User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

ZOC: The Untold Story

Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:35 pm

NOTE: Edited based on Pocus comments in post #14. This analysis based on AACW ver. 1.13. Based on Pocus comments, we may expect some changes in future patches.

Zone of Control (ZOC) is a very common wargame concept that refers to the ability of a force to prevent an enemy force from moving past it without engaging combat. In most wargames, a force will exert a ZOC effect over adjacent regions. In AACW the effect is limited to the region a force is in, so it only takes effect when units from both sides are in the same region.

I had a lot of difficulty understanding the manual’s description of how “Zone of Control” (ZOC) works in AACW (see the “Blocking Movement” section of the Movement chapter). I got much better info searching the forum, but still everything did not add up for me, especially how evasion values are computed, so I did extensive in-game testing.

Sorry for how long this post is, but it’s actually a pretty complicated subject. I don’t even want to say how many turns into a test game I got before I deciphered how evasion is calculated (hint: it was 1863). I have not been able to extensively test whether the ZOC formula actually works as advertised, since it's hard to set up tests in a game.

If anyone finds any errors in this, please correct me!

[SIZE="3"]Zone of Control (ZOC) – The Basics[/size]
Enemy presence in a land region inhibits movement out of the region. If you have a force in the same region as an enemy force, you may not be able to move out of the region and into a neighboring region that you do not have military control of. Regions that you cannot move into will appear in red on the map when the unit is selected. ZOC is most likely to prevent a force from penetrating deeper into enemy territory without engaging the enemy. A force can usually retreat back the way they came, but sometimes this is impossible and a force can become trapped. If a force is trapped by enemy ZOC and is forced to retreat in combat, the entire force can be destroyed, no matter how large.

The ZOC effect only happens when units from both sides are in the same region. This occurs most often after an inconclusive battle in which neither side was forced to retreat from the region. It can also happen if a cavalry unit in passive posture enters an enemy controlled region containing enemy units. (Only cavalry and partisan units can do this without automatically reverting to offensive posture, triggering a battle).

[SIZE="3"]Zone of Control (ZOC) – Intermediate Studies[/size]
When units from both sides are in the same region, there are three factors that determine which neighboring regions your force can move into:
  • The enemy’s ZOC value (based on Patrol)
  • Evasion value of your stack
  • Your level of Military Control in the destination region.
Each side generates a ZOC value in a region based on the combined Patrol values of all units present, with some important modifiers. Each stack has an Evasion value equal to the unit with the lowest (worst) modified evasion value.

Your Evasion value is compared to the enemy’s ZOC value in a complex formula to determine the minimum amount of Military Control (MC) you must have in an adjacent region to move into it.

The bullseye icon at the top of the unit panel provides detailed info regarding all of these values.

[SIZE="3"]Zone of Control (ZOC) – Advanced Studies[/size]
If you are in a region with an enemy force, you cannot enter a neighboring region if the enemy’s ZOC divided by your evasion value is greater than your military control of the region.

[INDENT](Z/E) > MC + 2*E = movement blocked[/INDENT]

Where Z is the enemy’s ZOC (modified patrol value), MC is your military control in the destination region, and E is the evasion value of your stack.

To calculate the MC you would need in a region to move into it:

[INDENT]MC = Z/E - 2*E[/INDENT]

This formula can yield negative values and values over 100%, but there is a hard upper limit to the ZOC effect. The value of MC+2*E is a maximum of 88% (90% MC, less 2 points at the lowest evasion value of 1). That is, you will always be able to retreat into a region in which you have at least 88% military control. There is no hard lower limit except when forced to retreat in battle. In a forced retreat, you must have at least 5% MC in a region to retreat into it. If you cannot retreat your force is destroyed. Outside of battle, there is no limit, so with a high enough evasion you can move into an area with zero.

These hard upper and lower limits are important to know because they come into play quite frequently, as there is a relatively narrow set of values for which the formula results will fall between them.

