still pondering ZOC cost

[gwgardner]

Currently, ZOC costs are 1 AP for infantry, 2 APs for mech and armor.

What is the rationale, in historical/actual combat terms, for a greater zone of control penalty for armor and mech? I thought they were supposed to be able to blow by infantry for deep penetration?

should the costs be less for mech and armor than for infantry?

[cpdeyoung]

Then again they have a larger AP allowance to start with. After paying one zoc penalty the exploiting armor can be 3-5 hexes past the spot, while the infantry might be only one hex past. I find my armor exploits well using the current scheme.

Chuck

[gwgardner]

but what's the rationale behind it, realistically?

Perhaps the ZOC penalty for mech and armor should be reduced AS WELL AS the APs available for same.

[Mike Parker]

The rationale could be that Infantry formations have a smaller logistical tail since they don't need as many replacement parts for vehicles and not nearly as much fuel.  Its not a great rationale, but it sort of works if you need to rationalize it.  I think mostly its that if Infantry cost 2AP to move through Zoc Like mobile forces.. well then they would be too slow.

[Anraz]

I encourage you to do your own practical tests which could lead to interesting mods. There are so many modable parameter at you hand that everyone could set the game upside down with very good or... unknown effect IMO only a few games with modified ZOC entrance cost and units speed can answer Gary`s question.

[gwgardner]

For whatever it's worth, I took a look at the design notes for Russo-German War. Movement distances in that game, by unit type, are very close to that in ToW. However, the ZOC penalty in RGW is the same for all unit types. RGW defines the ZOC penalty as being due to enemy artillery fire, mines, patrols, and outposts.

I'm thinking that the current 2 AP ZOC cost for mech and armor in ToW is a result of all our complaining in RtV, that the armor was running wild, rather than a historical/realistic cost. But ToW has other factors which inhibit movement, such as weather, and it is now much harder to completely destroy an enemy unit, resulting in more ZOCs to deal with in ToW than in RtV. So I'm thinking that the armor/mech ZOC cost should be reduced back to 1, just like for infantry. If not by default, then I'll try it in a mod.

[SeaMonkey]

In a real sense I have to agree with you gwg, but I can see the subtle rationale that Mike brings up...very subtle.

What other things would inhibit a units movement through an enemy's area of control? I'll add that if the enemy unit is occupying a fortification or has had the time to entrench there should be addtional APs for all attacking units to move through those surrounding ZoCs until that occupier has been vanquished from the hex.

[willgamer]

This discussion reminds me that I've never understood whether the infantry units are supposed to represent motorized or mechanized units or both (their icon is for motorized).

If motorized, are mech not present, or included as armor?

???

[Anraz]

Mot units set represents development of mobile, but not armored, forces during the war. From semi-motorized cavalry, thorough mortised infantry till fully mechanized infantry.

[AH4Ever]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

but what's the rationale behind it, realistically?

Perhaps the ZOC penalty for mech and armor should be reduced AS WELL AS the APs available for same.

Let's ponder some more, should there be a penalty at all?
Factors to be considered:

Scale = 25km per Hex (I think?) so a unit is influencing 50km in all directions.

Unit size - Logically Corps should exert more control than Divisions.

The intent of the attacking unit - Dislocation / Elimination of the opposing unit or minimal engagement while attempting a breakthrough or encirclement.

Unit Type - Armor / Mechanized are more obvious as they advance while Infantry could potentially infiltrate and outflank.

I think what I'm getting at is no penalty for entering ZOC's but variable cost for exiting.

I know this can't be an original concept but I feel it is a more logical approach.

[Flaviusx]

Will, you'll notice there is a huge jump in both price and ability as you upgrade the motorized units. Level 1 mot is weaker than equivalent infantry. Level 2 pulls up even with leg infantry and gets quite pricey. Level 3 and up becomes stronger than equivalent infantry and begins to approach armor both in price and effectiveness.
 
In my own mind the upgrades go:
 
Level 1: horsies.
Level 2: motorized infantry.
Level 3: motorized infantry stiffened by light tanks and self propelled guns
Level 4: more SPG and some halftracks
Level 5: mostly mechanized infantry.
 

[lparkh]

Using a % penalty might provide a more "coherent" model. 20% of infantry movement say vs 20% of mech would punish them equally while depriving mech of more pts.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever



I think what I'm getting at is no penalty for entering ZOC's but variable cost for exiting.

I know this can't be an original concept but I feel it is a more logical approach.

I believe that is indeed the way it works in this game. ZOC penalty only upon exit.

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

This discussion reminds me that I've never understood whether the infantry units are supposed to represent motorized or mechanized units or both (their icon is for motorized).

If motorized, are mech not present, or included as armor?

???

Willgamer.

I believe Infantry units represents formations that had very little to any indigenous transport. Literally folks walked everywhere. I am sure many such formations had ambulances and wheeled/horse drawn supply units and/or lorries for ammunition, but the troops walked from A to B.

Motorized formations represent units with enough motorized and/or horsedrawn transport so that the entire units, its combat elements and support elements could be carried (or ride in the case of cavalry which low tech Motorized represents in many cases). I assume this includes Horse Cavalry, Bicycle units (I believe Belgium operated some regimental sized bicycle units) as well as fully motorized infanty, and in the case of later war (read higher tech level) mechanized units carried in half-tracks/IFV's. Many such formations might also contain battalion sized armoured units also, but would be primarily infantry with vehicles for movement.

Armoured represents formations that contain a significant amount of Armoured Fighting Vehicles. Such formations would also have indigenous mechanized infantry support, but in most cases about half of the firepower comes from AFV's Tank destroyers and self propelled guns, with the rest coming from half-tracked (Bren Carrier) mounted infantry.

This is however just an educated guess.

[AH4Ever]

Well I'll be, my thoughts were based on having had difficulties entering vacated hexes.

[willgamer]

Flavius & Mike & Anraz,

Thank you for the responses.

Naturally it raises another question. [:D]

From gwgardners original post: "Currently, ZOC costs are 1 AP for infantry, 2 APs for mech and armor. "

Is the game rule 2 APs for level 4(?) infantry and above, or is "mech and armor" = "armor" for game rule purposes?

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Will, you'll notice there is a huge jump in both price and ability as you upgrade the motorized units. Level 1 mot is weaker than equivalent infantry. Level 2 pulls up even with leg infantry and gets quite pricey. Level 3 and up becomes stronger than equivalent infantry and begins to approach armor both in price and effectiveness.

In my own mind the upgrades go:

Level 1: horsies.
Level 2: motorized infantry.
Level 3: motorized infantry stiffened by light tanks and self propelled guns
Level 4: more SPG and some halftracks
Level 5: mostly mechanized infantry.

[Anraz]

Just look at any const.csv - lines 27-30 have separate ZOC costs for infantry, mortised infantry and armored units.