Why does the AI ignore zone of control?

[Victoria]

Barb camps are often on hills or in forests (or both). Then your warrior could not attack after moving. Also: why let the warrior attack first?

There is not one way to play, one golden rule, circumstances change and flexibility is king.
It was clear ground, has my slinger got the eureka yet? So I walk up to the woods, I would rather an non entrenched spearman attack me in the open than I go into their wooded camp. Let him have his chance to be stupid and be wounded before I go in. Is there a scout around that will be cross with me... and if so should I have a wounded slinger. So many things can change circumstance and I was just replying to an example where the asker clearly wanted to get a shot in with the slinger to approach in that way, I was merely saying if I was to do the same thing I would use the same rules people are upset with to my advantage, not the spearmans.

If I was to be honest I will only send a slinger to a barb camp for a eureka, a warrior dies just fine.

EDIT: @PendragonWRB you are sort of right but really it was a response to your request rather than necessarily something I would do. A fresh spearman would not die in 1 turn like that if you know your combat values. I'm getting the hang of them now in my head, see the damage table link in my signature if you have not seen, the real reason it's there is so I can find it quickly.

 

[nzcamel]

That's just not right. What if the spearman wins? He stays where he is? Is that a change from Civ V?

To me the whole point of ZOC is preventing an enemy from moving or attacking past it. You cannot attack into a forest if you can't move there so why should you be able to attack out of a ZOC?

Motivation. It's strange what the incentive of achieving will do to the limits humans normally expect to be bound by.

I don't see how a unit is really creating a zone of control as you don't really control an enemy unit if they can get past you by attacking a unit in any direction they please. A zone of control should only be broken by attacking the unit(s) that are 'controlling' the tile. I understand you can't prevent a unit from retreating by stopping in front of it, but to move from one ZoC into a neighboring ZoC should completely stop any more movement or attack, other than the unit exercising that ZoC.

You are still realistically limited by ZOC as it is in VI. I don't see it that it should always stop you dead - it reflects though that getting too close to unit X is dangerous, and takes extra effort from your unit.

Well the spearman must have the move points to move into the slingers tile so there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that they are combating troops in that tile in hand to hand surely gives them rights to the tile if they win... the opposite seems worse to me.

I have played ZOC rules for a good 40 years and must say that these concept are not new and not broken. What they do is encourage more blood and less stand off. They add a tactical twist I like also.
Realistically, well try to be open about it. The spear and warrior are quite possible standing off from each other rather than in hand to hand and the spears see the slingers in reach so go for it.... yes they are moving past the warriors but would such a tactic be impossible? especially considering the cavalry totally ignore ZOC and I think if you want to complain about one you have to about the other.
I'll happily play to whatever rules as long as they work and personally I believe these work, they also add more interest to my tactical play and I am not a fan of concrete ZOC. All in all I think a more fliud ZOC gives better gameplay but less realism. I quite like the gameplay but am up for both.

This ^^^ 100%

What I don't get is if the slinger was NOT there, then the spearman could NOT move there. How does the presence of a unit allow the spearman to 'ignore' that warrior standing there waving his sword at him?

Again - motivation It's funny how much pain we can handle from A while distracted by B.

I played a lot of PanzerGeneral. The units there have several more movement points than units in a Civ game. But there was no such inconsistency. This is not necessary. Regardless of any ZoC any unit can move at least 1 tile far onto an empty tile. But NEVER simply _drive through_ a zone of control ... (what in particular is critical for quick tank operations ... as well as the supply with ammunition and fuel, which is limited by the grade of being surrounded) ... and that spearman just does this

I don't see that as realistic at all regarding tanks - ya know the ultimate heavy cavalry that busts through enemy lines and sweeps back around to continue the carnage!! I would say that Panzer General justifies it for balance; but it's less realistic than VI's interpretation imo.

 

[isau]

I think this, along with rounding down rather than up like in Civ 5, would be much less of an issue if units had 3 movement points as a baseline instead of 2. That was very first thing I modded in Civ, in the second week that game was out. The movement rules drive me kind of batty. But the ZoC situation is easier to comprehend when dealing with a bunch of units with 3 movement because that extra point makes it very evident what will happen when you move into the tile.

