Zones of Control

[ev]

Elsewhere in this site I argued that enterring enemy territory should cause some additional movement cost. Some of you presented the very sound argument that an additional movement cost should result from entering enemy zones of control (ZOC). I have since given a bit of thought to the effect ZOC's should have on a game like SC. This is what I have come up with:

First and foremost, entering and exciting ZOC's should reduce the readiness level of a unit. Contact with the enemy causes disruption. No plan survives the first contact with the enemy. Repeatedly entering and leaving ZOC's should disrupt a unit, decrease readiness levels, and hence reduce the unit's combat potential for that unit.

The disruption from entering and leaving ZOC's should be cummulative through the turn. Each time a unit enters or leaves an enemy ZOC, it should suffer further disruption.

A unit that just dissengaged from a sector (left an enemy ZOC) and moved to attack at a new sector should do so at a lesser readiness level than a fresh reserve moving straight into battle. And, a fresh reserve unit moving from from the rear, should have some lesser readiness level than a unit that was already at the jump-out possition at the begining of the turn.

However, ZOC's should be cleared by the first unit moving into or leaving that hex. The unit first entering or leaving a hex assinged a small portion of men to patrol the area. This reduces the readiness level of the first unit entering or leaving that hex. But subsequent units moving through that hex "benefit" from the first units efforts... Once a prior unit had cleared enemy ZOC's at a tile (either because it moved through it, or because it started the turn at that location) new units could be brought from the rear into that tile without any disruption pennalty.

Aside from affecting readiness, ZOC's should also affect movement albeit indirectly. Friendly ZOC's should convert enemy territory into friendly territory. Whether a tile is friendly or foe should in turn affect movement of the first unit entering that tile. But once the tile is cleared by a friendly unit, the tile should remain friendly for the remaining of that turn.

A unit moving through a tile which is in enemy ZOC will eliminate that ZOC for the remaining of the turn. When the tile was cleared into friendly territory, the ZOC was cleared as well - for the remaining of the turn.

As I said earlier, enemy territory can be cleared by friendly unit entering that tile. Aside from that, there are several ways in which ZOC's may affect whether a tile is friendly or foe: (1) At the end of the turn, enemy teritory should become friendly if it is within a friendly ZOC but not within an enemy ZOC. But this calculation should take place only at the end of the turn. (2) At the end of the turn, where several friendlies and foes extend their ZOC over an enemy territory, the enemy territory will be converted to friendly if the combat power of friendlies doubles the combat power of enemies. (3) Friendly cities should convert into friendly the surrounding territory provided there are no enemy ZOC's affecting that tile.

Finally, armored units should be better at crossing enemy territory than soft units. Armored units (tanks) should suffer less disruption from enetering or leaving enemy territory. Furthermore, armored units (tanks) should pay a lesser movement pennalty for entering enemy territory. (...and I mean tanks, not motorized infantry).

[SeaMonkey]

OK ev I'm in agreement with most of this with some additional "food for thought". Remember we are talking one week to one month turns. Is 50 miles to far to move into enemy territory and then recover disruption in one week/one month time period and deploy for assault? How about a 100 miles? I agree with friendly unit prior movement negating ZoCs. Further, I believe the level of disruption(loss of readiness)should also be a function of how far a unit moved in that turn, ie. less use of APs = lower loss of readiness. Mech units should suffer less readiness loss when moving into enemy territory, conversely, infantry units should get a readiness bonus when attacking when they have not moved(assault preparation). Actually when I think about it, all units should suffer a proportional(depending on type) loss of readiness compared to the amount of APs they use prior to attacking.

[ev]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

... the level of disruption(loss of readiness)should also be a function of how far a unit moved in that turn, ie. less use of APs = lower loss of readiness. ...all units should suffer a proportional(depending on type) loss of readiness compared to the amount of APs they use prior to attacking.

(For those new to SC jargon AP stands for Action Points (sort of like movement points).

I agree very much with Sea Monkey's idea. Spending a higher percentage of AP should cause a higher decrease of readiness. And there is something very elegant about your idea when you combine it with some the ideas presented in our prior entry:

Say there is some movement cost for entering enemy territory. This higher movement cost means a higher percentage of AP was spent, and hence a higher loss of combat readiness. Very good.

I very much like this idea and hope Hubert does too.

An interesting note, your idea adds a whole lot more value to motorizing infantry. (In SC2 there will be a research area and consequent unit upgrades to motorize your infantry.) Foot infantry has so few AP's that it would run out of steam quickly. Your idea would limit the ability of foot infantry to move and attack in the same turn since moving as little as two hexes would result in a 66% use of AP's, and consequently a greater reduction of combat readiness. (In SC1 infantry armies had 3 AP's).

