bring back zone of control?

[Soryn Arkayn]

Let me point out something that you pro-ZoC ppl are obviously forgetting: the only thing that can prevent a unit from passing through a given square is if another unit occupies that square. That's it! Certain units may be able to bombard an enemy unit moving through an adjacent square, but they can't physically block them because they're in one square, and the other unit is in the adjacent square. Is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?

It'd be like the police setting up a roadblock on one street and you presuming that vehicles can get past via the next street over. It makes no sense.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Actually, the English built a string of forts throughout Wales in order to exert a form of 'ZofC' over the local population. The idea was that it forced people to go to these forts/castles in order to gain permission to move around the Country-and to check in any weapons they had. So, actually, forts DO have an important Z of C function. From a gameplay perspective, giving a fort this ability would REALLY make them worth building-which they really aren't now!

That would be different because the Fort was either constructed at a geographic chokepoint (like a river crossing) or walls were built around it to prevent people from just detouring around it. Unless a person wanted to pass through the fort to reach other side, the fort itself didn't prevent anyone from passing near it -- like an adjacent square in Civ4.

This is my point. You pro-ZoC ppl assume that a fort exerts a magical force around it that inhibits units from moving past, but it doesn't -- nor should it.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

Do you presume to insinuate that I am stupid? Of course the building itself – empty – doesn’t control anything. However, castles were used primarily as an offensive tool to control the land. It was a fortified base from which to project power. The Normans, for instance, brought castle building to Britain and used it very effectively to subdue the populace. Why don’t you go read a book on the subject before you spew forth more ignorant babble?

In game terms, an occupied fortress should have ZoC.

Castles weren't "offensive tools", they were defensive strongholds. They were fortified bases that deterred an enemy from attacking because of the tactical difficulty inherent in overcoming such an obstacle.

The idea of a castle is a fortification that the lord and his army can seek shelter inside. From inside the castle the lord can rule the local populace through the threat of force; the army can leave the castle at any time to keep the peasants in line, but as long as the army remains in the castle they are safe, because even in the event of a rebellion a mob of peasants has little to no chance of storming the castle, because they lack the skills and expertise to build siege weaponry. That's the purpose of a castle. It's role is defensive; the army it protects is offensive.

So in Civ4, the Fortress shouldn't exert a Zone of Control; that's what it's garrison is for. If you see a rival unit move into a square adjacent to your Fortress, you have the option of taking action by moving the garrison to block that unit's path or even attack them, but through inaction you can't expect to impose a "Zone of Control".

But this entire argument is moot because of Civ4's revised National Borders. A rival civ can't transgress through your territory without a Right of Passage. So it's not going to be an issue they declare war, in which case any "Zone of Control" is irrelevant, because you'll have combat the enemy anyway.

 

[Willowmound]

Castles weren't "offensive tools", they were defensive strongholds. They were fortified bases that deterred an enemy from attacking because of the tactical difficulty inherent in overcoming such an obstacle.

The idea of a castle is a fortification that the lord and his army can seek shelter inside. From inside the castle the lord can rule the local populace through the threat of force; the army can leave the castle at any time to keep the peasants in line, but as long as the army remains in the castle they are safe, because even in the event of a rebellion a mob of peasants has little to no chance of storming the castle, because they lack the skills and expertise to build siege weaponry. That's the purpose of a castle. It's role is defensive; the army it protects is offensive.

You keep saying that. You saying it does not make it true. It is clear you have a limited grasp of history. You're like that idiot who says aliens built the pyramids. I suspect there's no point arguing with you, but I'll expand on why I think castles should have ZoC for the benefit of people with less propensitiy for talking out of their arses.

Anyone who cares to research the matter in the slightest will find that most castles were built with an offensive purpose, to conquer land and then to hold it. This can't be disputed (except maybe by that guy with the pyramids, oh and by Soryn). So castle ZoC makes sense in that it would emulate the effect castles had on the ability of a force to control the surrounding area. In gaming terms, castles were built to control the squares around it.