 

[nzcamel]

And you have denied yourself the brilliance of the movement rules in VI. Best of the series so far!

 

[UWHabs]

And you have denied yourself the brilliance of the movement rules in VI. Best of the series so far!

The main parts of movement rules that I don't like are how roads essentially have no effect on the majority of units until the modern era, when units jump from 2 to 4 movement points. They need to find a way so that at least industrial roads give regular land troops 3 moves on a road.

 

[Karpius]

The main parts of movement rules that I don't like are how roads essentially have no effect on the majority of units until the modern era, when units jump from 2 to 4 movement points. They need to find a way so that at least industrial roads give regular land troops 3 moves on a road.

Although I see your point, I tend to disagree from the historical perspective. Until the later half of the 20th century, most roads (not to be confused with city streets) were unpaved routes. As such, they were often subject to the local weather conditions; could become muddy or frozen. They were merely a wide path that mitigated natural obstacles and terrain.

In game, I almost think it would be enough to use a road only to remove certain terrain movement penalties, rather than enhance movement. Until the modern era, that is. Once Germany gave us the Autobahn, and America built the Interstate system, the nature of roadways changed dramatically.

However, the industrial era did provide another great enhancement to army transportation in the railroad. The American Civil War saw the first real use of the railroad for the strategic distribution of troops. Prussia also made great use of the rails in the Franco-Prussian war.

Today, truck transport on an existing paved road system is more efficient than even the fastest rails for most overland distances.

 

[Victoria]

They need to find a way so that at least industrial roads give regular land troops 3 moves on a road.

This from Routes.xml ... they got close but no cigar I guess
LOC_ROUTE_ANCIENT_ROAD_DESCRIPTION" SupportsBridges="false" MovementCost="1"
LOC_ROUTE_MEDIEVAL_ROAD_DESCRIPTION" MovementCost="1" SupportsBridges="true"
LOC_ROUTE_INDUSTRIAL_ROAD_DESCRIPTION" MovementCost="0.75" SupportsBridges="true"
LOC_ROUTE_MODERN_ROAD_DESCRIPTION" MovementCost="0.50" SupportsBridges="true"

 

[Victoria]

... or even just update it in place and hopefully it's fixed for the next patch when the file is overwritten. It saves messing around.

I really do not understand how there was no bridges in the classical age. It must have been hard for the romans.

 

[nzcamel]

The main parts of movement rules that I don't like are how roads essentially have no effect on the majority of units until the modern era, when units jump from 2 to 4 movement points. They need to find a way so that at least industrial roads give regular land troops 3 moves on a road.

I'm good with it. Movement on road and off road is both realistic and presents interesting choices.
Re industrial roads; ranged units and builders gaining the ability to do something after they have finished moving is immersive enough for me.

 

[cvb]

That's just not right. What if the spearman wins? He stays where he is? Is that a change from Civ V?
To me the whole point of ZOC is preventing an enemy from moving or attacking past it. You cannot attack into a forest if you can't move there so why should you be able to attack out of a ZOC?

Motivation. It's strange what the incentive of achieving will do to the limits humans normally expect to be bound by.

What I don't get is if the slinger was NOT there, then the spearman could NOT move there. How does the presence of a unit allow the spearman to 'ignore' that warrior standing there waving his sword at him?

Again - motivation It's funny how much pain we can handle from A while distracted by B.

Ok, seeing you are great fan of consistency with motivation, I have here a slightly different scenario:

Assumed the Macedonian warrior in the center of the picture is to move next. Without the circled slinger standing there it cannot reach the floodplainsWheat-tile, because crossing the river is such a big effort that it already costs all movement points ...
As your surely know, my question is now: With the circled slinger standing there, I suppose, our highly motivated Macedonian warrior 'handles pain while distracted' and is able to attack the circled slinger?!!

Or do you prefer an exception for the exception?