On the other hand, specially if your idea is implemented I would argue for increase AP for tank units. I always thought they were too low in SC1.

[Blashy]

These are all sound ideas.

But imho, they fit more into a "world in flames" game.

If we start adding all those little details to SC2, it will loose it's #1 appeal of easy to play and learn.

the more you put in, the more you have to calculate this and that to complete a turn, which is a form of micro management.

[SeaMonkey]

Blashy, I understand that the anal retentive of our group will do the calculations down to the minutess details. But this feature is about calculations in your head, the "feel" of the game. I for one play wargames by feel. Now my investment portfolio is calculated to detail. The idea is to introduce so many "mind" possibilities to SC as to "never" have repetitious play. Not to the point of indecision or confusion but to create a great variability to the outcome of your actions. All you have to do with this feature is to remember the farther you move your unit the more readiness it loses(terrain, weather, enemy considerations). When I paddle out I don't calculate how many waves I'm going to catch with my remaining energy. But if the surf is big then I may use a pier or jetty to help me get outside.

[ev]

Originally posted by Blashy: ...If we start adding all those little details to SC2, it will loose it's #1 appeal of easy to play and learn.

[/QB]

I really don't think these ideas will make the game any harder to play or learn.

Sea Monkey's idea that a unit losses readiness as it spends AP's is very simple and straight forward. The farther you move the more readiness you lose. The computer takes care of all the calculations. The player only need to keep in mind that if you stretch your neck to far out, it may get chopped.

My idea that entering enemy territory should have an extra AP cost is also straight forward. In SC1 enemy territory was color shaded. The player would know from just looking at the screen that those pink tiles are more expensive to move in. And therefore you will incur in a loss of AP's, and consequently a loss of readiness, as you enter those hexes.

I agree with Sea Monkey that wargaming is not about calculating all those odds to the infinitesimal. You just know these are factors and you approximate in your mind the cost of these factors. The game engine takes care of the exact calculations when it resolves the battle. The players need not do so. ...and it is not worth it to do so, since the game engine applies a randomizing algorithm to the resolution of each battle. Hence, there is no way of perfectly predicting any individual outcome. You are only playing a game of probabilities. Which is the way it should be, war gaming and strategy is about playing with the unknow and the upredictable and balancing risks with expected results.

[Edwin P.]

All you have to do with this feature is to remember the farther you move your unit the more readiness it loses(terrain, weather, enemy considerations).

Now I understand it.

[Wolfe]

Speaking of readiness, has anyone said how this will work in the game? In SC it's intimately tied to supply. I think it could work nicely if it were more independent of supply and had more to do with how much a unit moved and fought. I made some suggestions in one of my previous request threads:

Yet Another SC2 Request Thread

Will the readiness calculation change much in SC2?

- Chris

[ev]

Originally posted by Wolfe:

Speaking of readiness, has anyone said how this will work in the game? In SC it's intimately tied to supply. I think it could work nicely if it were more independent of supply and had more to do with how much a unit moved and fought. I made some suggestions in one of my previous request threads:

Yet Another SC2 Request Thread

Will the readiness calculation change much in SC2?

- Chris

And else where Wolfe posted:

* A cumulative loss of readiness for units. Units lose readiness as they move and, especially, fight. If a unit fights continuously, it's readiness can drop to near zero over time. It can recover readiness by resting. And having an HQ nearby allows faster recovery. For movement, readiness points are lost corresponding to double the movement cost of the ground you move over. So if you move onto a mountain hex, you lose 4 readiness percentage points. Move over 2 open hexes, lose 4 points. Attack a hex and lose 6x movement cost of that hex. Units naturally recover 4 points per turn. If a unit does nothing but rest in a turn, its readiness increases by -say- 16 points (4 times normal recovery rate). All this can help simulate troop exhaustion and wear and tear on equipment. Note that the math in this example may or may not work, depending on the hex size for the game, but I think it will add an interesting wrinkle to impede the almost continuous attacking and movement in the game. Units will still have a maximum readiness rating (determined by their distance from friendly supply), but don't get an automatic maxing of their readiness value simply because an HQ moves nearby.

