Bring back ZOC!!

[Jamesds]

If you've played all the previous Civ versions, you'll remember ZOC - Zones of Control. Basically, they added more strategy to the game and caused battles to be fought "in the fields" when passage to a city-to-be-conquered was blocked by units.

In CivII (I can't quite remember whether Civ1, or CivNet which I used to play, had ZOC -- I think it did) ZOC were quite rigid and restrictive, and went as far as completely blocking units from moving to certain squares if they passed enemy units in the process. Only the spy, and air units could ignore ZOC. This was rather annoying, and although it made the game more strategic, it also restricted it too much IMO.

However, CivIII had a great (albeit slightly rare) implementation of ZOC; units moving to enemy unit's ZOC lost a HP or two from the stationary enemy unit they were passing. This only worked for some units, and for those units it was generally ranged units (I remember tanks, modern armours,maybe mobile artillery).

So, how could this be implemented in Civ4? Simply allow ranged units to fire upon enemy units that are passing them. This would include all archery units, and probably several gunpowder units too.

This would heavily increase the use of forts, making them actually worthwhile. Units wouldn't just be able to walk straight past (which really, makes them quite useless) without getting a significant health loss.

So, is it just me, or does anyone else want ZOC back?

 

[LuKo]

I think there should be ZOC... for forts with army in it. That would make forts even more useful (useful as a forts, not as canals and airports).

 

[Sephlock]

Although it does beg the question: How exactly are you maintaining your zone of control from inside the fort (pre gunpowder)?

 

[Jamesds]

Although it does beg the question: How exactly are you maintaining your zone of control from inside the fort (pre gunpowder)?

Wouldn't ranged units as mentioned above, like archers or longbowman, do the job? As long as you have at least 1, some damage can be done. Maybe it would be a random thing. Sometimes, there isn't much damage to a passing unit, other times it will be nearly destroyed (especially if the fort or square is filled with ranged units!).

 

[Lurking Liu]

Do you know how large these tiles are? The real-world Panama Canal (48 miles) represents either one or two tiles. (Two tiles being the most Forts you can string together to form a canal in BTS without using lakes or cities)

Assuming the Ithsmus of Panama is represented by two tiles, then that means each tile is about 24 miles across. Further assuming that a fort is in the approximate center of the tile, it's 12 miles from the enemy.



Arrows do not go 12 miles.

 

[scorth]

Do you know how large these tiles are? The real-world Panama Canal (48 miles) represents either one or two tiles. (Two tiles being the most Forts you can string together to form a canal in BTS without using lakes or cities)

Assuming the Ithsmus of Panama is represented by two tiles, then that means each tile is about 24 miles across. Further assuming that a fort is in the approximate center of the tile, it's 12 miles from the enemy.



Arrows do not go 12 miles.

Wouldn't ranged units as mentioned above, like archers or longbowman, do the job? As long as you have at least 1, some damage can be done. Maybe it would be a random thing. Sometimes, there isn't much damage to a passing unit, other times it will be nearly destroyed (especially if the fort or square is filled with ranged units!).

I think that rather than focus on the distance, it's important the remember the ramifications of allowing a fort filled with hostile soldiers to be at your back. From ancient to modern times, you could not simply avoid a fort; its existence represented a threat to your supply lines.

I would suggest that soldiers passing by a fort suffer a loss of health due mostly to the loss of supply, not due to the actual attack, or "arrows" in the case above.

For forts on the coast, catapults, cannons, etc. would represent a real threat to adjacent ships, therefore ships adjacent to a fort containing said ranged weapon should receive fire.

Maybe an alternative to fortifying units in a fort would be to permanently garrison soldiers in the fort. This would mean that the fort and the soldiers would be one and the fort would not fall into enemy hands if you simply left it. Maybe if you destroyed the garrisoned unit, your worker could rebuild the fort at a reduced cost? Attacking a fort with a garrisoned cannon and rifleman would force you to face cannon and rifle fire simultaneously? Or does that make too much sense? ("Hey, we took a few casualties after that last attack, send out the cannons alone, they can handle themselves, right?!")

Perhaps using a fort as a "colony" (or whatever it was in CIV III). The fort secures the resource, a road/sea route connects the resource to your civ proper. I can finally stop building useless cities on tundra just to prevent Monty from getting Iron and foolishly attacking me, or to get some fricken deer (deer at a supermarket?!).

Sorry for the long rant. Short answer is "YES" please bring back ZOC and make Forts more necessary and useful.

 

[ggganz]

I would just make a new unit with a zone of control where ever it went. It should be a reletively weak unit when actually fighting, but it would do damage to a unit passing by. When stationed in a city, the damage would be stronger, thus effectively weakening the attacking units before they have a chance to even touch the city. Sort of like a first strike.

 

[oedali]

I think ZOC should be back but limited to forts only.

 

[sansloi37]

I seem to recall that the ViSa Mod had an excellent implementation of ZOC, where, in addition to receiving an Attack of Opportunity, enemy units had to end their turn if they moved adjacent to a fort. This added strategic usefulness to forts as a way of slowing down an invasion and providing practical "border security."