[SIZE="3"]Patrol Value[/size]

Each side’s ZOC in a region is determined by adding up the patrol values of all elements in all units within the region. Each element has a patrol value (listed in the element details screen) that ranges from 1 to 10 or more. Most infantry have a patrol value of 4, while cavalry have 9 or 10.

Patrol Value Modifiers
  • Fort adds ZOC bonus = MC*fort level (I think all AACW forts are level 1 (?), so max bonus is +100 at 100% ZOC).
  • Military Control: ZOC bonus = MC/3, capped at the amount of ZOC generated by units (so MC bonus can be as high as +33 to ZOC, but only if you have at least 33 ZOC generated by units). Currently a bug is preventing this bonus from showing in the tooltip for Friendly ZOC.
  • Units in a structure generate 0 ZOC.
  • Units in passive posture generate 0 ZOC.
  • Fixed units add 0 ZOC.
  • Entrenched units get a patrol bonus based on level of entrenchment
  • Experience: +1 patrol for each odd-numbered * of experience an element has (i.e., +2 with three * of experience).
The following have NO EFFECT on ZOC:
  • Weather
  • Terrain
  • Cohesion
[SIZE="3"]Evasion Value[/size]
Evasion is much more complicated than Patrol because different rules apply to units and stacks. A unit’s evasion value is the average evasion of all elements in the unit, including the leader (if any). A stack’s evasion value is equal to the lowest (worst) evasion value among the units in a stack.

Unit Evasion Modifiers:
  • Rough terrain: +5
  • Leader Bonus: +2.5 for a leader in the unit (this bonus was observed in testing but not confirmed by Pocus - - he thinks it does not exist).
  • Weather – possibly (No effect observed in tests, but it should give a bonus equal to the “hide” bonus based on weather+terrain. I never observed any bonus other than +5 for rough terrain. Either testing was incomplete or there is a bug)
  • Experience: +1 patrol for each even-numbered * of experience an element has (i.e., +2 with four * of experience).
Stack Evasion Modifiers:
  • Small Stack: +3 (less than 5 units)
  • Large Stack: -3 (more than 12 units)
The following have NO EFFECT on evasion:
  • Weather -- possibly (see above).
  • Leader inactivity.
  • Leader rank or strategic rating.
  • Command point penalties.
  • Cohesion.
  • Military Control.
[SIZE="3"]Additional Evasion Notes[/size]
  • Rough terrain = all except clear, prairie, desert, woods.
  • Unassigned Leaders do not count as units for stack size bonus.
  • Leaders give a +2.5 evasion bonus only as part of the unit (i.e., in a division or embedded with a brigade).
  • Leaders’ biggest impact on evasion is that they have a value of 30, and this is included when averaging the evasions of the unit’s elements. (NOTE: this was not intended, and will possibly be removed in a future patch).
  • Note that stack size is NOT based on CP as usual, but the number of units in the stack. From a practical standpoint, this means you will almost never see the large stack penalty. (NOTE: this will possibly be addressed in a future patch).
  • Adding a wagon to a stack will drop the stack’s evasion down to 1 in open terrain – support units count as a separate unit in the stack, so a wagon’s low evasion applies to the whole stack.
  • Evasion and Patrol values also play a role to avoiding combat, if your force is on passive posture or if you have the ‘evade fight’ special order enabled.

[SIZE="3"]How the Numbers Add Up[/size]
A single division operating independently will get the small stack bonus of +3. A normal division made up mostly of infantry and artillery will have an evasion of around 10 in open terrain or 15 in rough terrain. If the division is carrying a supply wagon, that would drop to 4 in open terrain and 9 in rough.

A corps or army stack can qualify for the small stack bonus (see note above – this may change). A corps with three divisions and a wagon is still only 4 units, so it’s a small stack. It would get 4 evasion in open terrain. Without the wagon it would get 10 (or whatever the worst division’s evasion is). So, even a big stack can travel with a fairly high evasion value if it leaves the wagons behind.

