Ignore ZOC

[stixs]

So I'm sitting here playing Civ2 as I speak, and it hits me! These rules about zones of control around enemy units and cities is ridiculous. In fact, I think it may be the biggest flaw in the game. Well, maybe not, but definitely in the top five.

So, anyway, I'm wondering if anyone agrees with me, and more importantly, is there anyway to disable this rule? I guess I could go into the rules.txt file and modify every unit to ignore ZOC, but... I'm lazy. I'll do it if I need to but maybe someone has a better way? Thanks. Peace out.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

You can first get in a tile with a unit like a diplomat or caravan that ignores ZOC and then any unit can move on top of that.

 

[Peaster]

Why is it ridiculous ? I don't know about other recent wargames, but the ones I grew up with all had ZOCs. I suppose some examples of ZOC in wargames are not realistic, but ZOC also prevents unrealistic maneuvers.

 

[Frank Drebin]

i always liked that they made wars have actual fronts, unlike in civ3 and 4.

 

[McMonkey]

I like the ZOC feature. If you think about it like this: If you had an enemy in front of you on high ground armed with ranged weapons (bows, guns etc...) could you just move past without sustaining heavy casualties? No. Military units are most vulnerable when on the march.

Your options would be:

- Take a long diversion around the unit out of its range of his missiles. (IE move outside the units ZOC)

- Attack the unit head on to push him out of his defensive position. (IE destroy the unit with a direct attack then move on)

- Use skirmishers to keep the enemy occupied while you try and slip your main force past (Use a ZOC ignoring unit to move into the enemy's ZOC and then move your normal units on top of them)

I mostly play scenarios and there is often a house rule forbidding artificial ZOC. I don't like this rule as it handicaps skirmisher type units in an unnatural way. The game allows you to do this, so why not exploit it? Also Air units can do the same thing for your army. To me this seems acceptable as air superiority would allow you to manoeuvre on the battlefield more freely.

I would be interested to hear any counter arguments to my theory.