Zones of Control... no, really...

[Easy Rhino]

So, I built a bunch of tanks. Built a bunch of infantry. Built a bunch of forts. Put the tanks and infantry in the forts.

Lots of bad guys run past the forts and ONLY VERY VERY RARELY do they get shot at by anybody, even the tanks!

Am I misunderstanding something about how this ZOC stuff is supposed to work?

ER

[PapaLenin]

I have the same problem. I got pikemen in forts and enemy running by and they NEVER hit

[Yoleus]

Fix, tweak, something in between...: is it in your (eventual?) patch Firaxis?
Of course, I do not hold my breath, but I could use a reply

[Yoleus]

At least some Apolyton CivIII player could drop down his perspective on opportunity fire... is it working, guys?

[Venger]

I like opportunity fire (bout time!) but the ZOC thing is atrocious.

First, in there IS NONE. That's just bogus.

Try this:

Make a line of troops one on top of the other. You've built a line, right?

Nope. You have to put another line behind them because of the way the grid is oriented.

It takes twice as many troops to make a line horizontally or vertically as it does at oblique angles. That's STUPID.

Gunpowder units should have a zone of control, PERIOD.

Gameplay bug #934.

Venger
P.S. Add ZOC, keep opportunity fire...

[LRotan]

I'm iffy on the ZOC thing. On one hand, I don't like it when I have a unit far off for some reason on a small stretch of land and the AI has the same. One of us is going one way, the other is going the other way, but neither of us can get there until one of us moves.

On the other hand, I'm tired of not having ZOCs in my own damn borders. Personally, I don't think individual units should have ZOCs, but manned fortresses within your cultural borders should. 1 square in every direction would be fine. The ZOC should not extend beyond your borders, though.

That's my take on it anyway.

LR

[SoHappy]

Initially I missed ZOC's as well, but more to the point I was just used to having them there. Now that they are gone I actually prefer it, as in peace time its culture that keeps people out (and it works) and in war, well hell there is no rules, in particular who says that if your enemy is standing in front of you then you have to smash into him head on, how about going around, outflanking etc. Makes it more interesting (and relalistic) as when I wage war I now have to ensure that my behind is protected and that I have backup troops and escape plans. I like it without ZOC's now!

[GePap]

I have had a very similar question about ZOC
In one fo my games, I had a mech inf on jungle, with a railroad leading out of an enemy city going by. Many times, but not all, when a cavalry tried to pass, my mech inf (not in a fort mind you) got a shot at it, tanking out a free hit point. In fact, this sort of situation, when my units- modern armor, marines, got a free shot at enemies trying to move by them, happened many times and never where these units in a fort- This could not have been abug in my game, and I would really like to know what the rules regulatingg this sort of thing are since getting those free shots was very usefull.

[Blaupanzer]

Haven't seen any "opportunity fire" by my folks, forts, coastal fortresses, or fighters to bombers. Manual says modern mobile units and units in forts have ZOC. Enemy runs by them like they do ancient units. Looks broke to me.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Haven't seen any "opportunity fire" by my folks, forts, coastal fortresses, or fighters to bombers. Manual says modern mobile units and units in forts have ZOC. Enemy runs by them like they do ancient units. Looks broke to me.

Someone mentioned that opportunity fire doesn't work if a unit is fortified.

1) That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Well not really, alot of people in here things say dumber things...but it is still pretty dumb.

2) That would explain why you don't see them shoot.

3) I also wonder if a unit must have leftover movement from the prior round. I doubt this is the case though.

Anyone confirm the fortified=noZOC fire effect?

Venger

[LRotan]

It is strange. I had an invasion force of about 12 armor and as many mech infantry, if not a little more. At one point, I had them scattered about the screen and some of the Babylonian(enemy civ) troops darted past them on railroads trying to get to my territory and attack. Out of all the armor and mech inf I had, some of them took a shot at the passing units and some of them didn't.

At first, I thought it had something to do with elevation, as it seemed that only the units on hills\mountains were taking shots. But I didn't know that the units themselves are supposed to have ZOCs for opportunity fire. Now I'm not so sure. Hope someone can figure it out, 'cause I'm stumped.

LR

[Easy Rhino]

I've two two theories/questions about this:

1) I think it is worth doing some tests to see if a unit having fortified or moved that turn removes it's chance at a shot.

2) Has anyone ever seen an opportunity fire shot MISS? There's also the chance that the game doesn't annimate unsuccessful opportunity shots.

The way the ZOC system is describes sounds really cool. I just wish I could get it to work that way.

ER

[Ludwig]

Actually, I prefer a game where you have to deploy in line.

The REAL problem here is that the grid is made of squares and not hexes.