A large corps stack made up of more than 4 units including a wagon would have the minimum evasion value of 1 in clear terrain and 6 in rough terrain. This stack will have a hard time retreating into a region it does not control, and can be held in place by a relatively much smaller enemy unit – even a single division.

An 18-element cavalry division will have a clear terrain evasion of about 16. This includes the small stack bonus of +3 and the leader bonus of +2.5. The smaller the division is, the greater the impact of the leader’s 30 evasion rating in raising the average evasion for the unit. A cavalry division with just 4 cav or horse artillery elements and a leader would have a clear terrain evasion of around 19. At this evasion level, the unit is virtually unstoppable by enemy ZOC, but would still need the minimum 5% MC for a forced retreat into an adjacent region.

Total patrol value (ZOC) for a typical division will be around 60-70. A 4-division corps would have around 250-275. A super-sized corps of 5 divisions would have as much as 350 ZOC. Multiple corps stacks in a region can put the total ZOC up over 800, especially if there is a fort present (+100). A full cavalry division will have around 170 ZOC.

The table below shows the level of Military Control you will need to move into a region, based on your Evasion and your Enemy’s ZOC value.

EDIT: The "hard mimimum" of 5% applies ONLY to forced retreat in battle. Outside of battle, if your evasion is high enough you can move out of a contested region into one with zero MC (generally, one row higher on the table above the first red highlighted row).

Image

You can see that a large corps with a wagon and evasion of 1 would need at least 48% MC in the destination region to move out of a region where the enemy has 50 ZOC (less than the ZOC generated by a typical division). You can also see that even with an extraordinarily high ZOC, the enemy will have a hard time pinning down a cavalry division.

[SIZE="3"]Strategy Notes[/size]

Keeping a High Evasion
A large corps traveling with a wagon train is going to have a real problem retreating after combat, especially if the enemy can get around behind and block you from retreating back the way you came. You can greatly increase your evasion value by not traveling with wagons or any unassigned, corps-level artillery. If you leave these units with the Army HQ stack, and keep the HQ behind you in an adjacent region, you’ll still be able to draw supplies, and the HQ can still march to the sound of the guns and bring along his support artillery. After the battle, the HQ would revert back to his original location, which would be open for your corps to retreat through if necessary.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:25 pm

Sometimes the important points get lost in the details. I don't think it's very clear in my novel-length post that in most cases a stack should be able to retreat back the way they came because they will have picked up enough MC passing through. A large corps will likely pick up 100% MC moving through unoccupied enemy territory, and no matter how low his evasion is he can always retreat into a region where he has at least 88% MC.

Where the higher evasion can help the most is when your original pathway is blocked and you can't retreat back to the region you came from because there's another enemy unit there. In that case, if you have at least some military control in another adjacent region, you may be able to escape to it. If your path of retreat is blocked, and all other adjecent regions are 100% enemy MC, then you're screwed regardless of how high your evasion is.

For a cavalry unit with high evasion, you can move through enemy territory almost oblivious to enemy ZOC.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:04 pm

Bumping my own thread again ;)

All of the above might make it sound like I think I know everything there is to know about ZOC. Unfortunately that's not the case.

I'm a little confused about same things relating to cavalry raiders.

1) How does "Evade Fight" factor in? If cavalry (or anyone) effectively passes the "evade fight" test, are they then able to continue on, disregarding ZOC? It seems like they must, otherwize a cavealry raider traveling in passive mode will always be stuck by enemy ZOC if they enter a region with an enemy unit. Because the raider is travelling in passive posture, he isn't picking up any ZOC in the regions he passes through, so he will never have the minimum 5% ZOC necessary to move out of a region with an enemy in it. If that's true, then the "evade fight" order has no effect except in cases where the enemy is exerting no ZOC (if they are garrisoning a structure).

