after the update, none of my units can move past any of the enemy troops. I don't get this change at all. It makes the infantry fodder tactic even more powerful. Hoars of infantry guarding Heavy Artillery is a tactic that I thought was powerful enough, but at least in the old system, you could punch your way through and sometimes, get a raider in to damage the artillery. That counter attack is  now useless.

This new movement system makes heavy artillery even more harder to deal with. I don't get it? 

That's the Zone of Control (ZoC). Units moving into an enemy's zone of control have their movement reduced down to 1. Yes, this does make Artillery or any Ranged unit even harder to deal with. I don't know if you've noticed yet but infantry are now quite easier to kill as they've had their armor reduced by 2 while on a normal grass tile so that somewhat solves the problem of mass infantry fodder. However when you consider that even infantry have ZoC then 1 infantry equals to 3 infantry as it's ZoC makes them block the path of 3 tiles.

i just dont see the point of fixing something that was not a problem in the first place? Why make artillery stronger when everyone I've talked to says that should be weaker.

And why take away the dots? I didn't think they gave too much away about the combat system. 

It's not that they were fixing a problem they wanted to add another mechanic into the game to add more depth into game play however all it's really done is remove depth because now guarding vital areas or units have become extremely easy. ZoC is a good idea and I like it but I don't think it should apply to every unit. I suggested in a previous thread to only give zoc to Fast and Slow moving units.

 I'm not sure about why they changed their unit stat system to what it is now. Removing actual unit stats and hiding them is something that no other strategy game has ever done before. It's like telling a person to play chess without telling them what each piece does. There's nothing wrong with displaying unit stats and I don't agree with the developers decision to hide them. Knowing what your units do and how they react to other units is hugely important and I think they should return back to it's previous display.

Agreed that hiding unit info takes an already problematic issue and makes it worse.

I've already wanted _more_ (full?) disclosure of unit specs and combat formulae in the past, and now it's just a step backwards.  :\

The previous display already had full disclosure of unit specs and combat formulae. It was just no one posted what it was but you could easily formulate what each of those attack/defense stats did and how combat worked from playing a few games. If you want I can post the my full conclusion of how unit specs and combat formulae worked.

Well, there's something I don't get about that ZoC feature. http://w3a.republika.pl/raider.jpg In the mentioned picture, my raider can't move anywhere (besides the hex below where my trooper is perhaps). Well. I don't know why actualy - when I enter the ZoC of red's h.tank, shouldn't I be able to go one moere hex left? I thought I got that mechanic but now I'm a little bit confused. Anyone can explain it closer?:>

From what's happening there I gather once you enter a hex in ZoC of an anemy unit, you can't move at all, not even that one bloody hex.

Enemy bases seem to also have ZoC.

Any proof for that? Bases are not intended to issue a Zone of Control.

Well, now I'm becoming a little frustrated. ZoC can be a nice feature making the game even better but:

http://w3a.republika.pl/zoc2.jpg

[Btw. That's not the base's ZoC this time (Even if the base had ZoC, it shouldn't matter as I was LEAVING it's ZoC, not entering it. It's like living the forest and entering the forest I guess.]

Anyway the picture linked above shows that once you enter the ZoC of an enemy unit you can't move at all, which to me seems illogical for two reasons - One is the fact how on earth am I able to enter enemy's ZoC and can't runaway at the same time on the hex which ISN'Tt under his control. The second, more inportant is the fact that the hex I can't get through belongs to me - red unit, red base in a second - I can't enter the place where my forces are just because I'm entering ZoC of an enemy unit? :o I don't get it. I hope this is an unexpected side effect of this feature and will be properly dealt with. Thanks 

Just reading your post Guthload makes me frustrated too ... I guess I need to read up and learn more about ZOC in general.

In this screen shot it looks like your raider is stuck but it can move down one tile to where your infantry is standing. Right now it doesn't display tiles as possible movement places if one of your units is already on it. I prefer the previous version where it would still light up tiles for movement even when one of your own units is already on it. Your raider is stuck there because it has to enter the ZoC of your enemy's Berserker. Just entering the ZoC will reduce your movement down to 1.

 The enemy raider is stopping your movement greatly because just entering it's zoc your raider can not move any further. The rule with ZoC is the tiles of which you may enter ZoC of an enemy unit are the tiles that will reduce your movement down to 1 forcing it to stop or attack. I've mentioned in a previous thread that ZoC is very powerful and a good aspect to add into the game but I feel it shouldn't be given to every unit.

My opinion is that the zone of control feature was not very well thought out. I agree that it will reinforce the strategy of building lots of infantry and artillery. The usefulness of the raider has been significantly reduced. Why?

