Zone of Control - Should It Be Back?

[Molybdeus]

For those lauding the Civ3 system, why do you think ZOC was weakened from Civ1 & 2? Because it complicated the game without really adding much gameplay.

In fact one of the reasons that some people disliked Civ3 after Civ2 was the fact that it "dumbed down" ZOC: the same argument being made about Civ4's lack of ZOC. A return to the Civ3 ZOC system will not satisfy napoleonic era/hyper-realism fans, but it will still be an added complication that adds fairly little to the game.

I'm sure you can mod it into Civ4 if you really want zone of control in the game, though.

 

[TheLazyHase]

Realistically every unit should have a chance at a ZoC attack. If you consider that at the end of the game a turn takes 1 year and a tile might represent 100 square miles, that gives plenty of time for any unit to approach the enemy, take a potshot, then retreat to a safe distance. In the early game it's even more probable with a turn lasting 40-50 years. But it should only be a probablity of an attack, not a guarentee.

And after approaching the army enough to attack, how do it retreat without a full scale battle ? With artillery, it may work, yes, but a bow may not have enough range. And, in fact, a sword even less.

But, the main ZoC-related problem is that you can way too easily plunge into your ennemy territory, without any effort to make this viable.

 

[Willem]

Because it complicated the game without really adding much gameplay.

I disagree. With Civ 3, my "Maginot Line" became a viable strategy to pursue. In Civ 4, that approach is useless, with Forts being close to that as well. I used to build lots of Forts in Civ 3, but I rarely do in 4 as there's usually no point.

 

[Willem]

And after approaching the army enough to attack, how do it retreat without a full scale battle ?

Why does an attack have to imply a full scale battle? You sneak up on the enemy camp, and take out a few of the guards patrolling the area. A defending unit would have a better knowledge of the terrain allowing him to pull something like that off. Think of it as more of a guerilla tactic.

But, the main ZoC-related problem is that you can way too easily plunge into your ennemy territory, without any effort to make this viable.

I'm not sure I understand you here. As it is now there's no absolutely consequences for plunging into enemy territory, other than restricted movement.

 

[TheLazyHase]

I'm not sure I understand you here. As it is now there's no absolutely consequences for plunging into enemy territory, other than restricted movement.

It's exactly the problem. I don't find very appealing to see that ennemy stack can go in my empire from left to right to take on the weakest city that is far in my territory. n some situation it may be logical (keshik), but it work with any kind of troop. You dont have to take care at all how your troop will survive in ennemy territory.

Also, TMIT is wrong saying that defense is too strong in civ4 : it's pitifully weak. That's why you attack first the SoD, because catapult and such squash any hope of making something useful in defense. That's alos why some people let the AI retake a city just to slaughter him inside the city. Castles and other defensive structure were constructed because with somewhat little garrison you could delay an invading army for a lot of time, and in civ4 this just don't work. Not only because the defense are weak, but also because ignoring the garrison as just no drawback.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Also, TMIT is wrong saying that defense is too strong in civ4 : it's pitifully weak. That's why you attack first the SoD, because catapult and such squash any hope of making something useful in defense. That's alos why some people let the AI retake a city just to slaughter him inside the city. Castles and other defensive structure were constructed because with somewhat little garrison you could delay an invading army for a lot of time, and in civ4 this just don't work. Not only because the defense are weak, but also because ignoring the garrison as just no drawback.

This is ignorantly bypassing my point ---> culture borders give the defending civ COMPLETE ATTACK INITIATIVE NO MATTER WHAT. You ever try to attack an opposing civ that has siege in multiplayer? Try it and tell me how it goes for you.

Adding ZoC on top of that only serves to cost-effectively FORCE the attacking stacks onto flatland, where they are guaranteed to get raped to hell, in some cases even against markedly backwards opposition.

It's exactly the problem. I don't find very appealing to see that ennemy stack can go in my empire from left to right to take on the weakest city that is far in my territory.