So in Civ4, the Fortress shouldn't exert a Zone of Control; that's what it's garrison is for. If you see a rival unit move into a square adjacent to your Fortress, you have the option of taking action by moving the garrison to block that unit's path or even attack them, but through inaction you can't expect to impose a "Zone of Control".

Remember this is a game. Everything in it are more or less realistic representations of real world elements. To properly exert force outside the walls of a castle, of course the garrison would ride out. In Civ, from a non-ZoC castle, you could send out your units in a similar manner. But real world castles were built because they increased immensely the ability a garriosn had to control the land. Much more so than the value of a non ZoC castle with a simple defensive bonus in Civ. That is why ZoC makes sense. It would emulate the real world better and would make castles truly worthwhile building, like they were in countless instances throughout medieval history.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

You keep saying that. You saying it does not make it true. It is clear you have a limited grasp of history. You're like that idiot who says aliens built the pyramids. I suspect there's no point arguing with you, but I'll expand on why I think castles should have ZoC for the benefit of people with less propensitiy for talking out of their arses.

Anyone who cares to research the matter in the slightest will find that most castles were built with an offensive purpose, to conquer land and then to hold it. This can't be disputed (except maybe by that guy with the pyramids, oh and by Soryn). So castle ZoC makes sense in that it would emulate the effect castles had on the ability of a force to control the surrounding area. In gaming terms, castles were built to control the squares around it.

Remember this is a game. Everything in it are more or less realistic representations of real world elements. To properly exert force outside the walls of a castle, of course the garrison would ride out. In Civ, from a non-ZoC castle, you could send out your units in a similar manner. But real world castles were built because they increased immensely the ability a garriosn had to control the land. Much more so than the value of a non ZoC castle with a simple defensive bonus in Civ. That is why ZoC makes sense. It would emulate the real world better and would make castles truly worthwhile building, like they were in countless instances throughout medieval history.

An invading army didn't build a castle to conquer the land. The army would have to vanquish the defending army FIRST, then they'd build a castle as a defensive stronghold, which served as a deterrent against rebellion.

But regardless if it was a horde of rebels or a professional army that laid siege to the castle, how exactly could the defending army "project strength" and "control" their lands while their holed up INSIDE the castle? Answer: They CAN'T! The garrison can't control the land while they're hiding inside the castle.

Don't lecture me on history, because one of my double majors is in Classical History. I know the "theory" of castles and fortresses to which you refer, and it's a naive fallacy of ignorant dilettantes like you. Castles/fortresses were structures that demonstrated the builders' power, in the same way as the Great Pyramids of Egypt or Roman Colosseum; but they weren't practical. How exactly did an enormous pyramid-shaped tomb benefit the Egyptian population? They didn't. They were just grand works that became obsessions for the pharoahs. The money, labour, time, and resources squandered in their construction could've been much better utiltized elsewhere.

Fortresses and castles were built to intimidate, to cow opposition into obedience. But they weren't offensive weapons... obviously, because they were immobile. It's not like a catapult that could be rolled into battle to attack an enemy's army; that is an offensive weapon. The enemy would have to come to the castle, where the defenders were hiding; hence, the castle is a defensive structure. But if the enemy chooses not to beseige the castle, the defending garrison can't stop an enemy army from invading the land from inside the castle anymore than the stones used to build the castle could.

The idea of a castle is that it's a defensive stronghold and sanctuary for the defending army. The invading army can't complete the conquest and consolidate their rule of the land without destroying the defending army inside the castle, because the defenders are an intolerable nuissance and the last organized resistance, so they must be eliminated. But if the invaders simply wanted to pillage, plunder, and withdraw, like a raiders, they wouldn't even bother with the castle because they'd know it wouldn't be worthwhile.

