Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Corndog
I mean, as far as "zone logic".

Split difference between guys in zone
More weight to guys entering zone
Less weight to guys leaving zone
Less weight to guys already covered by someone else
Transition from backpedal to sprint if too far from someone to make a play
Move upfield if all receivers are behind you

Anything else to add to the list?

most of these are redundant, but yeah...never said its easy and it shouldnt have a high priority if it takes too much effort. But maybe sth could be done to prevent the easy beating many deep receivers. I dont care too much about that tho, so GE or Para should argue with you here...

I will be there to bash if you again say running and passing is balanced at the moment



Originally posted by Corndog
Yes to both, though I don't watch it as much nowadays.

Dont get me wrong...but that is the biggest surprise to me for a while

Originally posted by peeti
Dont get me wrong...but that is the biggest surprise to me for a while

And that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Originally posted by peeti
most of these are redundant

Which ones exactly are redundant?

Originally posted by Corndog
I mean, as far as "zone logic".

Split difference between guys in zone
More weight to guys entering zone
Less weight to guys leaving zone
Less weight to guys already covered by someone else
Transition from backpedal to sprint if too far from someone to make a play
Move upfield if all receivers are behind you

Anything else to add to the list?

Just to clarify....

Isn't this already present?
If not, can this be added (codewise) or is it too difficult?

And finally, if Blitzing is needed when playing Zone - why are there so few Short plays in the Zone D Playbook, since you seem to heavily prefer Blitzes being tagged as Short in the Man D Playbook?

Originally posted by Xars
Just to clarify....

Isn't this already present?
If not, can this be added (codewise) or is it too difficult?

And finally, if Blitzing is needed when playing Zone - why are there so few Short plays in the Zone D Playbook, since you seem to heavily prefer Blitzes being tagged as Short in the Man D Playbook?

Yes, all of that is already added.

I'm trying to distinguish what "zone logic" is in relation to what's already in place so I can add it.

Originally posted by Xars
And finally, if Blitzing is needed when playing Zone - why are there so few Short plays in the Zone D Playbook, since you seem to heavily prefer Blitzes being tagged as Short in the Man D Playbook?

Because, as previously stated, zone allows more flexible assignments.

The only players in man coverage that you can sacrifice to blitz are the deep defenders. Man coverage is man coverage. Man coverage without deep defenders is a short yardage defense.

Originally posted by Corndog
Yes, all of that is already added.

I'm trying to distinguish what "zone logic" is in relation to what's already in place so I can add it.

Perhaps it's not the "Logic Steps" but the "Weightings".

Originally posted by Corndog
Which ones exactly are redundant?

More weight to guys entering zone
Less weight to guys leaving zone

Originally posted by peeti
More weight to guys entering zone
Less weight to guys leaving zone

Both of those help the player be in the correct position and have to make up less distance when the number of receivers in the zone changes.

And in completely different situations. Players can be entering the zone but not leaving, and players can be leaving the zone without entering.

Originally posted by Corndog

Less weight to guys already covered by someone else

Anything else to add to the list?

Is this already implemented?

Damn, didn't realize all the good zone discussion was here.


I've already posted it in another thread, but I'll post it again here anyways.


My opinions on it was that Zone Defenders should play area's of the field instead of putting to much emphasis to players entering or leaving Zones. I didn't think that they should be leaving area's to chase 1 Receiver around in essentially Man Coverage. I would prefer to see that defenders are for the most part locked in on the QB trying to judge Receiver positions with peripheral vision and reacting to the pass being thrown as quickly as possible. I agree with CD that Zone will not be as consistent as Man, but more so great vs Some plays and terrible vs others.

Take TE Drive and Cover 4 out of the 3-4 as an example.

http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/defense_plays/279.jpg - 3-4 - Cover 4
http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/141.gif - SB TE Drive

Cover 4 should be a great option against this play for the most part. If the play takes too long to develop then not so much, but if the QB tries to throw it within 15 yards then this is a great defensive play call. You have underneath defenders already in the passing lanes and you should have Deep Coverage guys ready to make a play on the ball as well.

Not picking on GE, but I'll post what I thought was a great example of a terrible defensive play call vs this certain offensive play.

4-3 - Under Cover 3 - http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/defense_plays/419.jpg

I Form - Double Back Out and Up - http://glb2.warriorgeneral.com/images/tactics/offense_plays/263.gif


It's just a great offensive play call vs this defense. The nearest defender to WR2 on this play is assigned a Deep 3rd and his primary responsibility is getting to that area and waiting for the QB to throw the ball. The SS is well out of position by being inside the Box and will never have enough time to get to WR2 unless the QB makes a mistake on the read. This should result in 5-10 yards pretty much every time called. I don't think the CB2 should ever start chasing the TE around which he does do depending on which hash mark the ball is at however.

Corndog, anyway to shift zones if the defense sees something like trips?

Sort of like the logic you already have for a player being inside a zone, but basically moving the zones themselves.

So if you see 3 WRs on one side of the field, the zones themselves all shift to that side. Perhaps even the way the players line up too before the snap so they don't spend a lot of the early play running across the field. If one of the WRs runs a drag route, then the zones stretch back across the field. Does that make sense?

You could even have it with depth too. If all the WRs run deep routes, all the zones move back, and the defenders move with them. Might help maintain bracket style coverage on deep routes with two zone defenders. Of course, if there were some short routes mixed in, that would keep the zones where they are, which would make those sorts of pass plays more interesting against zone as they would create bigger holes.

okay only part of this is that te drive is a zone beating play. i dont care what defense you play. i am a DC in real life. te drive would be cover 2 with the wr post or cover 3 with the te up the midle

Originally posted by Cuivienen
Corndog, anyway to shift zones if the defense sees something like trips?

Sort of like the logic you already have for a player being inside a zone, but basically moving the zones themselves.

So if you see 3 WRs on one side of the field, the zones themselves all shift to that side. Perhaps even the way the players line up too before the snap so they don't spend a lot of the early play running across the field. If one of the WRs runs a drag route, then the zones stretch back across the field. Does that make sense?

You could even have it with depth too. If all the WRs run deep routes, all the zones move back, and the defenders move with them. Might help maintain bracket style coverage on deep routes with two zone defenders. Of course, if there were some short routes mixed in, that would keep the zones where they are, which would make those sorts of pass plays more interesting against zone as they would create bigger holes.

Cover 6 is a good option to use if you expect Trips.