 

[Victoria]

You are right @cvb but that's down to the stupid programming because for this and a few situations like attacking cities the rules are broken... for some reason when attacking over rivers the code forgets to add in the movement cost for getting across the river.
You should have enough movement points to get into that tile to attack it. That works sometimes like you cannot move 1 tile with a warrior and then attack into a wood.. but crossing a river takes +2 MP (minimum distance ever travelled is 1 tile)

To me this is not a ZOC issue but a coding issue because your example has not ZOC restrictions.
It is an issue with combat that seriously sucks, not just here but attacking cities across a river, this allows a player to speed up conquest wrongly in my view

 

[cvb]

To me this is not a ZOC issue but a coding issue because your example has not ZOC restrictions.

Yes, on purpose I chose an example Without ZoC!

I also don't want to discuss, how it is (implemented) right now (or even why), but how it Should be.

nzcamel introduced the "motivation rule" and I just applied this new rule.
And I just want to know, how he solves the new inconsistency which results from this rule (solving the initial inconsistency arisen by the ZoC issue).

[edit: I was not aware, that there may be another bug while attacking across a river, otherwise I would have chosen hills or woods instead]

 

[Art Morte]

'handles pain while distracted', fudge me, I lost it there.

 

[Victoria]

@cvb
@Art Morte does this help?

So this is the one I was talking about with cities... my warrior can move and then attack the city across the river... that is just wrong. Especially with knights and horsemen moving through rough and then attacking across the river. It would make the game harder if they fixed this. I imagine it is just an missing check for the river.

However, checking your story, are you sure your warrior could attack that slinger and my firetuner test says otherwise. Your diagram does not have any turn move numbers to prove it.

Replicating your scenario I just cannot do

Just to clarify... this situation sucks. My knight can attack the city over the river but not the unit

Bottom Line:
You can only attack a target if you have MP left is how it should be implemented
You can only attack a target if you have MP left (exception attacking a city is 1 MP) is how it is implemented

This city is on a hill and even the hill MP is ignored, its not just rivers.

 

[nzcamel]

Ok, seeing you are great fan of consistency with motivation, I have here a slightly different scenario:
View attachment 480431
Assumed the Macedonian warrior in the center of the picture is to move next. Without the circled slinger standing there it cannot reach the floodplainsWheat-tile, because crossing the river is such a big effort that it already costs all movement points ...
As your surely know, my question is now: With the circled slinger standing there, I suppose, our highly motivated Macedonian warrior 'handles pain while distracted' and is able to attack the circled slinger?!!

Or do you prefer an exception for the exception?

Yes, on purpose I chose an example Without ZoC!

I also don't want to discuss, how it is (implemented) right now (or even why), but how it Should be.

nzcamel introduced the "motivation rule" and I just applied this new rule.
And I just want to know, how he solves the new inconsistency which results from this rule (solving the initial inconsistency arisen by the ZoC issue).

[edit: I was not aware, that there may be another bug while attacking across a river, otherwise I would have chosen hills or woods instead]

In my opinion melee shouldn't be able to attack across a river unless they can move across it as per the movement rules normally. To me the rivers we see in the game are the big rivers, which do genuinely provide tactical defenses.
If the game has stuffed that up by allowing melee to attack across a river when otherwise they wouldn't have the movement, then that needs to be fixed.

You are right @cvb but that's down to the stupid programming because for this and a few situations like attacking cities the rules are broken... for some reason when attacking over rivers the code forgets to add in the movement cost for getting across the river.
You should have enough movement points to get into that tile to attack it. That works sometimes like you cannot move 1 tile with a warrior and then attack into a wood.. but crossing a river takes +2 MP (minimum distance ever travelled is 1 tile)

To me this is not a ZOC issue but a coding issue because your example has not ZOC restrictions.
It is an issue with combat that seriously sucks, not just here but attacking cities across a river, this allows a player to speed up conquest wrongly in my view

All the cities have bridges in and out of them where they sit next to rivers from the very beginning of the game. Make any difference to your view?

'handles pain while distracted', **** me, I lost it there.

It's a real thing Deal with it.

 

[Victoria]

All the cities have bridges in and out of them where they sit next to rivers from the very beginning of the game. Make any difference to your view?

Sure, And also I guess as all districts have roads that makes the hill MP moot.
... so working as designed and cvb's example is incorrect, I certainly have not been able to do that in any game I remember