Nobody does this against competent opposition or high level AI because there is a tremendous penalty for doing it: you give the opponent 10+ turns to generate more units, attack your stack, or shift garrisons.

I'm sorry, but if you don't understand why defensive initiative is so overwhelming in civ IV's collateral system, then you flat-out don't understand civ IV warfare.

 

[TheLazyHase]

This is ignorantly bypassing my point ---> culture borders give the defending civ COMPLETE ATTACK INITIATIVE NO MATTER WHAT.

Doesn't it mean that defense is never an option, somehow ?

The defense is not strong in civ. The attack is, and consequently having the initiative is king. The main defense unit is in my opinion everything that is fast, because being able to retreat and not be attacked is just that much powerful. You can defend with knight only about as well as with longbow, at least in defense, because of that.

Your point about not being into ennemy territory is irrelevant. People can do that where they shouldn't, or at least should have something to counteract the problem of being in ennemy territory. In civ, being surrounded is irrelevant, and siege warfare is irrelevant. How can this be not a problem.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Doesn't it mean that defense is never an option, somehow ?

The defense is not strong in civ. The attack is, and consequently having the initiative is king. The main defense unit is in my opinion everything that is fast, because being able to retreat and not be attacked is just that much powerful. You can defend with knight only about as well as with longbow, at least in defense, because of that.

Your point about not being into ennemy territory is irrelevant. People can do that where they shouldn't, or at least should have something to counteract the problem of being in ennemy territory. In civ, being surrounded is irrelevant, and siege warfare is irrelevant. How can this be not a problem.

Sure, it's true that initiative rules this game (basically that IS attacking...). My point is that adding ZoC to the current formula will only exacerbate this issue. Active defense (attacking enemy units on your tile improvements) is still defense, and within one's culture the advantage is incredible. Without 2 move units or special promotions the attacker has no choice but to sit back and be railed on by the defender or to attempt to bring overwhelming #'s. Fortunately the AI doesn't counter-SoD us with collateral or attacking it on high difficulties would be impossible.

But adding ZoC forces the attacker to fight at terrible odds to get good defensive terrain or to spend turns on flatland. Maybe in adding ZoC they could do away with culture movement penalty or something. If you want balance, you can NOT simply add back ZoC...even to just forts (although that would make forts a lot more dynamic and I'd like it if it were balanced...).

 

[Molybdeus]

I disagree. With Civ 3, my "Maginot Line" became a viable strategy to pursue. In Civ 4, that approach is useless, with Forts being close to that as well. I used to build lots of Forts in Civ 3, but I rarely do in 4 as there's usually no point.

This can be addressed simply by changing forts to a terrain feature rather than a terrain improvement, so they can co-exist with economic improvements. You don't need to implement zone of control for units to do that.

It's exactly the problem. I don't find very appealing to see that ennemy stack can go in my empire from left to right to take on the weakest city that is far in my territory.

Why can the enemy penetrate so heavily? You can easily attack an enemy stack with siege units as soon as they enter your territory unless your opponent has made heavy use of the commando promotion. They will only be able to penetrate if you don't engage them.

I think you have a somewhat un-historical view of the history of warfare. With the exception of a small period in history in which artillery massively overshadowed movement (about 1860 to 1920) a long line of troops doesn't work. In all other eras of warfare, concentration of force (IE, large stacks of units) has been the ideal. The Maginot Line didn't actually keep the Germans out of France, remember. The Civ4 model that drives large armies into each other is historically accurate for all eras except for that of trench warfare in the era after cavalry went obsolete and before tanks and aircraft came into their own.

 

[pi-r8]

I think that basically the cultural boundaries of Civ4 replace the ZoC. they limit the movement of the attacker, while allowing the defender full movement. It also helps having just one combat strength value, so that a unit attacking it's mirror unit is 50/50, instead of having separate attack and defense values so that the attacking cannon (for example) always beats the defending cannon.

