I know that there is a thread about the suggested choice of the optional rules for TOCs and locking ZOCs are not among the ones that are advised for WWI, but hasn't that changed in the meantime? I have ben reading a book about the material battle and attrition warfare in the western front in 1916 and the author's depiction of the course of events there any breakthroughs were an extremely laborous and tricky business. Doesn't introducing the LOCs support a more realistic handling of positional warfare in F'14 where any penetrations, either on wide or narow front, shallow or deep, need to be carefully comstructed interms of deployment to prevent counter attacks on their flanks and cutting the turkey's neck? On the other hand I think it may not work too realistically in the east where two battalions can easily catch an enemy element in an enfilade grip and block it completely in anticipation of other friendly forces arriving to complete encirclement and allow destruction in detail on a major scale. I know that locking ZOCs give advantage to the attcker and make the game work more like a board one with neither of those being my aim. I am asking just for the sake of pursuing even greater realism.
Well IMO the ZOC opt rules is off in most PzC games as the attacker has an definite advantage when you are using the YGIG system in regards to being able to surround units in a ZOC trap on the attackers turn, I felt it was part of a design to allow the defender the small advantage of being able to escape a ZOC trap by bringing up another defending unit adjacent and so allowing the trapped defending unit to move at least a single hex.
With the attacker not having quite the same advantage in FWWC you might have a better argument for having the locking ZOC rule on, but I am no expert on WW1 tactics and it would be interesting to hear if Ed had ever considered turning this opt rule on or not during the design of either title?
On one hand, you could argue that locking ZOCs represent that a certain unit is holding an area wider than one hex, but considering the advantages it gives to whatever side is attacking (it can also be the defender, during a counterattack), I would prefer it being off.
The disadvantage of units not being able to retreat into enemy ZOCs is already punishing enough and leads to numerous efficient but also in a way "cheap" kills without adding locking ZOCs.
Personally, no, I do not recommend locking ZOCs but you can play with it on if you like. If I really hated it then I would have had it completely removed from the FWWC series, but I understand that some people like it so it is there as a option.
Unfortunately no, I have never had a desire to make this a default optional rule because I feel it gives too much of an advantage to the attacker which is not healthy for this conflict. What I mean is, with locking ZOC on the defender is pretty much doomed and cannot retreat from almost every situation that the attacker creates from his assaults. Since the defender has no say on how his units retreat from each assault, then it would just be too much of an overwhelming advantage to trap and destroy defensive positions, because units that have enemy on both sides of them cannot withdraw. This in turn encourages the defender to sit and fight to the death, which is not good either since it discourages mobility (IMO mobility must be encouraged at all times in a WW1 wargame).
That said, by all means play with it on with people who also want to try it out and see how it goes. :)
Indeed - in my "1st Battle of the Masurian Lakes" a Russian battalion on the other side of a river is trapped and isolated by being forced to make contacts from three sides which is enough to render it immobile and await being slowly destroyed by fire as neither of the OpFor battalions is able to cross the river. Thus the Russians have a way open into their rear which cannot be directly accessed and threatened as it's inaccessible for the German battalions on the opposite river bank. Anyway, my opponent there insisted on locking ZOCs so I am going to persuade him otherwise before we may tackle "Saving Silesia". I couldn't agree more that locking ZOCs should be off.