2) If a cavalry unit in passive posture moves into a region with an enemy fort, under the rules they should never be able to move out again. The fort exerts 100 ZOC, anthe cavalry will have 0% MC in all surrounding regions, so willnot be able to move anywhere. This doesn't seem right (I can test this - it did not occur to me before). Maybe the "evade fight" or passive posture play a role here, in allowing the cavalry to move out.

Of course ... all this assumes your cavalry raider is moving in passive posture. My small raider forces always move in passive posture ...maybe I'm doing it wrong.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:37 pm

Major Tom wrote:Bumping my own thread again ;)

All of the above might make it sound like I think I know everything there is to know about ZOC. Unfortunately that's not the case.

I'm a little confused about same things relating to cavalry raiders.

1) How does "Evade Fight" factor in? If cavalry (or anyone) effectively passes the "evade fight" test, are they then able to continue on, disregarding ZOC? It seems like they must, otherwize a cavealry raider traveling in passive mode will always be stuck by enemy ZOC if they enter a region with an enemy unit. Because the raider is travelling in passive posture, he isn't picking up any ZOC in the regions he passes through, so he will never have the minimum 5% ZOC necessary to move out of a region with an enemy in it. If that's true, then the "evade fight" order has no effect except in cases where the enemy is exerting no ZOC (if they are garrisoning a structure).

2) If a cavalry unit in passive posture moves into a region with an enemy fort, under the rules they should never be able to move out again. The fort exerts 100 ZOC, anthe cavalry will have 0% MC in all surrounding regions, so willnot be able to move anywhere. This doesn't seem right (I can test this - it did not occur to me before). Maybe the "evade fight" or passive posture play a role here, in allowing the cavalry to move out.


Of course ... all this assumes your cavalry raider is moving in passive posture. My small raider forces always move in passive posture ...maybe I'm doing it wrong.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Daxil
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 849
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:55 pm
Location: Somewhere in the Alleghenies

Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:02 pm

this should be added to the Wikii.
"We shall give them the bayonet." -Stonewall at Fredericksburg.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Feb 09, 2009 11:51 pm

Great post. :thumbsup:
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:05 am

Thanks, Daxil and Clovis But, I fear I have misinterpreted an important rule ...

[color="Red"][SIZE="3"]CORRECTION![/size][/color]
My main post has a serious error. I misinterpreted the rule regarding a minimum MC of 5% needed to retreat into an adjacent region. :bonk:

This minimum is NOT a hard minumum to the ZOC rule. It apparently applies only to forced retreat in a battle result. This rule was outlined in the release notes to one of the patches (sorry - not sure which one). If forced to retreat in battle, you must have a minimum of 5% MC in the region you are retreating to, regardless of your evasion value.

So, the table I posted is correct only for battle results. For simply moving out of a contested region, the minimum MC rule does not apply. If your evasion is high enough relative to enemy ZOC, you can move from a contested region into one where you have zero MC.

I tested this and it's definitely true. I moved a 2-element Union cavalry division onto Forts Henry & Donelson. Enemy ZOC was 132. Evasion was 26. Based on the formula, there should be no ZOC restirction on movement, and there was not. On the next turn I could move into any adjacent region, even where I had zero MC.

So, my notes regarding using ZOC to "pin" a cavalry raider are wrong, as well as the table on ZOC. I've gone through my original post and noted the corrections, including deleting the strategy note regarding cavalry raiders.

Now I'm down to only one notable strategy rcommendation regarding ZOC, and even for that one - about the army HQ - I'm not so sure of its viability. A little disappointing to do all this work and not come away with any major new strategy insights.

With this correction, I think I have it all covered. But probably not. ZOC is pretty complicated and there are probably other rules and eventualities I haven't figured out. Maybe Pocus can set me straight, like he did in catching my errors about frontage :blink:
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Banks6060
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:51 pm

Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:36 am

GREAT post!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Have you ever stopped to think and forgot to start??