So no, a Fortress' Zone of Control wouldn't emulate real-life. Civ3's non-ZoC Fortress would be an accurate representation of what a fortress is and it's purpose: it's purely defensive. An invading arm can choose to attack the fortress' garrison, or they can choose to bypass it. If they chose to bypass the fort than the only way for the garrison to stop them would be to leave the fort and attack them.

That's a historically accurate representation of a Fortress.

 

[gunnergoz]

Well, FWIW, I think both of you are right and wrong, to the extent that you hold out that your view is the only correct one. Forts and fortifications have had both offensive and defensive uses in history.
In any event, my vote is against the reintroduction of zones of control. In a game of this scale they are pretty meaningless. They permit denial of terrain at a cost far less than would have been historically possible (the old example of a couple of warriors cutting off an entire archipelago at a chokepoint comes to mind. Barriers can be built, but at the cost of normal economic and diplomatic relations (think Hadrian's Wall, the Korean DMZ or the posited Vietnam War scheme of some of McNamara's idea men, to cordon off the North with depleted nuclear materials.)

Now...build a city on a chokepoint and extend your culture and influence...that's what I call a "zone of control." Arguably its a zone of influence but given enough of the latter, control is a near certainty.

What I do like in this new version of Civ is that it seems to bank less upon simple crutches like ZOC and instead makes one think and choose, then apply pressure and influence by more subtle means like religion, culture and economy.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

If you want to deny an opposing civ access to an area, I think it's perfectly reasonable to use a wall of Fortresses garrisoned with defensive units to accomplish that. But I don't think it's reasonable to let a single Fortress and garrisoned unit control 9 squares of land. That's absurd.

If there's an artillery unit in the Fort, then it can auto-bombard an enemy unit that passes in range of the Fort, but that should be the limit of the Fort's "zone of control". But, let me point out, in that scenario, the artillery unit would be the offensive weapon, NOT the Fortress. The Fortress would merely give the garrisoned units a defensive bonus if they were attacked. That's the purpose of a Fortress. A Fortress IS NOT an offensive weapon or structure, and it doesn't not impose control of the surrounding land. The offensive units fortified inside the Fortress must by action control the land, they cannot be entitled control by inaction.

If you want to control chokepoints, build a city and use your national borders to restrict rival civs from transgressing into your territory. With Civ4's new national borders system, an opposing civ can't move their units into your territory without a Right of Passage, unless they declare war.

But if you want to control areas in neutral territory, you should have to string Forts together in a wall, just like in Civ3.

 

[Distraction]

Hmm, maybe a modified versoin of ZoC? Like if you have a string of fortresses three tiles apart, there'd be a wall between them keeping enemy units from passing between the forts? Heck, I don't know... Just throwing the idea out there.

 

[Ranos]

I would first ask that both Soryn and Willowmound stop with the degrading remarks. There is no need for name calling.

Castles, fortresses, etc are defensive in that they give armies and civilians alike a place to retreat to in case of a superior army. This forces that army to attack a heavily defended area and evens the odds.

Those same structures are offensive in that they are a central location from which to launch attacks and coordinate those attacks.

I think a limited form of ZOC would not be a bad idea but it should have a few requirements.

First, Civ3s form of ZOC was great. Ranged units would have a chance of hitting an enemy unit as it moved past. This makes sense since it could be said that the unit (representing hundreds or thousands of men) controls the entire tile. This means that a portion of the unit is near the border with the other tile and would have the proximity to the enemy unit to be able to do some damage. This was represented by the loss of a single hit point as the enemy moved past.

Civ2s ZOC was extreme. No unit, except allied and RoP could move past a unit. For those of you who never played Civ2 let me attempt to give you a diagram.

View attachment 101149

Now if the other unit attempts to move into tiles 3,7 or 11, it is allowed to do this. It can then move in tiles 4, 8 or 12. If itmoves into tile 7, it cannot move into tiles 2, 3, 10 or 11. This is what the ZOC in Civ2 did. Any questions?

