Zone of Control - Should It Be Back?

[LordRahl]

Most self-respecting turn based games have Zone of Control (ZOC) implemented in one form or another. Do you think it should be brought back to Civ? I'm pretty sure both Civ1, and 2 had it, and I think there was some form of it in Civ3. I don't quite understand why that particular feature was removed from Civ4 (I can only assume it was to dumb down the movement - make it more intuitive).

I personally would like to see it back. It would add another layer of strategy, making wars more interesting. You would no longer be able to simply bypass a single defender on a hill for example. It would make forts more relevant as well.

There could also be promotions, or inherent unit abilities that would allow them to ignore Zones of Control.

 

[Sabio]

Can't it be moded?

It realy gives more reason to build forts, and make easier to protect your borders.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

This is one of the many reasons i still like Civ III more than IV.
So yes,it should be back.

 

[XxtraLarGe]

Most self-respecting turn based games have Zone of Control (ZOC) implemented in one form or another. Do you think it should be brought back to Civ? I'm pretty sure both Civ1, and 2 had it, and I think there was some form of it in Civ3. I don't quite understand why that particular feature was removed from Civ4 (I can only assume it was to dumb down the movement - make it more intuitive).

I personally would like to see it back. It would add another layer of strategy, making wars more interesting. You would no longer be able to simply bypass a single defender on a hill for example. It would make forts more relevant as well.

There could also be promotions, or inherent unit abilities that would allow them to ignore Zones of Control.

I'm pretty sure that cultural borders have replaced zone of control, which makes more sense. I can understand zone of control meaning that another civilization's unit can't occupy the same space as your unit, but that shouldn't stop them from moving around the radius of your unit, particularly when you're not at war.

 

[Mr.Pizza]

They forgot Paratroopers, Zone Of Control and Mountains!!!THIS ISN'T GOOD!!!

 

[LordRahl]

I'm pretty sure that cultural borders have replaced zone of control, which makes more sense. I can understand zone of control meaning that another civilization's unit can't occupy the same space as your unit, but that shouldn't stop them from moving around the radius of your unit, particularly when you're not at war.

Perhaps I wasn't clear - it would only apply to enemy units.

 

[Onagan]

You should have a promotion that disallows units from civilization with closed borders.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Definitely for forts. So...y'know, they're useful as forts...

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

I don't mind about units, but definitely with forts, and using the old Civ2 version where units couldn't move past if there were a unit inside the fort - thus forcing the player to launch an attack. Would put some purpose back into using the structures.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Units in forts should be given ZOC which in turn will make forts quite valuable. Plus I think in mods/scenarios/ and in the game itself ZOC's could be given to some units.

 

[RERomine]

I would like ZOC back as well. It would make things a bit more tactical, even without using forts. A lot of times, I don't use them because my city improvements run up to the border and you can't have both forts and improvements in the same square. As it is, terrain is not a war consideration as much as it is a city development consideration. You build cities on hills for defense, but units on hills are ignored.

I can only remember one game where the terrain significantly impacted tactics. There was a long, narrow gap one square wide between a string of mountains. The only way through was that gap and i fortified and held off numerous attacks until I was ready to strike back. In that case, the mountains ensured I couldn't be bypassed. That was a FUN game. The plus to that is a map someone put together, so I still have it.

 

[hgthechinese]

The only reason to void ZOC that I can think of is to make war boring and hence force people to go more "interesting" victories rather always by comquest.......but that is just a dumb reason. You don't make one feature LESS appealing to make other features SEEM more appealing. So yes, I vote a big yes on ZOC, along w/a lot, LOT of possible changes to the war system to improve it. Candidly, the battl/percent system for war in Civ 4 is very very childish.

 

[gettingfat]

ZOC is definitely OK and realistic. However, this will further tip the balance to the defender's side. Let's imagine you send in a pack of horse archers in and run into the ZOC of some spears and are forced to stop. What's next? The spears in next turn will charge at your stunned HA and they will all be dead.

