Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gentlemen,

Having always been ok to go either way with the Weak ZOC optional rule, the more I've considered it and read about not just Napoleonic battles but all conflicts I now believe the Weak ZOC should be left off. My reasoning is as follows,

. Once a unit was committed and engaging an enemy force its ability to change its priority of attention/focus in moving away from that enemy was VERY restricted.

2. In our period it was almost impossible and unusual from my readings, to achieve this movement away from the engaged enemy without one force disengaging first (whether that be withdrawal, retreat or rout), or a greater threat appears to the enemy engaged appears and takes the that enemy's focus. Which forces the unit to break off so as to be able to re-focus (move), or break in retreat or rout.

3. This meant that multiple units/formations engaging a single unit/formation had the ability to fix and then turn a flank or commit weight of numbers. Likewise this goes up the chain where a fully engaged formation (Bde, Div, Corpse, Army) had to have reserves to deploy in order to out maneuverer or overwhelm the enemy force. Otherwise the battle was a simple affair of engage and wait until one unit/formation broke from the effects of battle (fire or melee combined with perceived "threat" - the threat levels I think are handled well with the threat values in the game engine).

4. The 'eye of god' ability we have with the game allows that refocus more so than was ever achievable for engaged units in the fog of battle. Thus that surprise or weight of number sis often countered much more effectively than in reality was possible. This extends the ability of a unit/force to stand and be effective a lot more than was actually the case and allows for a greater casualties total than was achieved before the unit/force broke.

5. With the Weak ZOC 'ON' (ticked) it allows units to move and react with a lot more flexibility than they actually were able to achieve. I believe this lack of flexibility once engaged in direct action against an enemy force was a very real combat restriction when formed bodies of troops have been engaged through the centuries. The move to light troops, irregulars, open order formation etc was an attempt to keep the enemy focus and engaged and thus restrict the formed unit's options (fixing them) whilst keeping the ability to have distance, flexibility and the ability to re-focus(move) without being tied to the engagement committed to.

6. Maneuver units/forces became tools to throw in as flanking threats or weight of numbers and that is where lies the options open to commanders, which of their forces to employ and where.

So in summary the Weak ZOC allows units and forces too much flexibility that was usual. Its effect is to extend the fighting abilities and casualties that a unit and formation was able to withstand and thus drags out a battle unrealistically. It penalizes a more flexible and well structured tactical stance, defence or offence. Just the situation many complain about.

Arguments for and against would be a good debate.

Points taken, but units trapped in zoc are trapped forever. No chance of escape. And to see cavalry lamely sit by whilst being shot up when they have opportunity to try and escape strikes me as unrealistic. It was a problem with the old BG games. Softer zoc merely allows a unit to go from one zoc to another one so I've never seen it as a problem. It may become a bigger issue if NME is off but few players choose to uncheck that option. It may also be an issue if Isolation Rule is on. But I've more of an issue with hard zoc myself.

Mike,

I agree with what you say about units having a lack of flexibility once locked in combat, a very sound assessment of the historical realities of combat, but, like Andy, I think that having weak ZOC unchecked would trap units who seek to disengage, leading to unrealistic situations like cavalry being unable to to break off from combat with infantry and just sitting there being shot to pieces.

_________________

The hard zoc was a big problem with the Talonsoft games and led to use of the blitzy style of gamey play. I think it is the lesser of evils but your points are well made Mike.

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Edward Blackburn, 1st Duke of Aberdeen K.G.
85th (Buck's Light Volunteers) Regiment of Foot
16th British Brigade
7th Division
III (Peninsular) Corps
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards

I understand the ZoC... it's to prevent a unit marching right past a line of enemy troops without being fired on even once (etc.) ... so we need to keep it.

But Mike is right. Being able to manouvre around a weak ZoC is a little bit unrealistic. Even 25 men in all the smoke and gunfire are practically impossible to command. Once "launched"... a unit (the majority of which is men out of earshot of the commander) will only follow the Standard and react to whatever happens depending on what the individuals think is the appropriate way.

No unit will completely ignore being attacked by one unit and continue to attack another, for example. Soldiers who see cavalry will tend to want to form square, anticipating an order (and then become disordered)... if you ever tried to herd a crowd in a peacetime setting.. you know how difficult THAT is...

My view aboot the BG engine... it should force the ZoC as currently... but allow units in a ZoC to pass through the next ZoC. What would that look like on our 9th Century battlefield..? A unit gets shot at as it passes one unit.. whereas the next unit would let it go past.. in the smoke and confusion... is that next unit ready to fire..? Can it even see the enemy just 50 yards from it...?

