Setup Zones -- using them creatively

[Maastrictian]

Hi all, I've been playing around with the scenario editor for a while now and I've worked out some interesting ways to use the setup zones to give the player some interesting choices. I'm hoping these may be of use to someone and that others will offer their sugestions on how to use set up zones / what they prefer.

Three zones perpendicular to the line of advance. The first might represent the forward pickets (snipers, LMGs, an ambush team or too). The second represents the MLR (or main body of an attack). The last might be the reserve, arty spoters etc. Most useful in my view for the defending side.

Three zones paralell to the line of advance. This is simply to decide which forces will be in the player's left, right and center. Most useful for the attacking side.

A central zone, the same zone on each flank and a zone ahead or behind. The central zone is the main thrust of an attack. The zone that covers both flanks allows the player some choice as to how to weight his attack. Will he try to push to the left or the right? A final zone can be place infront to represent advanced, scouting elements or behind for a reserve or a force that can be allocated to any of the thrusts. Again this scheme is mostly for an attacker.

Of course there is always the one big zone approach. This gives the most freedom... but I don't like it. I feel its more realistic for higher command to have restricted the players freedom a bit. It also makes it easier for the designer to know roughly where units could end up.

Should set up zones be completely out of LOS of enemy set up zones? Or just the unit's default positions. Or should units start in LOS (I'm pretty strongly against the latter, but it can be useful).

Thoughts?

--Chris

[Disaster]

I hold with giving players more freedom with the one big zone. But I will set up different zones for units I feel would have been isolated by a quick enemy advance or who were forward elements. Sometimes I will make a house far in front an enemy zone so the player can have the option of putting a panzerschreck or sniper.

[Holman]

I haven't much experience in scenario building, but I would imagine that "zone theory" should take into account whether a scenario is meant for PBEM or for play against the AI. In games vs. the AI, somewhat restrictive zones can cause the player to wrestle with hard decisions, somewhat balancing out the natural wetware advantage.

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

"Of course there is always the one big zone approach. This gives the most freedom... but I don't like it. I feel

its more realistic for higher command to have restricted the players freedom a bit. It also makes it easier for

the designer to know roughly where units could end up.

Should set up zones be completely out of LOS of enemy set up zones? Or just the unit's default positions. Or

should units start in LOS (I'm pretty strongly against the latter, but it can be useful)."

I'm still experimenting myself. I don't care for the scenarios with everything padlocked. I feel that a commander should have some free reign over placement. When I want a strongpoint on a road or something I'll just padlock the big guns, and let the player set up support elements around that point. I like and use the forward ambush points, either allowing setup or padlocking them in a forward position. I think the local commander should have total control over AAA assets, if one side gets aircraft, can make or break a battle. I have not tried the 3 diffrent setup zones yet, I usually just put elements where I think they should be. I did just make a fun little map with the americans getting hit on an exposed flank, sort of like a rear HQ area. Lots of trucks, and jeeps, a battery of 105s, some AAA and infantry. I padlocked everything facing away from the attack except for a few guns. Germans had lots of halftracks and ACs with some guns brought up to a hill so they could provide overwatch. The german guns were in los to the HQ, but my reasoning was that the guns were brought forward during the night, and the attack got started in the morning as soon as the fog lifted. The germans got 6 tanks halfway through the battle. It is sort of a recon in force. But the Americans get some tanks also towards the end, Here comes the Cavalry to save the day!!! I'm still playing around with it and some others, I will get around to posting them all soon.

[gashford]

Something to think about for zone creation could be what I have tried to create in a scenerio I have made.

A small crossroads in a hamle/town in France has recently been taken by a small Ameican group. There are three roads into the town, so Ihave given the German attackers with the mission to take the town starting zones around these three roads as they enter the map, figuring that given enough time and effort the attacker would decide which was the best place to attack from.

The defender has a few small areas to place a mobile advance group in the road on, stationed to see where the attackers are coming from.

So a centrak defence with three possible locations the attacker can come from.

Thought it might make things a little different. What do you think?

[Dirtweasle]

>>I don't care for the scenarios with everything padlocked...<<

You can just edit that on your own too.

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Martyr:

...I would imagine that "zone theory" should take into account whether a scenario is meant for PBEM or for play against the AI. In games vs. the AI, somewhat restrictive zones can cause the player to wrestle with hard decisions, somewhat balancing out the natural wetware advantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My little experience is quite the different.

It's the AI that can't always handle one big setup zone but need help.

I just got the full version of CM and tried to do a bathtubbed and time-warped version of a scenario designed for Command Decision. In it the attacker gets points for exiting the other end, and the terrain is all flat grass (originally desert). The attackers units on map is the advance part of a corps, consisting of mainly tanks, with some towed IGs. This unit has been on the move for several hours before entering the map. The reasonable and realistic way to deploy these would be in a spread pattern with the IGs in the rear. Upon test playing, with the AI as attacker, all of the attackers units were lumped tightly together in the foremost corner of the setup area.

Had I only had a TRP there...

Anyway, I'm contemplating redoing that scenario, but this time using all three colours to force some spreading of the troops. (And probably the same for the defender.)

Cheers

Olle