HEXAGONS, DAMN IT!

What is this, Chutes N' Ladders? We can't be trusted with hexagons? The combat, movement, and city radius rules ALL work better with hexagons, which have been used in simulation games since before there were computers. The person on the design team who demands square tiles is probably the guy who holds up his hand at production meetings and says, "Maybe we should make this a card game, instead. You know, the kids could collect the cards and trade them. And we could make it spooky - you know, those kids like spooky."

You wouldn't need "double lines" of troops in ANY deployment direction [Venger is right; that's stupid] with hexagons.

[Apolex]

Thank you Ludwig. Yes it is absurd, these stupid squares. Hexes would be FAR superior. I had hoped while waiting for CIV III that hexagons would be one of the improvements implemented; it just makes so much sense. Ugh. Guess not.

-Apolex

[Surgeon]

How about this.

Fix it so that Forted troops can take a (reduced strength) hit at passing ememy once per turn.

A 'RESPECT MY BORDERS' treaty.

[Sevorak]

Zones of Control, IIRC, now work such that any unit with a movement of 2+ has a chance for opportunity fire on a unit moving past it. It's a 50% chance to successfully initiate opportunity fire, and a normal single attack round for the shot itself.

If the 50% chance to fire is not made, the game does not animate a shot.
If the chance to hit is not made, the game does not animate a shot.

That's why it seems like ZOC is working less frequently than it should. Against units with reasonable defence values, you should be looking at 25-35% chance of seeing an opportunity shot.

-Sev

[Jezz]

I believe Sevorak is correct. I saw it in action today.

Had horsemen on mountains, next to my horsemen was another mountail w/ 5 barbarians. End of my turn. Barbarian horsemen climbs off adjacent mountain, onto a grassland tile right next to my horsemen, on his way to attack my city. Out of 5 barbarian horsemen, my horsemen took oppotunity fire on 2 of them. Whenever it showed him taking opportunity fire, the barbarian horsemen lost some health and died much quicker when attacking my city (fortified with a spearmen). Very cool.

[Venger]

Opportunity fire does work at times - and it also works with fortresses. I had a rifleman unit take opportunity shots at units the AI moved by.

I still think gunpowder units need a real ZOC...

Venger

[Karhgath]

About hexes instead of squares... I dunno. I like having 8 directions to move, it goes nicely with the keypad, which I use exclusively to move my troops.

Also, you won't fix the problem you state(making horizontal and vertical lines of defense) completely, since you will only fixe one direction. In one direction(either horizontally or vertically), you will still need to go in zig-zag and have 2 lines. Also, I odn't like hexes much, it is NOT symetrical, and might prove to be a problem for many of Civ's concepts. It is nice in wargames and all, but Civ is not a wargame alone.

It might be nice, but it will have other kinds of problems, so it's really a choice they made here. None is inherently better than the other.

[TheRascalKing]

Out of curiosity, can opportunity fire kill units? I don't think it can, which seems a bit silly to me. Frankly, I think we'd all be well served if all of the "non-lethal" damage types were replaced with lethal varieties. ("Oh no Clem! Here comes the bombers!" "Don't worry, Earl, they's can hurt us, but they's can't kill us no matter how hard they tries.")

[johnnyappleseid]

Originally posted by Ludwig
Actually, I prefer a game where you have to deploy in line.

The REAL problem here is that the grid is made of squares and not hexes.

HEXAGONS, DAMN IT!

Amen, brutha. I've been saying this since the first Civ. Well, should only be five years or so until Civ IV, maybe Firaxis will figure it out by then.

[dr.charm]

On the ZOC matter: I think that units in fortresses should have a ZOC, just as it says they do in the manual. Otherwise, it makes constructing a defensive line *much* more difficult than it needs to be.

On opportunity fire: My impression has been that high mobility units have a certain percentage chance to damage units that transit by them, but I don't *think* that a fortified unit can take opportunity fire.

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

[Capt Dizle]

There is no zone of control that I can see.

In my current game the Russians moved about 40 obsolete units into my territory next to one of my isolated cities defended by a lone cavarly unit.

I quickly negotiated MPP with their neighbors and sure enough next turn they declared war.

I moved tanks and mech infantry in behind them to cut them off and pin them against the sea and one of my new allies.

I left a single path for escape (oops). They made a beeline for it and got to one of their railroad squares. All the horse and cavary got away but the foot soilders were trapped and anilated.

My mechanized infantry ripped up the horse as they went by ...many escaped with only one hit point. I do not remember any tanks getting any opportunity fire. There was clearly no zone of control at all.

Nice thing the AI did was move some mech infantry in to protect the obsolete footmen. That was cool, but they were isolated and killed anyway.

