WarKirby
Arty person
The Zone of control rule from CIv II should be re-implemented.
Firstly, for those not aware, the Zone of Control rule was where if a unit entered a square adjacent to one of your units, it would only be able to attack you, move to a non adjacent square, move into a city or move into a tile containing a friendly unit. It could not move into another square that was adjacent to you.
This rule had it's drawbacks, like the fact a warrior could impose ZoC on a tank, so here I present a design for an updated version of this in the hope that someone with more coding skills than I will take it up. I know there is a ZoC mod component, but it only applies to forts and is in general quite far from what I envision.
Currently, enemies can maraud through your territory pillaging and looting, and retreating into forest/hillsides whenever you try to take them out. The main problem is that there is no way to prevent them entering your territory in the first place, and no way to halt their movement as barbarians and other civ units will move through your forests, and ignore your units to singlemindely reach and pillage improvements.
Instead, I propose the following. If unit A moves through Unit B's ZoC, the owner of unit B should be presented with a choice whether to intercept, or allow unit B to pass. If intercept is chosen, then the units would enter combat with unit A being treated as the defender, but denied any defensive bonuses to reflect that it would be ambushed on the march, and would not have sufficient time to prepare a defense.
In addition, if Unit B is capable of ranged attacks (archer, siege, gunpowder) an additional option entitled Harass would be available as an alternative to intercept. Harass would allow unit B to launch a free strike on Unit A. After the damage from that initial strike is resolved, the owner of Unit A would be given the option to engage Unit B, thus commencing combat between the units, or to march on, completing it's move having suffered soime damage.
For the purposes of calculating the damage of this Harassment strike, Unit A would be denied defensive bonuses, and if unit B is a siege unit, it would be granted a 100% bonus to reflect the stupidity of attempting to ignore a siege unit, rather than assaulting it. Also, if unit B is inside a fort or city, it would gain a 100% bonus for harassment strikes to represent the high vantage point, and the not having to stay out of the enemy's reach due to being behind high walls.
WarKirby
Firstly, for those not aware, the Zone of Control rule was where if a unit entered a square adjacent to one of your units, it would only be able to attack you, move to a non adjacent square, move into a city or move into a tile containing a friendly unit. It could not move into another square that was adjacent to you.
This rule had it's drawbacks, like the fact a warrior could impose ZoC on a tank, so here I present a design for an updated version of this in the hope that someone with more coding skills than I will take it up. I know there is a ZoC mod component, but it only applies to forts and is in general quite far from what I envision.
Currently, enemies can maraud through your territory pillaging and looting, and retreating into forest/hillsides whenever you try to take them out. The main problem is that there is no way to prevent them entering your territory in the first place, and no way to halt their movement as barbarians and other civ units will move through your forests, and ignore your units to singlemindely reach and pillage improvements.
Instead, I propose the following. If unit A moves through Unit B's ZoC, the owner of unit B should be presented with a choice whether to intercept, or allow unit B to pass. If intercept is chosen, then the units would enter combat with unit A being treated as the defender, but denied any defensive bonuses to reflect that it would be ambushed on the march, and would not have sufficient time to prepare a defense.
In addition, if Unit B is capable of ranged attacks (archer, siege, gunpowder) an additional option entitled Harass would be available as an alternative to intercept. Harass would allow unit B to launch a free strike on Unit A. After the damage from that initial strike is resolved, the owner of Unit A would be given the option to engage Unit B, thus commencing combat between the units, or to march on, completing it's move having suffered soime damage.
For the purposes of calculating the damage of this Harassment strike, Unit A would be denied defensive bonuses, and if unit B is a siege unit, it would be granted a 100% bonus to reflect the stupidity of attempting to ignore a siege unit, rather than assaulting it. Also, if unit B is inside a fort or city, it would gain a 100% bonus for harassment strikes to represent the high vantage point, and the not having to stay out of the enemy's reach due to being behind high walls.
WarKirby