That sort of ZoC should not be in any game in that form. What I could see is a fortress in tile 6 with a unit in it. The enemy unit (you must be at war with the civ the unit belongs to) moves into tile 7, that is allowed and nothing happens. If the unit attempts to move into tile 2 or 10, your unit automatically moves into that tile (only if it had at least 1/3 movement points left and only if it isn't fortified) and a battle occurs with the victor occupying that tile.

Another option is to build a line/wall of fortresses and have units in every other tile.

View attachment 101153

This would be the "Great Wall" effect. The enemy unit can move from its tile into any of the nearby tiles with no penalty. Then lets say the enemy unit moves into tile 11. If it tries to move into tile 10, the "Scale the Wall" effect begins. The units in tiles 6 and 14 get to take two ZoC shots each. This means the unit can suffer 4 damage before moving into the tile. From what I understand about Civ4, that would kill the unit. If the unit survives and attempts to move into tile 9, the normal ZoC effect would be used.

The next possibility is still using the above diagram but lets add unit to all of the fortresses. In the same scenario above, the enemy unit moves to tile 11 then tries to attack the unit in tile 10. The units in tiles 6 and 14 get a single ZoC shot each before the battle between the enemy and the unit in tile 10 begins. If the enemy unit is successful and kills the unit in tile 10, the units in tiles 6 and 14 get another ZoC shot before the unit is allowed to move into tile 10.

I could probably go on with more, but I'll stop here and get the reaction to what I've written.

 

[Willowmound]

An invading army didn't build a castle to conquer the land. The army would have to vanquish the defending army FIRST, then they'd build a castle as a defensive stronghold, which served as a deterrent against rebellion.

To save space, I've only quoted your first paragraph. Consider this a reply to your entire post.

Since you resent being lectured by me on history - I'd say I wasn't, all I was doing was encourage you to read some - I'll respond with a quote from a book called "Sieges of the Middle Ages" by Philip Warner (Penguin Classic Military History, 2000). I take this text to be authoritative, and each may draw from this his own conclusions.

The function of a castle was to provide a refuge, and dominate an area. It also served as a residence, storehouse, administrative headquarters, gaol, barracks, symbol of authority, and observation point. Castles had uses which varied according to the place they occupied, and the countryside they controlled. Some were for an attacking strategy, such as Henry II's in Ireland, others were for deep defence in remote Welsh valleys. They could be manned by small forces, yet in time of need would accommodate a large number of troops. In forward positions they could gain priceless time while the countryside to the rear was being prepared against an invader: if bypassed they could be a perpetual menace to enemy communications. They were one of the most useful devices ever invented but they had one great drawback; they were expensive and difficult to build...

Now, if I may draw your attention to the sentence, "if bypassed they could be a perpetual menace to enemy communications". In Civ, of course, there are no communication between forces, you as the player see all and control all. ZoC could thus be used as a way of forcing one to take out the castle in areas where, in the real world, one would have had to in order to advance, lest forward communication be rendered impossible due to the constant harassing by the castle garrison.

I'd like to point out, though, that I'm very open for all kinds of arguments as to whether ZoC is the best way to emulate the power of castles. What I am not very open to at all is the insistence that castles were only defensive. If you have a theory that flies in the face of accepted historical fact, you'd better have some darned good evidence to back this up. I have seen none. Yes they were also defensive, but no, that was not all they were.

 

[GeneralMikeIII]

Ok a few things here.
@Soryn, I'm sorry but I have to agree with Ausie and Willowmound, at least to this extent: Castles and Fortress COULD, in some instances, be used as offensive weapons. Concider this scenerio: You are trying to take a city. You manage to secure an area just outside of the city (one "tile" away, if you will) In this area, you construct a castle. If it is a formidable castle, it could be as tall as 8 stories. Putting an archer 50 ft in the air would add a conciderable range advantage. Now, from this tile, an archer (or especially some kind of catapult) would have a zone of control over the surrounding areas, so units unable to defend themselves (such as one of the x laborers in a size x city) could not enter this area, or they would be killed instantly. Military units would incur quite a bit of damage before they would get into range of the castle, as well. It would even be possible for units based in this castle to be in range of units in the city you are attacking. In this sense, the castle serves as a type of siege weapon, sort of like a siege tower, albiet a very expensive one.