User avatar
Banks6060
AGEod Veteran
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:51 pm

Tue Feb 10, 2009 12:58 am

One other thing. After reading this excellent summary of ZOC. I start to think how feasable it would be to begin applying MC to rivers.

I'm pretty sure there is no MC system for waterways at this point, but I assume it would be plausable.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]Have you ever stopped to think and forgot to start??

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Tue Feb 10, 2009 1:15 am

Banks6060 wrote:One other thing. After reading this excellent summary of ZOC. I start to think how feasable it would be to begin applying MC to rivers.

I'm pretty sure there is no MC system for waterways at this point, but I assume it would be plausable.


I'm also pretty sure that ZOC does not apply to the water. For naval encounters, evasion and patrol are just used for avoiding combat or forcing it, not for escaping from ZOC. I don't see why a similar rule shouldn't appy, except for the whole MC concept: how do you plausibly maintain "military control" of a river or coastal water region if you don't actually have warships patrolling the area? But then, you could say the same about MC on land, too.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Deca
Corporal
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 3:22 pm

Wed Feb 11, 2009 6:25 am

Another excellent article Major Tom
"In times of war, the Devil makes more room in Hell."

Big Ideas
Captain
Posts: 175
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 11:53 am
Location: in the ambrosia cellar

Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:37 am

Thanks again Major Tom for another thoughtful and informative post. You certainly are doing all the hard work. Complete with formulas and a coloured table! Next time I capture Baltimore I'll remember to keep the backdoor open.

BI

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Thanks, Deca and Big.

For everyone else...I know this is pretty dry material. If you want to see a much more exciting illustration of ZOC in action, I strongly recommend you check out the ongoing PBEM between Banks and soundoff in the AAR forum. It's a great read, and both of them are doing an excellent job reporting. Especially follow the events in Maryland and Virginia starting in August 1861 to get a visceral example of ZOC, and in the follwowing turns some very insightful commentary on the subject from Soundoff.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:02 pm

this thread should be stickied ASAP.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:52 am

Clovis wrote:this thread should be stickied ASAP.


Thanks, Clovis. I'm really flattered that you would say that about something I've written. But, honestly, I think the subject is too narrow to take up permanent space as a sticky thread.

I think it makes more sense to make a single sticky that has links to important threads explaining different aspects of the game -- like the Basic Training list created by Dixicrat here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/group.php?groupid=6&gmid=95#gmessage95
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24756
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:38 am

This is an awesome post of your, Major Tom, and I learned things :) By that I mean that I was surprised by some of your remarks, which were rights, but which were unexpected for me... bottom line, the code can perhaps be improved.

But first, clarifications:

Military control has an influence on ZOC, for forts. A fort ZOC is equal to your military control in a region time its level. If you have it covered completely, then it will not impede movement anymore, which is rather expected.

Military control has also a small influence on ZOC, but only in one of the two functions used to calculate it ... so first loophole to fix for me here: you get a bonus equals to one third of your MC in ZOC, but no more than the ZOC generated by your own troops. This is to represent the bonus given to small forces in patrolling a controlled region (MC = abstracted small patrols and survey). For example if you have 16 pts worth of ZOC in a 60% MC region, you have now 16 + Min(16, 60/3) = 32 ZOC value.

The little bug is that this bonus is added in the 'CalcEnemyZOC' function, but not in the 'CalcFriendlyZOC' function. I'll fix that.

Terrain AND weather have an indirect effect on evasion. You get a bonus to Evasion equals to 5 time the Hide Bonus of the region. This Hide bonus is either one you get from being in a rough terrain, or one you get because of bad weather (or both). So if there is a +1 bonus in Blizzard for a given terrain, you get more evasion.

I'm not sure about your +2.5 for a leader within an unit, I don't see anything close to that. The closest is a +3 bonus if you have only leaders in a stack.

Now the 2 big surprises, that I would like to fix:

a) Evasion value of leaders were not supposed to be considered, unless the unit is only a leader.

b) the big stack/large stack computation should be refined, so that one division or one element don't count as a unit each.

