Zone of Control

[Fitz]

What if they just added a chance that the attempted move would fail, but still use up a MP? Not 100% like SMAC, something like 50%. Obviously for this to work, a unit on railroads would have to use 1/3 MP (like roads) whether or not they were successful, but thats not such a bad thing either.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Fitz
What if they just added a chance that the attempted move would fail, but still use up a MP?

What if people would just accept the fact that this is the way the game will be played? There's been no mention of changes to ZoC for either the next patch or PTW, so it's highly unlikely at this point that Firaxis will change the way it works. The only way I can see it being dealt with differently will be in Civ IV, which is at least 5 years away.

[dexters]

Originally posted by dexters
I actually like the idea of having fortresses have CIV 2 type ZOC. Perhaps to avoid it from being exploited, ZOC should only extend 1 square around the fortress, thus, if players want to seal their borders entirely, it would still requite lots of fortresses or troops.

Also, I think fortross ZOC should only be in effect when it is manned.

Ok, I'm quoting my own post as a reference. I noticed this idea has sparked some agreement and some questions

I want to add that perhaps ZOC extends only to enemy territory or neutral (open) territory. Thus, enemy civs can land troops behind your borders from the sea and attack your forts from behind, where you are not afforded ZOC.

This would make sense. Borders military borders are about keeping people out, from a frontal attack and flanking attacks from behind should be considered as a FREE FOR ALL, that is, not governed by ZOC outside of the unit ZOC routine where units like tanks may take potshots at passing units.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Willem


What if people would just accept the fact that this is the way the game will be played? There's been no mention of changes to ZoC for either the next patch or PTW, so it's highly unlikely at this point that Firaxis will change the way it works. The only way I can see it being dealt with differently will be in Civ IV, which is at least 5 years away.

Why accept something you dont like? Firaxis have already made patch changes based on comments seriously discussed on these forums. Why assume they wont make more. I think there was some mention of a possible colourless unit with PtW! You know where they got that idea. I'm not an expert, but it doesnt look like some of the possible changes mentioned here would require a lot of code to enable.

[Willem]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Why accept something you dont like? Firaxis have already made patch changes based on comments seriously discussed on these forums. Why assume they wont make more. I think there was some mention of a possible colourless unit with PtW! You know where they got that idea. I'm not an expert, but it doesnt look like some of the possible changes mentioned here would require a lot of code to enable.

Well maybe so, but I think the odds are against any changes. There's been discussions about this issue for a long time now, with no indication that they are going to change anything. If they do, it will probably just be a tweak here and there, so that a ZoC attack will happen more often, and/or do more damage. Hopefully I'm proven wrong, since I think it's pretty feable as is, but I'm not exactly optimistic at this point.

[vondrack]

Here is my two cents:

I believe that reintroducing the ZOC known from Civ2 is not a good idea - it was simply not very realistic (even if it is a game only), since fortresses never prevent you from entering the surrounding area - just... if you do, it hurts. I would suggest improving the current implementation instead. Let fortresses allow units garrisoned/fortified in them to shoot at enemy units passing by every time they move into a square adjacent to the fortress. That would mean risking 1-3 HPs per garrison unit. If there are two cannons and a rifleman fortified in the fortress, they would be able to reduce a cavalry unit to cinders. Units naturally able of bombardment might be given higher chances of successfully hitting units passing by.

[GhengisFarb™]

I tend to agree with vondrack. I do feel that ZOC needs to be more reliable than what is currently in Civ3, however.

Placing one archer on a mountaintop and when the enemy moves 6 units by it, it MIGHT have a chance at getting a shot at one of them is a little to toned down for my taste.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You gotta look at ZOC from a historical perspective tho, to really understand what's going on.

For the record, I think the current implementation SUCKS, but that is just this gamer's opinion.

ZOC's work for detailed simulations and purestrain wargames because they represent reality.

A unit of tanks isn't just a couple of tanks sitting idly in a field. It's a squadron of tanks, trained to fight together. And with them, they've got guys with guns, and other guys with shovels to plant mines, and other guys with maps....anybody who comes anywhere near these guys WILL have to deal with them, and not just...."Oh look! There go some bad guys! What say let's give them a passing shot from our main gun?"