Following up on the reasoning above, I suggest fortresses expand your cultural borders by one tile in each direction and increase the bombard and zoc abilities of the units in the fortress by a significant amount.

@Ranos, Your idea of moving units to block enemies and exert a zone of control in that sense is something I was thinking of myself, so I support that, except the part about not being fortified. A unit in the MA that was "fortified" in a Castle could easily ride out of it without much delay, so as long as the unit has any movement value left, he should be able to "slide block". Come to think of it, this would be a good way to increase the difference between the "fortify" and "sentry" commands. Fortified units could get a higher defensive bonus, but sentried units could slide block. I also really like your idea (and Distraction's idea) about the wall effect between fortresses. It seems like a more practical effect of, say, the Great Wall wonder in Civ III, which I never really understood much. Maybe enemy unit has to kill unit in 10, then is immediately attacked (during his turn) by units in 6 and 14 (if they have movement points left), and units in 6 and 14 get the bonus of the fortress as if they were defending. Then, if enemy unit kills all three units, it could move on into block 10. To increase the strategy, I think you should be able to determine if a unit exerts this kind of ZoC or not (I can see myself getting really annoyed by units moving out of a position I specifically put them in when I didn't want them to move).

How's that all sound?

 

[gunnergoz]

Fine, guys; mod away at your heart's content and get the game just the way you want it. As for me, I'll give what Firaxis has developed in Civ IV a try, before I conclude that they have somehow made a mistake by deleting the ZOC. Methinks that they and the beta teams have probably done a lot of thinking and trial and error and perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt before making all these lofty claims that they are wrong...before we've even experienced their game as they intended it to be experienced.

What say we come back to this topic in a few weeks and see what we think then?

 

[smellymummy]

forts exerting a ZOC makes perfect sense to me, as long as the fort has units in it of course. units inside a fort could easily intercept (and maybe even stop) advancing forces.

theres a good book about a medieval french lord that used forts offensively this way, its called "Fulk Nerra" (the guys name), an awesome book of medieval use of roman strategy, tactics and fortification... a very 'civvy' book imo

 

[Leuf]

Let me try to explain why you need ZoC. Imagine the situation below

-H
C E
-H

Where C is a city on grassland, H are hills, and E is a stack of enemy units. In the real world you would position your artillery and infantry on the hills where they have the advantage. Without ZoC in civ the enemy can simply walk right through and take the city uncontested. In the real world they would be obliterated if they tried that. But in Civ the defender is forced to charge the attacker, giving up it's defensive bonus and leaving itself out in the open if it wins. It gets even worse when there's more hills, as any attacker that manages to get on a hill now suddenly is the one who is getting the bonus, when he's supposed to be the one trying to charge the hill.

It's a kludge, but it serves a purpose

 

[gunnergoz]

ZOC's make more sense to me in a tactical game, not a one of grand strategy like Civ. Occupation of one's own immediate terrain is logical but beyond that, you have to manouver to exert control. Fortifications should, at the strategic level, confer defensive bonuses (and perhaps some resistance to other offensive capabilities) but not much else.
In grand strategy, control is by occupation and by manouver to obtain it. The only possible exceptions I can think of now have to do with influence over logistical paths (i.e. trade routes) and that in turn is a function of technological level.
So I'm sticking with the idea of no ZOC's but some allowance for ZOI.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

My problem with the whole Zone of Control issue is that you're all trying to grant the Fortress abilities that should be reserved for military units. Some of you think that a Fortress should exert a ZoC; some say the fort must be manned in order to exert a ZoC. But it's basically the same thing.

