ZOCs

[ATD]

In testing, I found some things that could slow down play quite a bit. For example, the need not only to await possible reaction response but also whether a ZOC is being exerted, whenever units move adjacent.

Talking of ZOC, I've made a small but significant change to the rules in this respect (open to review of course). As the rules stood, friendly unit negation of enemy ZOCs would permit a rolling "carpet" of infiltration to be established. Units could easily slip through gaps. Whilst actions were fluid and confused, I'm not sure that the design intended quite this degree of bypassing. It's not been eliminated, just toned down a bit.

[Deleted]

Slowdowns like those are endemic to PBEM games. C'est la guerre.

"Talking of ZOC, I've made a small but significant change to the rules ..." Would you care to be a bit more specific about this change or is it incumbent upon us to compare the current docx to the original rules to ascertain the nature and extent of this "small" change? ZOC rules can make or break entire game systems and, in general, it's not a good idea to futz with them unless absolutely necessary.

[tim]

Oct 13, 2014 5:09:34 GMT @grognard said:

Slowdowns like those are endemic to PBEM games. C'est la guerre.

"Talking of ZOC, I've made a small but significant change to the rules ..." Would you care to be a bit more specific about this change or is it incumbent upon us to compare the current docx to the original rules to ascertain the nature and extent of this "small" change? ZOC rules can make or break entire game systems and, in general, it's not a good idea to futz with them unless absolutely necessary.

It's in rule [10.26] - Basically for a friendly unit in the hex to negate a ZOC it has to start that turn in the hex, have enough ammo to fire (a requirement for a unit asserting a zoc).  It also says that the friendly unit that is negating a ZOC can't move itself - basically it spends that movement phase screening. 

On a side note, changes to the rules are highlighted in yellow if they're new to the version you are looking at.  Otherwise the text is Blue (canon errata), or Purple (ATD version changes).  To be honest, the lightly colored text changes can be subtle, but they are marked. 

As for movement and ZOCs, to be honest, given the continual movement process all one would do is move their units and then ask if any units now adjacent to the enemy are NOT in ZOCs.  If any are not, those units could continue moving. 

Or we could agree to a general continuation of the movement phase for any units within a given range of the non-ZOC'd hex.  Or just any units that hadn't finished their movement. 

[Michael Miller]

It's hard for me to know what is right here, without actually having played through for some time and observing whether the movement, ZOC and reaction elements result in a reasonable approximation of historic maneuvers and outcomes. It's certainly possible that reaction movement might compensate for the very "leaky" ZOC rules as written, and I have presumed all along that this would be an area that we would have to wait until underway to make any further tweaks, or revert to original behavior. In the interim, I was and am willing to try it either way, but have been thinking and planning in terms to this point of the revised rules. Anyone with extensive experience of actually playing CNA is more than welcome to give their opinion on the subject.

And yes, the changes were clearly highlighted in the rules at [10.26], [10.31], [10.34], as Tim notes above. There was and is no need to imply deliberately hiding rule changes. 

[Deleted]

Okay, yes, now that you've pointed it out I do see the purple change in [10.26], Michael, though it took me a couple of tries even knowing it's there. That color change is *very* subtle. I also see a blue change (and maybe a purple as well?) in [10.31] and I think I can make out a purple change in [10.34]. If maintaining the rule books does devolve to me, one of the first things I'm going to do is add change bars in the margins.

If our operations end up looking even vaguely historical, the change in [10.26]would seem to effect the Axis far more than the CW. I'm willing to give the altered [10.26] a try but, a priori, it seems overly restrictive. Time will tell, I suppose.

The purple change in [10.31] seems to be a no-brainer. The blue, on the other hand, is quite confusing. By "this case" does the text refer to [10.31] overall or just to [15.9]?

There appear to be a couple of typos in [10.34] that make it difficult to read; if I understand it correctly, it should read thus (I have replaced purple with green for clarity and underlined my changes):
"[10.34] To perform a Holding Off Barrage, a Friendly Player must barrage an Enemy hex with at least as many Actual Barrage Strength Points (i.e., Barrage Rating x TOE Strength/10) as there are individual non-Gun (i.e., Artillery, Anti-Tank, or AA units) Enemy battalion-equivalent combat units in that hex.  Units with less than 1 Stacking Point and Gun units do not count and should be omitted from the total declared to the phasing player.  Remember: An Enemy Division may consist of, say, eleven battalion-equivalent units, so the Friendly Barraging Player would need 11 Actual Barrage Points to perform a Holding Off action against such a division."

I didn't change it here, but the example at the end of [10.34] is incorrect from a CW standpoint at least: While a CW division may, in fact, comprise of up to 11 battalion equivalents, no less than 5 of those units would be Gun class and therefore not count for these purposes. Even if the division had its max of 2 battalions attached, such a division would still only require 11-5+2=8 actual barrage points to be held off.  I have not yet checked the Axis formation chart to see if this is true of their divisions as well. 

[ATD]

It may be a question of colour perception or screen/printer adjustment but I find it easy to see the colours at a glance. Using MS Word, it's quite easy to search for instances of a particular colour of text.

The colour scheme has been documented elsewhere. I find this in-line marking method to be unobtrusive. Change bars, even on a toggle basis, could be rather inelegant.

[tim]

Bob - yes the Axis does have some over-sized divisions. Or at least some where somebody thought that stacking in bodies would make up for a lack of support weapons and modern equipment.

The re-arranging works for me. Whether the example is of an 8 Battalion eq. Division or an 11 Battalion one, players should in time be familiar with what they're facing.

[Deleted]

You're right, of course, Tim, that is not the right place for a discussion of the drapes and wallpaper. It was a short, gratuitous digression that, I hope, has run its course here.

As for the example, I think it's important to get that sorted out as it is there wholly to illustrate and clarify the preceding text. In management theory (hi, Tony!), implementing low effort, large return tasks ("picking the low-hanging fruit" or "taking the quick wins", as one prefers) is usually seen as a fairly high priority. Please note that it would be entirely reasonable for someone to use the example as currently written to insist that Gun-type units et al *do* count for HOB requirements if they are attached to a division and not just occupying the same hex. No, I do not think that is the intent of the rule, I merely point it out as a legitimate (albeit incorrect) interpretation of the text as it stands and, therefore, a good reason to fix the example.

[Michael Miller]

Summarizing, the ZOC changes are highlighted in the rules at [10.26], [10.31], [10.34]. The example at [10.34] may be misleading; however we are agreed on the interpretation.