 

[frenzyfol]

Zone of control is a great idea, its just been poorly implemented in the past.
One way to improve it is to allow units to move into other units zone of control, but once they have done such they are considered in enfalade (crossed T). If the unit now in enfalade is attacked it will suffer a 50% negative bonus against it.

Zone of control is somewhat maintained but if a unit chooses to try to break through enemy control lines it will suffer the consequences.

 

[Willem]

This can be addressed simply by changing forts to a terrain feature rather than a terrain improvement, so they can co-exist with economic improvements. You don't need to implement zone of control for units to do that.

No it can't. The reason why it was a viable strategy was because of the ZoC. I could have a few units in each Fort and just from the passive attacks offered by ZoC hold back many units of an enemy. Even if I could build Forts over improvements, they'd still be useless since the AI will never attack them, but simply pass them by with absolutely no consequences. Even with appropriate terrain there's no reason to build them for defensive purposes in most cases, though there would be if we still had a Civ 3 type of ZoC.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Even if I could build Forts over improvements, they'd still be useless since the AI will never attack them, but simply pass them by with absolutely no consequences.

That has got to be one of the most rubbish arguments (IMO) that I've heard for a while.

If forts could be built on other improvements, they would be far from useless. In fact, they'd probably be overpowered.

Need I point you to the link in my signature, regarding the many uses of forts?

Forts provide a very large local military initiative advantage over an enemy. A big example of why is that siege units are free from being flanked in forts. If two stacks meet, both with large amounts of mounted units and siege, the one that can use the fort will surely win.

I'm not really for or against ZoC at the moment but I don't agree with the assertion that ZoC is necessary for forts to be better than simply useless.

 

[Zeiter]

The real problem that this discussion is pointing at is the fact that having the initiative is overpowered (mainly because of the way collateral damage on the attack currently works).

In my private modding, I've limited ancient and medieval-era siege to dealing 20% damage, and then retreating. Not only does this cause siege to realistically retreat more often, but it also puts siege in its proper place as an accessory to battle, rather than as the determining factor. You still end up needing strong, well-promoted units in order to kill the opposing SoD's counter units.

This applies to the player on the strategic offense as well as the person on the strategic defense. In the case of my simple siege mod, having the initiative to engage in active defense does not guarantee victory. If the opposing stack is larger, has better troops, has a good mix of counter units, and/or is approaching along defensive terrain, then the situation becomes very problematic for the defender, and simply taking the initiative to engage in active defense will not be a quick fix to the situation.

It's in a case like this, where having the initiative has been made to be a beneficial but not overpowering thing (it's still beneficial because you can quickly bring in/build reinforcements and counter the enemy's local concentration of force), I would really appreciate the ability to give forts, at the very least, ZoC. That way you could force the attacking stack onto flat land and at least have a chance of defeating it, or at least badly wounding it, after having had one's siege take the stack down to 20% health.

Aside from ZoC, the only other mechanic I'd really like is to be able to conquer territory on a tile-by-tile basis. Like, if you had a "pillage" function that, instead of pillaging an improvement, just flipped the territory to your side (even while, perhaps, not necessarily altering the culture in the tile---sort of like how a master can claim territory in a BFC from a vassal even if the vassal's culture there is higher. In the case of pillaging territory, this might last until the tile "revolts" back to the civ with the higher culture, and just like with cities, tiles would have a certain % chance of revolting back to the real culture owner every turn, mediated, of course, by how many enemy units were stationed on the tile, just like with cities. Okay, this might require a lot of calculations each turn on a large map, but I still think it would be a neat feature). That way you could recreate things like WWI, with forts galore and an advancing line that allows each side to quickly bring up and concentrate force at points on the front as the line moves forward, thus making the taking of territory essential.