Miscellaneous:
Fixed units don't generate ZOC
Units moving by Riverine move have only 1 in Evasion
Entrenched units generate more ZOC (ZOC is not only about patrols, it is about controlling territory - we have to abstract into a single concept a ZOC which is preventing someone from moving through you and preventing someone from moving away from you). So you get a bonus to your zoc equals to

Code: Select all

    if EntrenchLevel  > 0 then
    begin
      for i := 1 to EntrenchLevel do
        Result := Round(Result/cbtProtCoef_ * 100);
    end;


cbtProtCoef_ = 90
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:12 pm

Pocus –

Thanks again for the great info and clarifications. First frontage, now ZOC – maybe next time I try for supply!

Pocus wrote: Military control has also a small influence on ZOC, but only in one of the two functions used to calculate it ... The little bug is that this bonus is added in the 'CalcEnemyZOC' function, but not in the 'CalcFriendlyZOC' function. I'll fix that.

I didn’t catch this because I was doing all my testing on friendly units! But it explains something I saw a the end of my testing but couldn’t explain. My patience was at an end so I let it go. I entered a fort region with where the enemy had no troops outside, and the enemy ZOC was 133 instead of 100. This explains it.


Pocus wrote: Terrain AND weather have an indirect effect on evasion. You get a bonus to Evasion equals to 5 time the Hide Bonus of the region. This Hide bonus is either one you get from being in a rough terrain, or one you get because of bad weather (or both). So if there is a +1 bonus in Blizzard for a given terrain, you get more evasion.


I’m sorry, but I am unconvinced. I tested every terrain and every weather type (though not all combinations of weather+terrain) and never saw any effect from weather, even blizzard. Is it possible that the bonus is being computed but not displayed in the tooltip?

Pocus wrote:I'm not sure about your +2.5 for a leader within an unit, I don't see anything close to that. The closest is a +3 bonus if you have only leaders in a stack.


I’m relatively sure of myself here. I did very extensive testing with many, many different configurations of units and leaders. I put some of these observations into a spreadsheet so I could work out the formulas – see spreadsheet attached. In every case where I had a led unit (division or brigade with embedded leader), there was an unexplained bonus between +2 and +3. At either +2 or +3, some of the computed results differed from the observed evasion values by more than +/- 0.5. Only with a bonus value of +2.5 did all computed results fall within a range of +/- 0.5 of the observed evasion values.

I tried to control for every other variable, so I’m sure that this is coming from the leader only.

I did observe the leader-only bonus: J. Johnston alone has an evasion of 36 (30 +3 small stack + another 3). I assumed this was the same +2.5 bonus I observed with led units.



Pocus wrote:a) Evasion value of leaders were not supposed to be considered, unless the unit is only a leader.


I like the leader bonus and I think it accurately reflects the fact that a competently led unit should be better able to maneuver and evade the enemy. For a full 18-element division, the bonus is not that huge – the leader’s 30 evasion adds about +1 to the average evasion for the unit, and then there’s the +2.5 bonus (the one you don’t believe exists!). It may be that the bonus is too big for a small unit – Wise’s 7-element brigade has a base evasion of 3, with +3 for small stack = 6. Add a leader and the evasion goes to 12 with the small stack and leader bonuses. SO, it will evade as well as a single solo cavalry regiment. Maybe that’s too much.

Pocus wrote:b) the big stack/large stack computation should be refined, so that one division or one element don't count as a unit each.


Agree 100%. I was able to stack together 12 brigades with a total CP cost of 22, and still not hit the level for a large stack penalty. That’s not right, and it really means there is no effective large stack penalty. I also think it’s too easy to get the small stack bonus. A full corps with 4 divisions and no extra units gets the small stack bonus, the same as a single cavalry element!