They need to give attackers, particularly the 2-movement units, some means to bypass these. For example, a level 2 promotion to negate ZOC? I can't imagine Ghenghis Khan would stop his Keshiks right outside somebody's forts to be the shooting practice target. Also some sort of maintainence cost is needed to keep a fort or everybody will spam hundreds of them at their border.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

Excellent idea.

It gets frustrating fighting wars where you or the enemy walk right past each other, making a bee-line for the other side's cities, or that fact that it is impossible to setup a defensive line.

Remember how the Civ IV artillery was supposed to be a counter to the Stack of Doom? Well, Zone of Control would have done the same thing, and possibly better. One huge army is useless on defense, and on offense can easily get stuck in place and forced into a fight.

Imagine how much better a First World War scenario would be, with an actual front line.

 

[XxtraLarGe]

Perhaps I wasn't clear - it would only apply to enemy units.

Well, there's always the work-around for that too. Civ II used to let you move your units from one square to another just as long as you had a unit in that square. Here's an example:

1-2-3
4-5-6
7-8-9

Suppose your enemy has like an archer on 5. you can move your guys around him simply by flanking him. You can move from 1 to 4 & 8 if you have two guys flanking him there. Why no zone of control?

I think I'd rather simply have a zone of control on the square you're on, for any units you DON'T have an open borders agreements with. This would still allow you to use troops to hold strategic points (like a narrow pass), and prevent an A.I. from just moving right through your guys and plunking down a city right where you were going to go.

 

[RERomine]

ZOC is definitely OK and realistic. However, this will further tip the balance to the defender's side. Let's imagine you send in a pack of horse archers in and run into the ZOC of some spears and are forced to stop. What's next? The spears in next turn will charge at your stunned HA and they will all be dead.

Not necessarily forced to stop. Just have to withdraw back one to be safe (assuming no roads), if movement points still remail. If not, even without a ZOC, those spearmen are attacking the next turn. ZOC shouldn't elimate movement points, just prevent moving from more than one ZOC square to another.

Another consideration might be that only units with ranged weapons archers, cannons, riflemen, etc. and not melee units have a ZOC.

 

[Yakk]

Have ZOC, but don't have it stop movement.

Instead, when you move from one hostile square to another, the unit controlling the source square and the unit controlling the destination square is "attacked" by your unit in it's current location for a single round of combat.

Each rank of First Strike a side has grants +20% to the units power in this fight.

Withdraw chance gives you a chance to avoid this combat round when moving.

This only happens when you move from one ZOC'd square to another.

Each unit gets 1 ZOC attack per round. After your ZOC attack has been used up, units can move by you freely.

The hard part with this is teaching the AI about it, naturally.

 

[warpus]

The hard part with this is teaching the AI about it, naturally.

Which is likely the reason ZOC was left out of civ4.

 

[RERomine]

The hard part with this is teaching the AI about it, naturally.

Isn't that the truth!! The AI is dumb enough as it is. It's difficult to create a really smart AI that has to handle more than 16 chess pieces!

It would be nice to incorporate some sort of ZOC to add a more tactical angle to things. A simple check box could be added to turn the feature on and off, for those who like the game just the way it is.

While I'm at it, Santa, I want a Porsche, a ranch in the hills...

 

[King Flevance]

I agree that only forts should offer ZOC. I like the new movement that in neutral lands you can't gain ZOC. I mean, it is neutral land. However, I don't think you can build forts outside your cultural borders can you? I forgot, been a while. Anyways, if you can't you should be able to and then forts should offer ZOC to anyone not in open borders agreement with you.

Also some sort of maintainence cost is needed to keep a fort or everybody will spam hundreds of them at their border.

I agree on this. I would say that they should apply the same rule they do to cities only increase it. No fort may be built with 5-6 tiles of another fort. Or make it 3-4 tiles and add a 1 maintenance charge per fort. POssibly go up to 2 at a certain limit that is based on map size.

But I like the way units can move on top of other unit tiles if you are not at war. It makes more sense to me than the previous versions of ZOC. However, ZOC should be in the game but it should take more effort (i.e: Getting Mathematics & building a fort, and garrisoning units in the fort.)