the Zone Of Control (ZOC) poll

[Pingu:]

Zone Of Control (ZOC) Poll

Hello!

Quite a few people, myself included, have said on these forums that the Civ3 ZOCs are a little weak, and need improving. So here's a poll to get at what people really think about this.

I'll explain the options that I've put:

1) Like Civ2:, this means that ALL units have a ZOC around them and once enters a ZOC it cannot move within the ZOC, only out of the ZOC or attack.

2) Fast units & fortresses => impassable: select this option if you think that ZOCs should only be given to units with a speed advantage or in a fortress (as currently the case). BUT the ZOC should be made impassable, like they were in Civ2.

3) Fast units & fortresses, do crippling damage: select this option if you broadly like the Civ3 ZOCs but want them beefed up. The idea here is that a unit passing a ZOC is reduced to 1 HP.

Perhaps, if a unit has a speed advantage over the unit in the fortress, then it takes only 1 HP of damage, so Cavalry can do a flanking attack if the fortress just contains an infantry unit (but not mech inf, or Tanks).

4) Keep them as they are: should be self explanatory.

5) Get rid of them altogether.



Pingu:

[rid102]

I'd like "impassable" because you could then actually have borders which are enforceable as opposed to either needing to build a line of units or just always giving the AI RoP (as it assumes it anyway).

I'm not even bothered about "fast" units having ZOC. Just units in fortresses would be fine for establishing decent borders IMHO.

[Easy Rhino]

I don't think that a unit dumb enough to move past a swarm or ZOC enemies should automatically get reduced to 1hp. However, I want to see EVERY unit in the stack attack him and beat him into the ground.


WHAM!
WHAM!
WHAM!


like that
ER

[Father Beast]

after playing Civ3 for a while, I went and played a game of Civ2. That was one of the things that annoyed me. the Civ2 zoc's seemed just silly.

If we're going to change it at all, give a ZOC to units in fortresses, not any fast units or others.

[Mannamagnus]

Only fortresses. One square on real world might be several hundred kilometers wide so anything else seems silly to me.

[Hurry]

I agree. But I´d like cities to have ZOCs, too. And maybe units behind rivers. Now rivers are totally useless, since it´s so easy to just cross it and attack from the flank.

[Morganstern]

I think the new ZOC concept is one of the strongest features of Civ 3. One thing I'm a little confused on, though, is my movement within the Aztech territory. Regardless of whether the space is blank, a road or railroad, each space is one movement point for my units, making the conquest process agonizingly slow. I don't remember this occurring within the Russian and Iroquois territories. Is this an Aztech feature or something else - anyone have an insight on this?

[Wrong_shui]

improvements in enemy territory dont work for your units

[rid102]

I think the new ZOC concept is one of the strongest features of Civ 3.

Don't you mean a lack of ZOC concept?

[Zealot]

Originally posted by rid102
Don't you mean a lack of ZOC concept?

ZOCs still exist for ships (or so I read somewhere).

[Dravin]

Originally posted by Wrong_shui
improvements in enemy territory dont work for your units

Which really doesn't make much sense concerning roads. Rails I can understand, but roads? As somebody else once said on this board, "What? Do the roads just refuse to let you walk on them?"

[Malleus]

Originally posted by Dravin


Which really doesn't make much sense concerning roads. Rails I can understand, but roads? As somebody else once said on this board, "What? Do the roads just refuse to let you walk on them?"

Roads are easy to enfilade by partisans.
Road signs can be switched to be misleading.
Road networks are confusing enough for their residents, much less a foreign invader from another culturre.
Your intelligence on road maps can be falsified or incorrect.

There's many reasons why an army in hostile territory avoids roads when not in column. History is replete with amusing stories of armies which followed the wrong road.
This is one change I am happy for. I always wondered how you got away with using roads in the other Civs, and why your units weren't taking damage or something from partisans. Or moving randomly into the wrong square from misdirection.

K

[Trifna]

I dunno how i is in reality but just make it as it is really. Reality sure has some balance I guess...

[Morganstern]

rid102-

Given the history of this genre, the LACK of a ZOC is indeed a "ZOC Concept." It's easy to nitpick when a statement is presented out of context.

[shirgall]

How about this friendly amendment: fortified units in cities and fortresses should have impassable zones of control, fortified units in open ground should damage units passing through their zones of control.