No...what'll happen is that the guys with the tanks you're trying to get around will move to intercept you, blocking your path. You want by....fight 'em.

The trouble is, you can't implement that well in civ, because there is no "draw" in combat....well, sorta, but not really. There's Kill, Be Killed (in some cases, there's withdraw, but that's hardly the norm).

In detailed wargames, it's actually somewhat rare for a unit to be wiped out entirely. It'll weaken, route, get disrupted, maybe even get captured, but rarely is it distroyed to the man.

Happens every time in Civ, tho, and that's why its so hard to effectively model ZOC.

In purestrain wargames, the lines are at least somewhat static (semi-permanant, let us say)....and entering that line puts you in the kill zone of, usually NUMEROUS units.

Can't effectively model that in Civ, either, what, with Infinite move rails and such.

ZOC was too strong in Civ2 and SMAC, but it's weak to the point of being a waste of time (rather like pollution), now.

-=Vel=-

Actually I think it could be modeled in Civ3, not with the current code, but it might be possible in a future patch.

Make it similar to Lethal Bombardment, call it the Lethal Combat option where you can set it so a combat can only deal x amount of damage per attack. Set it to "3" and conscripts and regulars will die in their first lost, while veteran and elite units (now severely damaged) will remain on the square they attacked from.

You would be able to set the damage value to your tastes, even better would be assigning the value as a unit stat. Then you could have pikemen deliver max damage of 4, spearmen 3, and warriors 2.

[Austin]

Originally posted by Apolex
I agree Austin, and with Venger too. It's ridiculous that your troops have to hold hands across an entire region to simulate a battle line. I get this absurd image in my mind of my army saying, "Red Rover, Red Rover, send the Russians Right Over."

Proper fixing of this ZOC nonsense could probably be the single greatest fix that could immediately add major strategic elements to the game (and add realism at the same time).

-Apolex

It's probably too much to ask for a real supply system, especially this late in the game, but you could simulate much of it with "Locking" ZOC.

As it stands now it's pointless to form a line, since this stretches your troops out. Your enemy then groups in a big clump and simply crushes your line a square at a time.

Say you have 20 units, and a 5 square border. If you tried to form a line, that means on average 4 units a square.

Your opponent has 20 units, forms a big clump, and thus bulldozes each square individually.

Now with a realistic supply model, he'd crush one square, wind up out of supply since there is nothing holding his flanks, and thus die.

With the CivIII model he can just bulldoze you, so you might as well simply stick all 20 units in the neares city and/or critical resource square.

Austin

[Austin]

Originally posted by vondrack
Here is my two cents:

I believe that reintroducing the ZOC known from Civ2 is not a good idea - it was simply not very realistic (even if it is a game only), since fortresses never prevent you from entering the surrounding area - just... if you do, it hurts.

The situation we have now is even less realistic. Any level of warfare above medieval you don't see big clumps wandering about, you see a discernable line, for very good reason.

I would suggest improving the current implementation instead. Let fortresses allow units garrisoned/fortified in them to shoot at enemy units passing by every time they move into a square adjacent to the fortress. That would mean risking 1-3 HPs per garrison unit. If there are two cannons and a rifleman fortified in the fortress, they would be able to reduce a cavalry unit to cinders. Units naturally able of bombardment might be given higher chances of successfully hitting units passing by.

I could live with this, if you could dial up the "power" of the ZOC shots. I'd then give the ZOC power to pretty much every military unit above musketeer.

You could still infiltrate, but you'd get pretty beat up. Then have the "blitz" attribute reduce the power of the ZOC shots.

Austin

[ShredZ]

I think vondrack has the right idea!

[Austin]

Does anybody know how the exact details of how ZOC works right now? Is the "power" of the ZOC shot dependant upon the power of the unit? How many shots get taken? One per unit in the stack? Or once per stack?

Austin

[Apolex]

Austin, I wanted to know the same things but I see there hasn't yet been a response to your questions. I did a search (though not too extensive) and didn't come up with anything.

[pvzh]

I think chances of the successful shot depends on the attack rating of the unit. Tanks hit next to always, cavalry frequently, fortified pikeman in the fortress yet-to-see. Probaly, defensive ratings of the tresspasser are accounted for as well.