Do You Miss ZOC?

Inverse Icarus · January 13, 2003, 13:30

well, which way do you like better for zones of control?

Inverse Icarus · January 13, 2003, 13:33

i'm a civ2 zoc man myself. it made it so you could have a impervious defendible border without having men on every tile.

wilbill · January 13, 2003, 13:44

I have no problem with the system as it is.

Willem · January 13, 2003, 13:45

I like the way it is now, more or less. I think that Forts should at least have the old rules, and I would like to see the free shot improved. It's next to useless as it stands IMO. So I guess I'd have to go with "None of the Above".

Mickeyj · January 13, 2003, 14:34

I think troops posted in fortres should have a ZOC that way you could set up borders.

Datajack Franit · January 13, 2003, 14:44

SMAC rulz

Traelin · January 13, 2003, 14:52

No no no to Civ2 ZOC. Although it would be interesting to see it applied WRT forts.

piratebrun · January 13, 2003, 16:53

At first (when civ3 first came out) I hated the new ZOC... couldn't make a solid border without masses of units.

Well, the more I use it, the more I like civ3's forcing you to mass troops on the border in order to keep enemies out (more realistic - I KNOW IT'S JUST A GAME :P). Also it works in reverse, you can slip troops through your enemies lines to work the same damage on him!

Plus the free shots are nice (if you have enough troops that have them) to pick away at your enemies.

HolyWarrior · January 13, 2003, 23:09

At first, I missed CIV2's ZOC rules, as one of my tactics was always to secure a chokepoint of maybe one tile wide. OTOH, it pissed me off when the AI did it, catching my unit behind enemy lines, then it demands me to move the unit out. Hello, I can't get out, you're blocking me!

Jaybe · January 13, 2003, 23:31

I like the idea that you CAN move through ZOC's, but I would prefer that it would be more hazardous (or sorta STUPID) to do so. Say, twice the chance there is now to take damage, PLUS one or TWO HP's may be lost.

Also, I sure wish that Coastal Forts weren't dependent on ZOC's: They should fire any time an adjacent coast is ENTERED, and if the ship stays during your turn, it takes ANOTHER shot!

ranskaldan · January 14, 2003, 00:14

Civ3 definitely.

It makes no sense for a phalanx to defend against a tank this way.

DuncanK · January 14, 2003, 01:18

No ZOC. It's not realistic. If you want to control a zone you should have to control every square. It's one improvement for Civ3. Too bad that didn't implement imoprovements from SMAC like allies to same square.

Acererak · January 14, 2003, 01:44

Civ2 style ZOC was too powerful. It was too easy to get trapped. Kind of ridiculous that you simply can't move.

Civ3 ZOC is pretty good, though I've not seen it work that well.

I really like the idea that Fortresses get an 'enhanced ZOC' where they get double the chance of hitting and/or damage. But no way to Civ2 style ZOC.

Perhaps two separate units whose movement overlaps, creates a kind of weak ZOC in those overlapped squares? That way you don't have to create a completely sealed border, you'll still get a free shot of some kind, but it won't be nearly as effective as a fort.

I like these ideas! Can anyone tweak this?

Mr. President · January 14, 2003, 02:32

Zones of control as we know them in CivGaming are the right idea with a very clunky implementation.

TacticalGrace · January 14, 2003, 06:22

If you are at peace with someone then how can civ2 style ZOC make sense.

equally if you are at war then how can a ancient age unit mantain a ZOC against a tank?

Imagine a mountain tile with warrior unit defending it. alongside is a road. I want to drive my tanks down the road. In civ2 I can't. Why? because there are warriors in the way? no, they're on the mountain. because it wouldn't be safe to pass the warriors : they'd attack. I let them attack, but I just drive through, but civ2 says I can't. I have to attack the warriors in the mountain... but I don't want to go into the mountain... in the end civ2 forces me to do the exact opposite of what would happen in real life: I drive my tanks into the mountains.

Alex · January 14, 2003, 06:46

Civ3 ZOC is better, maybe improved by Jaybe's idea.

Stuie · January 14, 2003, 11:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
Also, I sure wish that Coastal Forts weren't dependent on ZOC's: They should fire any time an adjacent coast is ENTERED, and if the ship stays during your turn, it takes ANOTHER shot!

As is, I don't even bother building Coastal Forts. When I did build them, I never saw one fire on an enemy ship.

As for ZOC, the Civ3 implementation is satisfactory for my taste.