Even cavalry running past infantry should get shot at.

Even ships running past the shore should get shot at by arty on the ground.

Planes flying over mech. infantry should get shot at too. (SAM batteries move in real life)

--jrp

[Asharak]

Personally, I've got no qualms with the zones of control -- or lack thereof -- as they function now. I don't think it's realistic to HAVE to fight the unit in front of you to advance. What I WOULD like to see, however, is a little more tactical sense from the AI, sometimes... it's just not smart to head deep into enemy territory while completely ignoring every city and unit behind you... certainly, tactics of any sort are nice to see from an AI, but perhaps not ones that violate quite so many rules of warfare and common sense.

About the opportunity fire... a good idea, but not implemented well enough. I'd like to see slower units allowed to take pot shots (after all, its not like they're moving far enough to need the speed bonus), and I'd like to see the unit that is doing the passing be allowed to shoot back (a normal regiment can, after all, fire one way while moving another -- or detach a division or two to hold off the attackers). Sort of a skirmish kind of battle -- not a fight to the death. Say, 2 rounds of combat (and the passing unit gains its ground, regardless). That way only a wounded or conscript unit (on either side) could be destroyed in the action.

And I agree that opportunity fire should be expanded to include some air and naval units as well. Just makes sense, really...

[mfauzi]

I prefer them like in Civ 2, but just for fortresses (and maybe cities too) and not for fast units

But an interesting idea would be disallowing units from travelling in ZOC if only garrison units are in the fortress it but cause damage if only artillery-type units are in it. If both are in it, garrison units will take priority over artillery-type units on ZOC.

[Velociryx]

IIRC, didn't the French attempt a "civ2-like" ZOC during WWII?

I agree that the new system (very non-standard for the genre) is a bit tough to get used to when you're accustomed to being able to fortify/staff your borders to impassability, but I think this way lends itself to a more fluid, and IMO realistic experience, given the large amount of land area each tile likely represents--even if each unit was Divisional in it's size, if it's fortified and dug in, units in adjacent tiles would simply have the option of going around, as they do now (at the risk--for certain tiles/units) of suffering a passing shot.

Personally, I like the fluid nature it brings to the game....my only complaint is that for the upkeep you spend, Coastal Fortresses are not strong enough. I'd say either make 'em free (0 upkeep) and leave the strength alone, or bump the strength to make them viable in the late game (but I suppose that's veering a bit from the "core" ZOC discussion.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

I have some strong feelings about fortresses and ZOC.

Here it is.

A fortress should have a base defense strentgh unmanned...lets say begining with one and going up to eight over the ages.

1,2,4,8. Each fortress should have hit points just like units, make them regular and let them gain experience. After all a fortress should represent a minimum garrison.

Now, you can fiddle with building costs and the techs that are needed to get the upgraded fortress.

Occupied fortresses should use the base combat value of the unit plus a fortress bonus.

A fortress should have a ZOC in which they always fire at units that move into. Roughly, for each age the fire should be equivalent to the artillery in the game...catapult, cannon, artillery, and radar.

When captured a fortress must be destroyed. The situation we have now is silly, fortressess are more dangerous to its builder!

Given these parameters fortresses would be meaningful in gameplay and would offer and excellant way for Soren to help the AI out on its defensive woes. As well as add a lot of spice to multiplayer.

Basically fortresses were historically the very focus of war until the motarized age and in Civ they are essentially worthless. Must beef up.

[Sarxis]

Though I do like the idea of giving fast units and forts a little more advantage then what they have now, I also like the way the new ZOCs work. Making opposing units paralyzed while in enemy ZOCs is silly, and makes for boring interdiction tactics.

Besides, it has happened in wars that enemy armies have passed one another by without exchanging fire. With the old ZOC rules, this was rediculously impossible.

[Trifna]

BUT the possibility or not to let pass someone should be given.

Two armies that aren't enemy may just pass without everyone attacking everyone, no?

[Venger]

I would make gunpowder and 2 move units have an enforceable zone of control - any unit coming into contact must break contact to continue moving, or defeat the controlling unit.

That said, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here, opportunity fire should stay - if a unit enters a hex adjoining mine, I think opportunity fire should occur for all post gunpowder units.

A combination of the Civ2 and Civ3 method would yield really good gameplay.

Venger