I like ZoC and I think it's a great idea but it shouldn't be given to every unit. It has a lot of potential and the more I play with it the more I like it but also the more imbalances I see with it.

I feel the reason why they added it in the game was to promote players to use a larger variety of units instead of infantry spam and artillery. The problem now is ZoC is a very powerful tool and giving it to infantry has only reinforced the infantry spam strategy. I strongly feel that infantry should not have ZoC and somehow restrict ZoC to a smaller number of units. 

 Well, thank you MoJoe, but I thought I've explained everything in my previous msg:>

The thing is that this doesn't make any sense, eg:

You can enter enemy's ZoC but you can't move any further to the neutral tile. The movement points are reduced to 0 when you enter enemy's Zoc. 

I can't get through the tile within enemy's ZoC even though MY unit is occupying it (second pic). This is completely senseless:P

The ZoC's of two units of different colours should interact with each other - like you can get through the tile that is occupied by your unit but within the range of enemy's ZoC. The ZoC should be the mirror of unit's capabilities - Let the infantry have the ZoC, but they literaly can't do nothing against h.tanks moving towards them. In short words - Let's add rock, paper, scissors tactic to the ZoC feature too. It should be even greater that way.

Due to the server downtimes I haven´t much opportunities to play with the new ZoC rules.

I don´t think that it supports infantry tactics. Sure, the combination infantry spam and artillery gets even better. But using lot of infantry and raiders against heavy targets like tanks doesn´t work anymore. Before ZoC it was quite easy destroy a tank with light units by surrounding it. I am not sure how it works now with the ZoC of the tank.

I've commited a few words of explanation to the ZoC in there: http://www.weewar.info/weewar/show/FAQs

ZoC needs a little tweak here and there and it could be perfect. I think Weewar needs to differentiate between fast units and slow units and give more ZoC leeway for the fast units (like Raiders). Let's say for example, Raiders vs Heavy Infantry, the Raider should be able to move 2 hexes in the Heavy Infantry's ZoC hexes and not the current one like it is now.

Also, I have one idea that will help make ZoC better and I can describe it to be a type of "scaffolding" of my units' movement on enemies' ZoC, a system that will help a unit move based on building upon my other units allowable movement within enemies' ZoC. It's really simple but kind of hard to describe. And I've been working on screenshots to try to get my point across but the server downtimes hasn't helped with that task.

You wanna see a ZoC mess? Check this out:

While playing a game on a new board with Solidgoldmind (I'm blue in the screens below), I had twice with number of units that Solid did, and while my Sub was quite weak, in the first screen my units were tightly grouped. My understanding of ZoC is that since his Destroyer is in a vuanrable position the harbor AND I out number him, my attack should be more effective. Is this correct or do I not have it quite right?

...

I obviously lost my sub in this attack but I also lost my hovercrafts too even though I still out numbered Solids units. Can someone better clarify this for me?That would be much appreciated. 

Your units number less and that's why you lost. I'm sorry but neighboring units don't help that much in attacking other units. They definitely won't overturn your disadvantage in numbers like that. And remember that Destroyers are very strong.

Yeah, I neglected to consider the fact that the tank on the other island squeezes me probably causing a cross over of blue's ZoC making him that much stronger.

For some reason I keep wanting a tight group of units (like the red sub, speedboat, and hovercraft in the 2nd pic) to carry a stronger ZoC than my opponents separated units.

Oh, and I don't see why a  ship is stronger in a harbor. I mean, ships should not even be able toattack from a harbor ... what the rule on this?

I guess the bases gives the ships extra defense and I think you're mistaking ZoC with "neighboring units" that help strength attack and defense. ZoC only deals with movement and I don't think it overlaps with the "neighboring unit" thing.

Ahh, that's the distinction ... I was thinking that neighboring units helped/hindered ZoC. Now that I know their different I think that'll keep me from these, what turned out to be, suicide missions

The rule is more or less "You cannot pass enemy fire." I dont see why own bases should make an exception. Furthermore ZoC is not intended to consider wether you have own units in range or you are moving within your "own ZoC". I am curious what new strategies are developed in the near future. If the winning strategy remains to spam Troopers and to build artillery we will alter things again. Take into consideration that some maps with lots of Woods and Mountains give advantage to this strategy. Even Aruba might lead this way. I'd see a problem if one could win on "Dead meadows using Troopers.

Regarding Troopers: A heavy trooper on a mountain/forest/base is intended to be a competitive unit. It should be given a ZoC. On most other terrains, troopers are easily whiped away and therby should not be able to stop tanks for long.