Acererak · January 14, 2003, 12:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie

As is, I don't even bother building Coastal Forts. When I did build them, I never saw one fire on an enemy ship.

I've never seen my coastal forts shoot at passing AI ships, but I'm pretty certain my ships have been shot at by other human player's coastal forts, since a few of my ships took damage just passing by a fellow player's city (they were privateers).

SpencerH · January 14, 2003, 14:01

Entering a square under enemy ZOC should cost 1MP independent of rail or roads. That penalty should be in addition to the potential for HP loss while moving from one enemy ZOC to another enemy ZOC.

These types of rules were used successfully by board wargamers for years with much more complex warfare models than any CIV title.

Bambul · January 15, 2003, 04:05

I remember originally that Firaxis said that ZOC would be improved in Civ3 by not allowing all units to exert a ZOC. eg. a warrior would not be able to stop a tank, but an infantry would.

I would like to see fortresses (plus maybe cities) have a ZOC Civ2 style, with perhaps the control mentioned above. I see it as a fortress allowing the units within it to "occupy" all the 8 tiles surrounding it by providing them with a forward base of operations. So a unit wanting to pass through *any* of those 9 tile into another must first eliminate the units within the fortress as moving into one of those tiles would effectively be attacking a unit within the fortress, ie. they quickly make a defensive position in the tile which would have been moved into. Once there are no units left, opposing units can move through freely. "Fast" units would still do their 1 damage if successful in hitting a unit that moves by.

Atleast give players an option over which ZOC to have. I'm sure the programming wouldn't be an overburdening thing, it's not like I'm asking for something really big or anything.

And coastal fortesses need a major improvement, SAM's too. They've got potential, but little practical use.

Harovan · January 15, 2003, 06:43

If it wasn't for the AI not effectively using it, I'd like to have Civ2 ZOC back and additionally the infinite RR movement removed (perhaps reduced to 10 tiles, may be even map size dependent).

Alex · January 15, 2003, 06:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
(...) additionally the infinite RR movement removed (perhaps reduced to 10 tiles, may be even map size dependent).

Oerdin · January 15, 2003, 07:02

I miss the old zone of control. I liked how You could trap enemy units plus the whole thing just kind of made sense.

Mad Bomber · January 15, 2003, 09:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
If it wasn't for the AI not effectively using it, I'd like to have Civ2 ZOC back and additionally the infinite RR movement removed (perhaps reduced to 10 tiles, may be even map size dependent).

I wouldn't complain if they made this an alternative option, but if they make this a default rule I will be seriously IRATE

RR's are one of the mechanics of CIV 3 that work, it would be a shame to change it IMO.

Powerslave · January 16, 2003, 09:19

Let's face it... Civ 3 implemention of ZOC is better than Civ 2. What troubles me is that the Civ game still does not have supply rules for units. If you would have to trace a supply line to your armies then ZOC would be much more important as you can't trace unguarded supply lines through enemy ZOCs.

SpencerH · January 16, 2003, 10:03

Civ3 ZOC of control is obviously different from civ2, but I wouldnt say better. The first time a bunch of chinese riders move through a gap in your line of mech inf to attack a city 9 squares in the rear (over captured chinese roads) you may feel differently. Lines of supply would help the problem.

alva · January 16, 2003, 10:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber

I wouldn't complain if they made this an alternative option, but if they make this a default rule I will be seriously IRATE

RR's are one of the mechanics of CIV 3 that work, it would be a shame to change it IMO.

Ahh c'mmon, that's what kill the game of IMO, the moment RR start to appear, my goes interest goes downhill very fast.

But back on topic...

Panag · January 16, 2003, 12:27

hi ,

CIV III style

have a nice ZOC day

gnome · January 16, 2003, 18:16

I prefer a different blend of Civ2 and Civ3 style... the army cannot be prevented from actually moving into the square... but free shots apply (with fortresses and fast units)... and the army cannot PROCEED past that square.

The purpose is so that an army posted along a border could sight an enemy army approaching and move to intercept it. The unit is stopped (after its first move) in order to give the other unit a chance to attack. But if they fail to attack, or do not destroy the unit, the unit can move on.

So basically it slows the units without actually blocking them. That's how I would do it.

FNBrown · January 16, 2003, 18:21

I think the poll needs more options. The ZOC system needs improvement for it to be an effective tactic, but I don't know if reverting completely to the Civ2 (or SMAC) model is the answer.