On the mechanics of readiness calculation by the game engine I would suggest a much simpler engine:

At the begining of each turn, the game engine would calcualte an initial readiness level for each unit based on supply, weather, HQ support, and, perhaps experience level. As the turn progresses readiness would decrease each time a unit spends AP's (as per Sea Monkey's suggestion. Enterring enemy territory would affect readiness only indirectly, enterring enemy territory would cost additiona AP's wich in turn would further decrease readiness as per Sea Monkey's suggestion.

As per this suggestion, each turn would be a blank check on readiness. Perhapps this is not the most realistic thing, but, it is close enough for me.

If Hubert wants to take this any further, and, require resting periods to recover full readiness fine. One easy way of coding is that at the begining of a game turn, units are brought up to 90% of their full readiness potential (given supply, weather etc.). At the end of the game turn, units that did not move could have their readiness level go up to 100% of the readiness level that would normally correspond to their current supply and weather conditions. At the begining of the next turn, units which had a readiness level which corresponds 100% to their supply and weather status would not be downgraded to 90%. But if their supply and weather conditions have deteriorated, so that their readiness level now exceeds that allowed by supply and weather, then readiness must be reduced accordingly.

I would not affect readiness or recovery of readiness by proximity to HQ. Proximity to HQ already affects supply which in turns affects readiness. Proximity to HQ also providess a basic readiness supplement. I don't see the point of adding one more readiness attribute to the HQ.

Difference in terrain and weather probably affect the movement cost of entering a given hex. As per Sea Monkeys suggestion, any additional expense in AP's would result in readiness reduction. Sea Monkey's suggestion is very simple and elegant, it goes to the root of the problem, and therfore takes into account all those fine point brought forward in the second half of Wolfe's prior remarks quoted above.

...just hope we are not too late, and Huber can incorporate some of these thoughts into SC2.

[SeaMonkey]

Thanks ev for the recognition, but thank yourself and the rest of the forum. It is the forum environment which prompts ideas and the willingness of the designer to incorporate them that propagates a continuous emanation of logic. Consequently this is a team effort. I thank you all.

[Retributar]

Yes 'SeaMonkey'...we dont just want another reguritated assembly line game.

We want in a game...for its 'category'...real avant-guarde' features that are not just for the sake of features alone...but really break-through technologies in game playing!.

Thus making it challenging, exciting, replayable, with ease of playability and tireless re-playability!.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by ev:

At the begining of each turn, the game engine would calcualte an initial readiness level for each unit based on supply, weather, HQ support, and, perhaps experience level. As the turn progresses readiness would decrease each time a unit spends AP's (as per Sea Monkey's suggestion. Enterring enemy territory would affect readiness only indirectly, enterring enemy territory would cost additiona AP's wich in turn would further decrease readiness as per Sea Monkey's suggestion.

As per this suggestion, each turn would be a blank check on readiness. Perhapps this is not the most realistic thing, but, it is close enough for me.

I agree that simplicity is certainly important in SC and there always have to be abstractions at this level, but my thought was that a cumulative loss of readiness would be helpful at limiting the constant movement of units in the game. When the Germans finally stalled out at the gates of Moscow due to the Russian winter, their men and equipment were exhausted. But in SC once your Panzer Groups start moving through Poland, they literally never stop except to reinforce from time to time. I guess you could say that necessary pauses are abstracted within the turns, but I was hoping for something more.

If readiness remains a calculation of that turn's supply (along with a few other factors), there's no incentive to pause and let some units rest and recuperate. I was hoping to add a bit of realism and more decision-making to the game without adding too much complexity, particularly from the player's point of view. I also think it could be a useful feature if readiness for new units were to begin at very low levels and rise (while resting) to simulate required training time, which would still allow fresh units to be thrown directly into the fray. This would turn the readiness factor into a handy multi-tasker.

And sorry for not quoting myself before; I suppose it would have made it easier than scrolling through that tome I wrote.

- Chris

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

The ZOC cost in Advanced Third Reich was pure simple easy elegance.

Going from one ZOC to another cost more. No weird justifications, it was just more.

Supply could not go through a ZOC if the hex was not occupied. No weird justifications, it just wasn't going to happen.

Only Armour had ZOCs that extended outside their hex. So that would make having armour useful.

Hubert could apply that to the game with his eyes closed and no weird gyrations.

The idea merely needs to appeal to him.

[ev]

Originally posted by Wolfe:

I agree that simplicity is certainly important in SC and there always have to be abstractions at this level, but my thought was that a cumulative loss of readiness would be helpful at limiting the constant movement of units in the game. When the Germans finally stalled out at the gates of Moscow due to the Russian winter, their men and equipment were exhausted. But in SC once your Panzer Groups start moving through Poland, they literally never stop except to reinforce from time to time. I guess you could say that necessary pauses are abstracted within the turns, but I was hoping for something more.