So far I've been able to build less troops because of ZOC. I can stagger them like mines and not like walls since opposing units stop moving when they approach them. My arts can still stay in range and I can keep the opposing units occupied. The bonus is I save money to quickly deploy  ARTs and Heavy Tanks then before.

yeah, i've noticed myself building a lot more artillery as well, now that they're harder to get to.

yeah, furthermore I noticed that on "the botanic troubles" map tanks are doing very well against infantry, and even better when you manage to prevent enemy troopers from getting to the forests/mountains. in the mountains and forests troopers are even stronger considering you buy 4 troopers for 1 tank.

Suggest ZoC tweaks:

- Some units should not have any ZoC.

- Some units should be able to bypass ZoC.

Alternatively to the above two, you could have a system which has a ZoC mapping of each unit to every other unit.  i.e. A boolean table with three columns:

unit a; unit b; a has ZoC over b?

light inf; raider; no

tank; heavy inf; yes

etc.

Guthlord: I can appreciate your frustration, but I still think the ZoC system is fine.  It's just as Bert said; you cannot pass through enemy attack range in one turn.

At the same time, this leads to the question: Should ranged units exert ZoC all across their attack range?  e.g. Heavy Artillery exerting ZoC 4 hexes away?  I've played with ZoC in Wesnoth, but there, every unit only attacks 1 hex away.  Perhaps the ZoC system was not meant to port over to a game with units that have a multi-hex attack range.

In standard miniature games, some units can bypass an enemy's zoc. These units are either stealth or fast units.

Yep.  We need like... I dunno.  "ninja" type units, heh.  Commandos?  Marines?  SEALs?  Stealth bombers?

Pistos, I'm not frustrated anymore, I just get uset to it but I still think it would be nice if ZoC was based on vehicle strenght rather than speed. Just can't imagine a situation when raider manages to get through constant fire of h.tanks - lol? so I partly agree with you Pistos:p. The second thing - I can't also imagine the situation when my unit can't get through a hex where my other unit is stationing but within enemys ZoC.

All in all, one can get used to the current ZoC quite easily and everyone already knows ZoC's very powerfull, but the way it's now its illogical.

Heavy Thanks (maybe even tanks) should ignore ZoC. They are slow and expensive and it'd be nice to balance them out. It would make them ideal for close quarter fighting.

And the most important reason: I love using Heavy Tanks. I like it when squish infantry. But I LOVE the sound of the *snap*, *crackle*, and *pop* that Raiders make!

+10 for Heavy Tanks ignoring ZoC!!!!
 

I think ZOC should be tweaked for all units.

Yep, ZOC needs tweaking all around.  Another suggestion to add to from my earlier post in this thread: Perhaps ZOC should be "consumable".  What I mean by this is, one unit should only be able to exert ZOC over one other enemy unit.  Once it is exerting ZOC on another unit, the "ZOCking" unit should be considered "engaged" or "in engagement".  So, if there are one or two light infantry units sparsely positioned, trying to defend some artillery, we could send two units to engage those infantry, to "keep them busy", and then send some Raiders through the holes, which would no longer have to contend with the ZOC of the engaged enemy infantry.

I'm not totally sure whether this proposed system will work out, but I think it's worth testing.  I have a feeling it would be a step in the right direction.

You guys do remember that you were newbees once? Bit complicated hm?

I'm still a newbie!

+1 for ZoC being consumed, that's an awesome idea Pistos!

I think the consumable ZOC is a good idea to try, too. +1

I think I have an idea to solve some zoc issues. Give certain units the same ability as jets and give them multiple movement phases. Such as giving a raider 2 movement then another 2 movement with a total of 4 movement like a jet with 6 movement then another 2. This would alleviate some zoc problems and would also add an interesting spin to old units and giving the game more depth in strategy play. I noticed that while jets were affected by zoc too they were able to squeeze through it easier because they can move twice in it.

yeah, i try to avoid those sorts of "gang ups" these days. 1v1s are best at this point, and i rather play those with higher ranking players

now that is an idea i really like. +1 for double movement on some of the older units (raider, assault arty, etc.)

Somehow, this double movement stuff doesn't sit well with me.  I'd rather see a generic "Action Point" system, where moving and attacking consumes APs, and you just spend your units' APs however you like, in any combination or order.

Hmm, it'd surely change the mechanics of the game a lot, and make the game more complicated, but i think I'd like this feature. I'm not so positive about giving 2 moves for raiders and other fast units, cause I still don't like the fact that units like troopers are able to stop h.tanks etc.

The idea about making ZoC like paper, rock, scissors still sounds more reasonable to me tho.

I like Pistos' idea even better. +1 for the "Action Point" system.