Another thing I noticed is that the AI bombers really seem to like to hit roads on resource tiles. This seems to be their top priority target.

[Sytass]

To add my two cents...

The lack or "real" ZOCs certainly makes it more difficult to make an impenetrable line of units along your borders. However, I like this a lot better, as it is more realistic. If you want to seal yourself off, guard a few chokepoints. The famous Maginot Line of France towards Germany, for example, didn't stretch for thousands of kilometers.

As for intruders, there's an old and simple rule: have a good network of roads and railways, and some mobile units stationed so that they can reach various points of your Empire easily.

I have to agree, though, that hexes would greatly improve the game. And it would also justify why movement in any direction costs the same.

[Wyrmo]

It feels so good that they have stated how all of this works in the manual... Makes it so much easier to play and understand the game...

Sarcastic? ME??? Naaaaaaah

[dr.charm]

The Maginot Line is a rather bad example as it *didn't* stretch for thousands of kilometers for *political* reasons. And the Germans went around it, they didn't ride up to the line, and then slip between two fortresses :O

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

[Frito]

Originally posted by Venger
It takes twice as many troops to make a line horizontally or vertically as it does at oblique angles. That's STUPID.

no it doesn't. It takes the same number of units to guard the same number of squares. Basicly it takes 3 units to block an enemy unit reguardless of what direction your line is in.

[Sytass]

Given, the Maginot Line only stretched along the Franco-German border. However, this was the suspected choke point. Given the political status of the Benelux states, it seemed logical to defend there. Nevertheless, imagine France tried to seal all their eastern border like that, the effort would have been trmendous.

Maybe the Chinese Wall would be a better example, however, that one took an enormous time to build and enormous effort to maintain.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by Ludwig
Actually, I prefer a game where you have to deploy in line.

The REAL problem here is that the grid is made of squares and not hexes.

HEXAGONS, DAMN IT!

What is this, Chutes N' Ladders? We can't be trusted with hexagons? The combat, movement, and city radius rules ALL work better with hexagons, which have been used in simulation games since before there were computers. The person on the design team who demands square tiles is probably the guy who holds up his hand at production meetings and says, "Maybe we should make this a card game, instead. You know, the kids could collect the cards and trade them. And we could make it spooky - you know, those kids like spooky."

You wouldn't need "double lines" of troops in ANY deployment direction [Venger is right; that's stupid] with hexagons.

My hero!

You are 100% right.

I also doubt it will ever happen (unfortunately) unless it is one of those "made by dedicated fans civ-clone" games you see as works in progress around the internet. The evil reason is... marketing.

Civ is a "mass market" game. The "mass market" has been conditioned to believe that hexes are the mark of a serious wargame for Grognards. The marketing department (at all game companies) believes that to be the kiss of death.

Grognards are also conditioned to believe that hexes are the mark of a serious wargame for Grognards. If a Civ game used hexes, even as the mass marketeers were running for their lives, the Grognards would immediately start viciuosly pounding the system for lack of realism in a host of ways that makes the current Civ3 combat system debate look like a schoolyard squabble. To make the Grognards happy (if that is not a contradiction in terms), you would need something akin to the combat system from Norm Kroger's Operational Art of War series - except the Grognards ripped Norm over that one, too BTW, no offense intended to Grognards - I'm a quasi-grog myself.

Then there are the gaming magazine writers - to them, hexes are the mark of boardgame ports only an old-time non-hip&withit Grognard could love. If your going to be the very model of a modern Grognard, you'd want a Civ game without hexes or squares that did combat in 3D models, wouldn't you?

Yes, my dream Civ game would be something like this (for starters):

Hexes.

Units are designed as in the Operation Art of War scenario editor.

Equipments out of which to build units are designed as in the SMAC unit workshop.

The combat system is more or less OPART, plus the working naval system OPART never had and a distiction between air units which are air-droppable and air units which are air-transportable.

The event engine combines the best of OPART, Civ2:TOT & EU2.

The entire world is on the map as a real globe (rotates under your window as you scroll), at the largest OPART scale of 50km/hex.

Every land hex has culture & religion like EU2 provinces (basically the EU2 system converted from area movement to hexes), and literally hundreds of nations in play as in EU2.

Nobody will ever program it, but a guy can dream

[Psiwar]

But then... the well known Mongol warlord had no problem in crossing the Great Wall and invading China...

Hexes: i also agree that we should have them in Civ 3. And about those marketing folks believing that it's suicide...i remember that Age of Wonders came out with hexes and it didn't sold worst because of that. If you put them in and don't make a big fuss about it, then no one will "notice"...