 

[Spearthrower]

I miss ZoC too!

There could be restrictions on it, but as no general would leave an entrenched army at his back, adding ZoC for forts makes a lot of sense.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I could see it with Forts but nothing else

The way I would implement it though
Forts give a bonus to units Attacking From the fort
ie Attacking From the fort to adjacent units gives
1. 0 movement cost
2. +100%? bonus

 

[winddbourne]

ZOC would be a good thing to bring back, simply to make more battles accur outside your cities. Right now I find most of my fighting is concentrated on cities where the defenders have huge advantages.

 

[Chiyu]

I think ZOC should be back but limited to forts only.

I agree with this.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Because of the turn based nature of civ, you get strange things where stacks of units can totally ignore enemies and just walk past them. Since that is pretty strange, I think that some kind of zone of control would improve the realism of warfare where you can't just ignore the enemies close to you.

Whether you implement this by calculating some kind of supply line which can be interrupted by units and result in a loss of hitpoints or do this by just actively damaging the units that ignore enemy units and pass them doesn't matter to me.

I would suggest that units stationed in a fort have a more damaging ZOC then units in the open.

 

[LunaticSlave]

ZOC defiently needs to be implemented again! Forts are the most useles improvement ever! Would add so much strategy to wars, ofensively and defensivelly!

 

[Optimizer]

In real world history, zones of control were upheld by infantry. A number of infantrymen has, until the end of the 20th century, been much cheaper to train, equip, deploy and maintain than the same number of mounted soldiers and artillerymen.

In Civ 4, all military units of the same age cost about the same to build or maintain. This would mean that the melee, archer and gun units would represent lots and lots of men. Thus, an infantry unit should be able to hold an area much larger than a contemporary mounted or siege unit, even compensating for range and speed.

Maybe the solution would be to make all infantry units significantly cheaper in production and maintenance (and weaken them)? The advantages of cheap infantry would be the ability to distribute forces, and to hold a lot of ground. The drawback would be war weariness.

 

[Lord Neil]

Absolutely bring it back, Civ III has the first Civ I played and I wasn't very good at it so I never built many strategies around it but I still used it.

 

[hoopsnerd]

Yes! We need ZOC back. It could be engineered as a way in which "troop supply lines" (Infantry 14's idea) could be put into civ mechanics. Your units could have to create a "path" back to your borders in order to recieve supplies. Maybe you have to leave an infantry unit behind in each tile you cross to protect the supply line. What I mean is something like this:

x = 1 unit or small stack protecting supply line X = main stack. 0 = tile in enemy territory. 1= freindly territory. C= enemy city.

1100000000000000
1110000000000000
1111000000000000
1111xxxXC0000000
1111000000000000
1110000000000000
1100000000000000

This way, your units wouldn't be able to just sit in enemy territory forever. The defender would have a chance to flank the enemy with reinforcements and cut his supply lines, which could prevent troops in the main stack from healing and make them lose some (~5%?) strength.

Edit: That would look something like this, where Z= enemy troops.


1100000000000000
1110000000000000
1111000000000000
1111xZxXC0000000
1111000000000000
1110000000000000
1100000000000000

This would make the attacker unable to attack with his entire army all at once without first securing his supply lines. Battles should be fought in the open field, perhaps defenders in cities should be limited to 2 units? I guess that might create too much micromanagement and may be a bad idea...

Infantry 14 came up with most of these ideas, I just think this might be a good way to implement them into civ4 mechanics.

In real world history, zones of control were upheld by infantry. A number of infantrymen has, until the end of the 20th century, been much cheaper to train, equip, deploy and maintain than the same number of mounted soldiers and artillerymen.

In Civ 4, all military units of the same age cost about the same to build or maintain. This would mean that the melee, archer and gun units would represent lots and lots of men. Thus, an infantry unit should be able to hold an area much larger than a contemporary mounted or siege unit, even compensating for range and speed.

Maybe the solution would be to make all infantry units significantly cheaper in production and maintenance (and weaken them)? The advantages of cheap infantry would be the ability to distribute forces, and to hold a lot of ground. The drawback would be war weariness.

This is a fantastic point, and I've always said in many threads that mounted units should be WAY stronger than any melee unit, as in real history a cavalry would destroy any infantry with their ability to easilly outflank the enemy position... not to mention that they are riding 500+ pound animals at 35 MPH into the infantry, who had about as good as chance of surviving as your grandma does running with the bulls. Since mounted units are not far stronger, civ has to be incinuating that an infrantry "unit" has many magnitudes more troops than a mounted "unit," as to make up for the difference in battlefield prowess with sheer numbers.

 

[Grimus]

I would like ZoC for forts.

 

[Lord Neil]

I say Archer and Gunpowder units in forts should get a ZoC and also Horse Archers, Cavalry, Tanks, and those kind of units should get a ZoC like in Civ III