If readiness remains a calculation of that turn's supply (along with a few other factors), there's no incentive to pause and let some units rest and recuperate. I was hoping to add a bit of realism and more decision-making to the game without adding too much complexity, particularly from the player's point of view. I also think it could be a useful feature if readiness for new units were to begin at very low levels and rise (while resting) to simulate required training time, which would still allow fresh units to be thrown directly into the fray. This would turn the readiness factor into a handy multi-tasker.

- Chris [/QB]

[ev]

Originally posted by Wolfe:

I agree that simplicity is certainly important in SC and there always have to be abstractions at this level, but my thought was that a cumulative loss of readiness would be helpful at limiting the constant movement of units in the game. When the Germans finally stalled out at the gates of Moscow due to the Russian winter, their men and equipment were exhausted. But in SC once your Panzer Groups start moving through Poland, they literally never stop except to reinforce from time to time. I guess you could say that necessary pauses are abstracted within the turns, but I was hoping for something more.

If readiness remains a calculation of that turn's supply (along with a few other factors), there's no incentive to pause and let some units rest and recuperate. I was hoping to add a bit of realism and more decision-making to the game without adding too much complexity, particularly from the player's point of view. I also think it could be a useful feature if readiness for new units were to begin at very low levels and rise (while resting) to simulate required training time, which would still allow fresh units to be thrown directly into the fray. This would turn the readiness factor into a handy multi-tasker.

- Chris [/QB]

I see your point. And the historical record of German Units wearing out is very important. I would note however that the wear and tear was not just mechanical due to the many miles traversed by the armored vehicles. Even more important important, losses accumulated, men got killed and wounded, ammo and gas was spent. Reinforcements and supply could not keep up, partly because not enough replacements had been trained, and partly because the spearhead units run so far ahead of their supply bases that the logistics could not keep up with the advance.

Some historical accounts suggest that the degradation of the German Units could have been "recovered" with a couple of weeks to rest. That is not quite the case. They needed a couple of weeks to bring their supply bases further to the front, to bring replacements to fill the ranks, etc. Rest was important, but the other factors were even greater. Take for example Army Group Center: while Hitler sent Guderian south towards Kiev to envelop 650,000 Russian units, Army Group center suffered heavy losses due to Russian counterattacks. During that period some of the German divisions attached to army group center suffered over 20% losses. Army Group center also spent most of their available ammo fending those counterattacks. Meanwhile supply lines were stretch to the limmit and could not deliver supplies at a fast enough clip to prepare for the soon to come attack on Moscow.

When I played as Axis in SC1, I often found many of my units below strength after a few turns into the invasion of Russia. However, I couls not afford to waste a whole turn to replace losses. On the one hand, I never had enough MPPs, and on the other hand, each turn I spent refitting, the Russians would put out a whole bunch of new units. So I often kept on pushing with my worn out units. As a genaral rule, I kept my units on the move until they reached 40% losses.

I think the SC1 engine did a fair job at reflecting the long term wear and tear of a large campaign like Barbarosa.

It also did a good job at representing the dangers of running your armored units to far ahead of your supply HQ's. If you did not allow time for the HQ's to catch up, your readiness levels dropped markedly. Again, a very good call by Hubert & Co.

Where I find room for improvement is in a different area. A unit that starts a turn at the "jump off" possition for an attack has an advantage to a unit that had to cross 150 miles of enemy territory and then immediately (same turn) assault a possition by storm.

Of course, there is a lot to be said in favor of accumulating plain weariness from one tun to another. A game I once played allowed you to double march foot infantry at the expense of reduced weariness in the next turn. Another game I played, weariness accumulated into the next turn if the unit used more than 2/3's of its full movement allowance. In this second game, weariness from combat also accumulated into the next turn. But, in both games, weariness did not accumulate when a unit moved a limited amount distance. More important, both games had a much shorter time scale.

The movement capabilities in SC1 were not so steep as to represent a forced march. At an average cruise speed of 20 miles per hour, an armored unit could cover 250 miles in 50 hours. Yet, that is the full movement allowance of an armored unit for full turn representing a full week. That is reasonable, but it is not a forced march. Unless, you want to cover that distance in 3 days and leave the reamaining four days of that week to wage a combat assault all within the same turn. Then you are pushing it. And then we need some mechanism like the one suggested by Sea Monkey.