Pocus wrote:Miscellaneous:
Fixed units don't generate ZOC
Units moving by Riverine move have only 1 in Evasion
Entrenched units generate more ZOC (ZOC is not only about patrols, it is about controlling territory - we have to abstract into a single concept a ZOC which is preventing someone from moving through you and preventing someone from moving away from you). So you get a bonus to your zoc equals to

Code: Select all

    if EntrenchLevel  > 0 then
    begin
      for i := 1 to EntrenchLevel do
        Result := Round(Result/cbtProtCoef_ * 100);
    end;


cbtProtCoef_ = 90


Thanks for these extra bits of info. I will incorporate them into my post.

And thanks again for taking the time to explain all of this in such detail.
Attachments

[The extension xls has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:43 pm

Pocus wrote:The little bug is that this bonus is added in the 'CalcEnemyZOC' function, but not in the 'CalcFriendlyZOC' function. I'll fix that.


Pocus -- Am I correct that this has no effect on game play, only on the info displayed in the tooltip? "Enemy" and "friendly" are relative terms depending on who is looking at the tooltip, and only Enemy ZOC blocks movmeent. So this bug means that when you look at the tooltip, you will see the enemy ZOC correctly displayed, but you will not see your own. Your own ZOC has no effect on your movement, but it will effect enemy movement, so it's important for the tolltip to display it correctly so you will know how effective you are at blocking enemy movement.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:05 pm

Pocus wrote:

Code: Select all

    if EntrenchLevel  > 0 then
    begin
      for i := 1 to EntrenchLevel do
        Result := Round(Result/cbtProtCoef_ * 100);
    end;


cbtProtCoef_ = 90


Can someone help a non-prgrammer understand what this means?

I see that the ZOC bonus for entrenchment is based on entrenchment level and the cbtProtCoeff, which is 90, but I can't figure out the syntax here.

I would expect a patrol value benefit for each element of 1 or less per entrenchment level.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:26 pm

Edited Post #1 to reflect Pocus' comments. Will edit it again if more info comes out.

Just four points of confusion remain:

1) Fort level used for determing ZOC bonus -- are forts not always level 1 in AACW?

2) Need help interpreting entrenchment bonus formula.

3) Would like confirmation regarding leader bonus of +2.5. Extensive testing supports it, yet Pocus is nt aware of it.

4) Weather -- Pocus says it has an effect but I couldn't see it in testing. Will go back and test some more.

If anyone can answer any of these questions -- please do!
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24756
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:57 am

I'll get back to this thread in a few days when some urgencies are done. In the meantime, perhaps somethings will be cleared by others or you.
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:06 pm

Major Tom wrote:Can someone help a non-prgrammer understand what this means?

I see that the ZOC bonus for entrenchment is based on entrenchment level and the cbtProtCoeff, which is 90, but I can't figure out the syntax here.

I would expect a patrol value benefit for each element of 1 or less per entrenchment level.


This code means in plain english :

if EntrenchLevel > 0 then

If entrenchment level is higher than zero

for i := 1 to EntrenchLevel do

Repeat for each level of entrenchment what follows...

Result := Round(Result/cbtProtCoef_ * 100);

New result value is equal to actual result value divided by 90 (because cbtProtCoef_ is equal to 90) and then multiplied by 100. The result is rounded.



Example :

Entrenchment level is 4
Result is 200

1st pass) Result1 = round(200/90 * 100) = 222
2nd pass) Result2 = round(222/90 * 100) = 247
3rd pass) Result3 = round(247/90 * 100) = 274
4th pass) Result4 = round(274/90 * 100) = 304

final result is : 304

An estimate could be : result = round(result * (100/cbtProtCoef_)^EntrenchLevel)
or with our example : round(200 * (100/90)^4) = 305


I hope this is clear, if not just ask again.