What you're suggesting is that a Fort can deny passage to the surrounding area without physically occupying that space, which is just absurd. If you want to block rival units from moving through your territory, deploy a wall of your own military units to do that.

But as I said before, Civ4's new national borders restrict rival civs from transgressing into your territory without a RoP, unless they declare war. So what would be the purpose of a Fortress that exerts a ZoC anyway? Your national borders would keep foreign units out of your territory; and if they have a RoP they'd be able to ignore the Fort's ZoC, and if they declared war there's nothing to stop them entering the Fort's ZoC (they'd have to in order to attack Fort itself)... so I reiterate my question: what is the purpose of a Fort's Zone of Control?

Nadda.

You're arguing for a concept that's obsolete.

 

[Willowmound]

But as I said before, Civ4's new national borders restrict rival civs from transgressing into your territory without a RoP, unless they declare war. So what would be the purpose of a Fortress that exerts a ZoC anyway? Your national borders would keep foreign units out of your territory; and if they have a RoP they'd be able to ignore the Fort's ZoC, and if they declared war there's nothing to stop them entering the Fort's ZoC (they'd have to in order to attack Fort itself)... so I reiterate my question: what is the purpose of a Fort's Zone of Control?

ZoC stops another unit moving past on the adjacent tiles. That is the purpose.

 

[smellymummy]

of course there's a purpose. look, it's more than obvious that this is not about stopping a peaceful civ from entering our borders, because pre-release information specifies that borders are now closed for good.

zone of control, as implemented before, never stopped an enemy unit from entering the ZOC, it just stopped a unit who was already inside the ZOC from moving into another tile that is also under the ZOC. remember also, that the ZOC can be circumvented, we just had to take a detour.

imagine 5 horizontal tiles, the outermost two are mountains and the three middle ones are plains, with the middle most tile containing a fort. enemy units would have to take over our fort, or move around away from it, in which case our fort garrison could then attack those units later on from behind. unfortunately, i don't think we'll be getting any 'flank' or 'rear' attack bonuses.

ZOC is not a stop all units in their tracks, it just slows the enemy advance. this adds lot's of strategic depth to very important key areas on the map, which simply adds to our depth of decision making.

and don't forget, with the railroad movement limit, we will have to keep units in several areas of our civ to be able to counter attacks effectively. in civ3, one fort would work, and all units could be stacked there in reserve.

for civ4, it sounds like multiple forts will be needed to defend various fronts: such as an easten front fort, a north front fort, maybe even a reserve fort also, and so on. would just be nice that we can get some extra bonuses to fort, than just a standard fortification bonus, that we get anyway from being fortified for a few turns, however perhaps not as strong without the fort, still it's a small bonus and perhaps justified for the short build time of a fort.

in the end, you're right, it is obsolete, because AFAIK ZOC is not in the game

 

[TerraHero]

A fortress garrison can intercept the enemy before it moves across the tile adjacent to it, its bombard capacity of the fortress should let it take a crack or 2 at the enemy.

Also a fortress is mostly juz the main structure of control but excersizes all sorts of control over the adjacent areas such as road guards, patrols etc etc.

Or do u think a fortress garrison really sits in there little fortress oblivious to the world all day?

 

[TerraHero]

A fortress garrison can intercept the enemy before it moves across the tile adjacent to it, its bombard capacity of the fortress should let it take a crack or 2 at the enemy.

Also a fortress is mostly juz the main structure of control but excersizes all sorts of control over the adjacent areas such as road guards, patrols etc etc.

Or do u think a fortress garrison really sits in there little fortress oblivious to the world all day?

"Hey guys enemy army is marching past us to the left, wanna go check it out?"
"Nah, let them, aslong as they dun walk across us its cool"
"We can atleast fire at them from here with a cannon.."
"You can also juz stfu"