Edit: I'd like to add that adding ZoC will always tend to help the AI more than the human in war (and let's face it, in war, it's the AI that generally needs the help). The reason is, humans can (and do) already engage in mostly active defense when confronted by an invading SoD, but the AI oftentimes will hide in its cities and rely on passive defense. ZoC will strengthen passive defense by forcing the attacker to attack strongpoints in order to bypass them. The AI would benefit most from this, as their units that they often have fortified in forts on top of resources would actually be useful for them.

 

[Willem]

Aside from ZoC, the only other mechanic I'd really like is to be able to conquer territory on a tile-by-tile basis. Like, if you had a "pillage" function that, instead of pillaging an improvement, just flipped the territory to your side (even while, perhaps, not necessarily altering the culture in the tile---sort of like how a master can claim territory in a BFC from a vassal even if the vassal's culture there is higher. In the case of pillaging territory, this might last until the tile "revolts" back to the civ with the higher culture, and just like with cities, tiles would have a certain % chance of revolting back to the real culture owner every turn, mediated, of course, by how many enemy units were stationed on the tile, just like with cities. Okay, this might require a lot of calculations each turn on a large map, but I still think it would be a neat feature). That way you could recreate things like WWI, with forts galore and an advancing line that allows each side to quickly bring up and concentrate force at points on the front as the line moves forward, thus making the taking of territory essential.

I believe the Influence Driven Warfare mod already does all that you describe here. Or very close to it.

 

[PieceOfMind]

That suggestion sounds remarkably similar to part of the suggestion I made years ago:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=226266

It's been a while since I've visited the idea but being able to capture territory with units (under certain conditions I describe in the thread) would make warfare much more interesting.

believe the Influence Driven Warfare mod already does all that you describe here. Or very close to it.

To my knowledge, it only works when battles occur or if you pillage tiles. Unfortunatley, simply sitting on an AI's tile will do nothing. The pillaging won't necessarily flip a tile.

 

[Zeiter]

That suggestion sounds remarkably similar to part of the suggestion I made years ago:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=226266

It's been a while since I've visited the idea but being able to capture territory with units (under certain conditions I describe in the thread) would make warfare much more interesting.

To my knowledge, it only works when battles occur or if you pillage tiles. Unfortunatley, simply sitting on an AI's tile will do nothing. The pillaging won't necessarily flip a tile.

Exactly. I've been playing with IDW for quite some time, and while it is certainly a step in the right direction, it does leave something to be desired.

Nor did I find much in that other thread that totally satisfied me. Most of the things proposed in that thread would require whole new gameplay concepts or even interface additions. In other words, Civ5. And I would not like to be dependent on waiting for a Civ5 that may never come.

Here's a quick list of culture-related things that I would have changed that would be doable within Civ4:

1. "Pillageable" tile territory with chance of flipping back to cultural owner, as with cities (as I explained a few posts up above).

2. Borders that remain set after nationalism (set in terms of what the culture situation was at the time of the last treaty/discovery of nationalism), until the two civs go to war with each other, in which case the legal border disappears and the border snaps back to the "real" contemporary cultural borders. Does this make sense? In other words, for example, CivA has nationalism, and CivA owned the pig tile (whether through pillaged territory or natural culture) when CivA and CivB last signed a peace treaty. So CivA keeps the pig tile, even though neighboring CivB very soon in the meantime accumulates more than 50% culture in that pig tile. But then CivB declares war on CivA, and (theoretical) partisans rise up in that pig tile and immediately flip that tile to CivB on the first turn of war (I say "theoretical" because I'm not talking about partisans in terms of free units like in the partisan event, but just justifying why the tile would flip back over to the "real" cultural owners in the case of the legal agreement dissolving).

3. Religions, religious buildings, and corporations spread, in addition to the normal amount of the culture for the civ that owns the cities, half that amount of culture of the civ that owns the holy cities/headquarters of the religion/corporation. This way we have a method of non-locally spreading culture, in order to simulate US culture being spread across the Atlantic ocean in France by US corporations.