And routed units should ignore ZoC altogether... A routed unit is not a load of guys marching in column but disobeying orders.. it's guys in 2's .. 3's .. dozens running out of harms way. No unit, not even a unit in line is going to prevent or be able to fire at such men rushing by..


Cpt. Ralf Serena
3rd Brigade
st Division
IV Corps

Gentlemen,

Thanks for the replies however what most of you are saying is that you don't want the ZOC restrictions because your troops will get trapped and shot up with little chance of escape. That begs the question why would you choose tactically to put them in that position without adequate support to either follow them up to counter the enemy threat or to support them in a way they can disengage?

The weak ZOC we agree does give a bit more ability in that regard but I believe it still gives too much flexibility and while not directly penalising a "better" tactical position it does extend the ability of the defending units to put up a fight with the all seeing 'eye of god' reaction when in reality they are now in a bad tactical position and need to be directly supported to get out of it or would break to disengage.

The weak ZOC is allowing an inferior force and /or inferior tactical position to be more effective than in reality they were, it promotes smaller delaying forces having a disproportionate effect. It does not promote the the full effect of a superior force or tactical position. It does not force players to concentrate force and plan an effective layered operation with reserves and depth of troops as well as we should.

No matter the size of the battle unless the position, force structure and tactical options were good then the troops were usually beaten quickly and with considerable 'lose' to that forces strength or cohesion.

Currently the engine has its restrictions we all work within but without the weak ZOC allowance I think it extends the staying power unrealistically of most troops and does not promote tactical surprise or overwhelming force that should have a better effect in the games.

Is it a balance between 'reality' and the engine game play or are we trying to turn the troops into more powerful robots in this case?

The No Melee elimination rule ticked ON used in conjunction with no weak ZOC still allows initial staying power and this I think is adequate.

As I'm still in the process to find the right OR for a standard rule base I wonder if the weak ZOC rule allows so much more, afaik only thing you can pull off is moving from one ZOC to another ZOC but that spends all your movement points and that in a 10 minute turn or even longer.
Doesn't sound too much.
Maybe some things from the "Optional Command System" by Bill peters would help more here.
viewtopic.php?p=60178

_________________

What is the scale of the hexes, 100 or 150 yards? I can never remember. Anyway, you're saying that a unit could control the space directly in front of it and to either side. The space in front of it is obvious as you'd have to pass through the unit itself but I have a hard time believing that troops armed with the weapons of the day would completely dominate the ground to either side of them to the point of preventing movement. So you can move from one ZoC to another and have to stop which means they can fire on you but can't actually physically stop you which I find more appropriate myself. I'm sure my reasoning is bit simplistic but it's how I look at it.

_________________
Field Marshal Mark Nelms

Scale to my understanding is 100yds.

My reasoning for the Weak ZOC 'off' is that once a unit was engaged they tended to not do a lot of movement other than formation or direction change UNTIL they had either:

a. They had driven the enemy off and were free to focus on another threat, or
b. Were themselves driven off or captured.

This forces you to commit troops to protecting flanks and having reserves available to support troops thrown into the front and directly engaging the enemy. From my readings this is more in line with what actually happened and gives a better flavor and tactical feel to the game.

Yes I concede that with the game engine that Cavalry have a problem as they COULD move away from infantry unless surrounded or within built up areas. I do wish infantry had NO ZOC over cavalry - this would improve the game, tactics and "reality" considerably I think.

All food for thought.

From the user manual page 2 (the latest one, but I guess it's the same for the others)



The ACW has a different scale

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

Yea and with the timescale of usually 20 minutes a lot things work differently in the Civil War series compared to the Napi series.

@Mike Ellwood
I understand that the engaged troops were totally focused on their "job" but one must also see that IF they try to disengage by movement and that by moving into another ZOC it will be vulnerable, for fire combat it would take +20% if in line formation and +25% if in column and for melee even 40% and it's also likely that the unit is after the movement not even facing the enemy and so can't fire or melee.
It think its better to give the possibility of doing such a movement what will come at a high cost as these units might be taking high casualties instead of prohibiting it completely, also in regards to the hex field structure of the game

Also even with that rule off a unit could simply still move backwards to disengage.

Regarding reserves and flank protection, well isn't that mandatory to do so?
Again I think I prefer to let the player choose how to do it, but it's likely that if he chooses to go in without reserves or flank cover he will pay a high price for this.

And yes it would be really bad for cavalry with that rule off.

As I'm still in the process finding a standard Optional Rules set to have a base for every game I'm not too sure about all this.
For now my next attempt will be with manual Defensive fire, didn't like the opportunity fire in the Civil War series and here it's even worse.
I have to see how it all plays out with gameplay in phases.

But for now the ZOCs are another thing in the engine that could be refined that's for sure.

_________________