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:13 pm

Mickey3D wrote:An estimate could be : result = round(result * (100/cbtProtCoef_)^EntrenchLevel)


In Excel, the formula would be :

=ROUND(A1 * POWER((100/A2);A3);0)

Where :
A1 is the cell with initial value
A2 is the cell with cbtProtCoef_ value
A3 is the cell with EntrenchLevel value

User avatar
Mickey3D
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland

Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:30 pm

If you are using Excel, you can use your own function. Go in the Visual Basic Editor and copy the following text :

Code: Select all

Function ZOCWithBonus(ZOC As Integer, EntrenchLevel As Integer) As Integer

    Const cbtProtCoef = 90
   
    Dim i As Integer
    Dim Result As Integer
   
    Result = ZOC
    For i = 1 To EntrenchLevel
        Result = Round(Result / cbtProtCoef * 100, 0)
    Next i
   
    ZOCWithBonus = Result
   
End Function


Save and now you will be able to use a function name "ZOCWithBonus" in your Excel spreadsheet.

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:44 pm

Thanks, Mickey!

Of course -- that's not the kind of math you just do in your head while you're playing a computer game.

For those of us who are not human calculators, I think it's easier to just ook at the effect of the forumla rather than the formula itself:

For entrenched units, ZOC is modified by entrenchment level:

Ent....ZOC Bonus
1 ...... +11%
2 ...... +23%
3 ...... +37%
4 ...... +52%

Pocus didn't say if entrenchment above level 4 has any effect. I'll assume it doesn't, since higher entrenchment is suppsoed to only effect artillery. But, if it does, the bonus gets huge because it escalates on a curve, not a straight line:

Ent....ZOC Bonus
5 ...... +69%
6 ...... +88%
7 ..... +109%
8 ..... +132%

Of course, it would also make a big difference whether this is added before or after other bonuses, such as the bonus for forts. My guess is it's completely separate because the fort bonus is not applied to the patrol value of individual units, but to the overall ZOC value for the region. The entrenchment value MUST apply only to the entrenched units, so it would be added at the level of each element's patrol value, not at the level of regional ZOC.

So, assume you have a fort in a region you control with 100% MC, and in that fort you have a garrison with a base patrol value of 10, entrenched to level 4. Your ZOC would be 15 for the garrison plus 100 for the fort, for a total of 115.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:45 pm

Mickey3D wrote:If you are using Excel, you can use your own function. Go in the Visual Basic Editor and copy the following text


Jaysus!

I love my Excel, but not THAT much!

Still... I might have to play with that. It's pretty cool. Thanks!
Sic Semper Tyrannis

User avatar
Major Tom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:00 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Fri Feb 13, 2009 4:40 pm

Major Tom wrote:Ent....ZOC Bonus
1 ...... +11%
2 ...... +23%
3 ...... +37%
4 ...... +52%


This assumes that "Result1" is the base ZOC or patrol value of the entrenched unit. I can't think what else it could be.
Sic Semper Tyrannis

tagwyn
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:09 pm

Effects of Entrenchment!

Fri Feb 13, 2009 7:19 pm

Ask Gen Grant how entrenchment worked at places like Vicksburg, Cold Harbor, et.al.? t

User avatar
Injun
Lieutenant
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:52 am
Location: Orangre Park, Florida

Red Zones

Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:42 pm

In the ARR game going right now I got this show up on the screen and I hope some one can interpret it for me. I hope it means that the Reb unit can not retreat?

Image

That mudmarine is Injun gots me handles mixed
Injun aka Mud Marine
Aim low Boys and givem the baynet!
Steady Boys! Steady! Aim ,Fire! , Charge!

User avatar
77NY
Lieutenant
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:30 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:17 pm

Nope. :D

It means just what the message says: Lyons can only move out if you have 42% or better military control in any of the surrounding regions.
"I'm a darned sight smarter than Grant; I know a great deal more about war, military histories, strategy and grand tactics than he does; I know more about organization, supply, and administration and about everything else than he does; but I'll tell you where he beats me and where he beats the world. He don't care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell."

William Tecumseh Sherman

Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests