of supply & encircling used by PC2 doesn't fit the game concept well.

I'm not arguing the following isn't true.

"How can I use Zone of Control to maximize my “front?”
Many games that employ ZOC expect players to incorporate the rules into the way they position their units. It is critical to figure out how to best use ZOC to take advantage of the rules. This is something to consider if your opponent is outflanking your lines."

I am arguing that an enemies ZOC shouldn't override an actual unit from a supply standpoint in this game.

"Are there opportunities to force my opponent into an unfavorable position using Zone of Control?
ZOC typically creates severe penalties for retreating units. This often means additional step losses. You can also consider forcing units out of supply using ZOC since many supply rules do not allow supply lines to pass through an enemy controlled ZOC. This can be a subtle way to outfox your opponent since many wargamers (myself included) can be myopic when reviewing the board state."

[nexusno2000]

Perimeter Control.

[Dorky8]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A

[George_Parr]

Don't really see a problem with it.

The zone of control is basically a contested area. You can't really move supply through a contested area, regardless of whether you have a unit in there. A unit merely represents the presence of a military force, it can still be fired upon by a unit next to it. The same would thus be true for any supply that runs through that spot, it could be fired upon by the enemy. You generally don't run your supply-chain through an area that sees active combat or is contested by the enemy.

[Dorky8]

While I'm on the ZOC topic is there a limitation on unit size exerting a ZOC and what is it? In my example could 2 1 strength units block the supply of 2 20 strength units?

[Horseman]

While I'm on the ZOC topic is there a limitation on unit size exerting a ZOC and what is it? In my example could 2 1 strength units block the supply of 2 20 strength units?

There is no limitation so yes those two 1 strength units could block supply for those two 20 strength units.

In practice though those two strength 20 units probably won't have too much trouble breaking out!

[Dorky8]

So the game allows 1 strength units to block the supply of 20 strength units and you're ok with that?

[Horseman]

So the game allows 1 strength units to block the supply of 20 strength units and you're ok with that?

Yes totally - they're not blocking the unit, they're blocking the supplies coming in.

It doesn't take much of a fighting force to stop unarmoured and mostly unarmed supply trucks......just knowing that an area was "crawling with the enemy" would be enough to stop armies sending supplies through a certain area.

Plus when do you start/stop differentiating units....1 strength point of Tiger Tanks would have in real life caused even tank formations to stop and think. Let alone a convoy of trucks.

And as I already said - if two 20 strength units cant break an encirclement by two 1 strength units then the problem is not the encirclement, its the player.

[Dorky8]

I really think the issue is I'm concerned about the multiplayer game and others are interested vs the AI.

If the 1 strength units cuts of supply (in my prior example) the 2 20 strength units are encircled, thus the 2 1 strength units have dramatically slowed the advance of the 20 strength units and the 20 strength units can't retreat. So you can also possibly ( and ridiculously) cut off supply with the 1 strength unit and destroy the unit with others.

When encircled:

Encircled troops can't retreat, lose supply and have limited effectiveness the next turn even if they become "un encircled". That's a big deal.

If you think this is fine we are obviously looking for a completely different gaming experience.



.

[Horseman]

I really think the issue is I'm concerned about the multiplayer game and others are interested vs the AI.

If the 1 strength units cuts of supply (in my prior example) the 2 20 strength units are encircled, thus the 2 1 strength units have dramatically slowed the advance of the 20 strength units and the 20 strength units can't retreat. So you can also possibly ( and ridiculously) cut off supply with the 1 strength unit and destroy the unit with others.

When encircled:

Encircled troops can't retreat, lose supply and have limited effectiveness the next turn even if they become "un encircled". That's a big deal.

If you think this is fine we are obviously looking for a completely different gaming experience.



.

If you've let two 1 strength units encircle two 20 strength units and thats going to be what decides the game - in MP or versus the AI then the problem is how you are playing and not the system (that your opponent also has to abide by)

You're stating that its a problem because other units can now come and beat up on your encircled troops....so its not just two 1 strength units doing the work then? Wheres your supporting units to relieve the encircled group? Oh you haven't got any.....again the problem lies with being out played not with the system.

If all those two 1 strength units achieve is to slow your two units down potentially delaying them reinforcing another area and thus causing you problems, again this is clever play by your opponent. History is riddled with small forces delaying the advance of larger ones.

[Dorky8]

GOOD GOD MAN. 1 Strength units (any unit) are blocking the supply and encircling 20 strength units !!!!!!

[Horseman]

GOOD GOD MAN. 1 Strength units (any unit) are blocking the supply and encircling 20 strength units !!!!!!

I understand the concept and what you're trying to say.

You appear to not understand that this is actually fine. Don't let yourself get in to that situation and it becomes a non issue.

Don't blame poor play/being out played on the game mechanics.

Two strength 20 units being encircled by two strength 1 units and that causing you to lose a game is 100% your fault. Its easy for those two full strength units to break that encirclement. Its a minor and local set back. The penalties for one turn encirclement are not so bad that your units are easy to walk over unless your opponent has really got overwhelming strength to bring in. If thats the case then again its 100% your fault - wheres your support?