Zone of Control

[Arrian]

I like the way ZoC works now. However, I think the ZoC "shot" units get should be strengthened, and all units after riflemen should have ZoC. Furthermore, such ZoC "shots" should be potentially lethal.

Therefore, if you wish to take your Cavalry and charge inbetween two forts with 3 riflemen and a cannon each, you can. But your Cavalry will die.

I do not like the CivII-style "no, you cannot move there" ZoC.

Unfortunately, my suggested changes in the CivIII ZoC rules would probably require some serious patching from Firaxis.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by The Pioneer
That's a could idea dunk999, thus the signifigance of having a fortress will be increased.

Does anybody know if you can mod the ZOC? I mean besides flagging a unit to have ZOC!

No you can't, it's been hard coded.

I've been mentioning the same thing, about Forts having Civ II type ZoC, for a couple of patches now. However, I did discover that if you put a bombard unit in a fort, and space them two squares apart, you can still have a pretty good defensive line. Especially when you get Artillery. You can turn an enemy unit to mincemeat before it reaches your cities.

[dunk]

That is another good idea Arrian. Just so long as it is almost 90% certain to kill that cavalry.

[ShredZ]

I definitely think the ZOC now is better than Civ2. Since we know each square represents about 100sq. miles, there is no way a Warrior should be able to stop troops from moving in the square beside them. The way it works now is good, but I agree with the rest that it should be more deadly, with a better chance to hit and damage.

[zulu9812]

warriors don't have ZOC's in Civ3 - Tanks do

[Fitz]

Don't know much about zoc, as I almost never have it some into play. I usually line my borders with defensive completely, including the coastline, as soon as feasible. This usually means total enclosure around infantry.

The AI will rarely attack if you do this. Probably the primary reason is that if you do this, you most likely have an extremely large army compared to them. But even if they do attack, it beats stacked defense. The reason is simple: Defense in Depth. If they advance, you use your railroads to rearrange you defenders in front of them again, while counterattacking if convenient.

[dexters]

I actually like the idea of having fortresses have CIV 2 type ZOC. Perhaps to avoid it from being exploited, ZOC should only extend 1 square around the fortress, thus, if players want to seal their borders entirely, it would still requite lots of fortresses or troops.

Also, I think fortross ZOC should only be in effect when it is manned.

[dunk]

Originally posted by dexters

Also, I think fortross ZOC should only be in effect when it is manned.

Of course.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by dexters
I actually like the idea of having fortresses have CIV 2 type ZOC. Perhaps to avoid it from being exploited, ZOC should only extend 1 square around the fortress, thus, if players want to seal their borders entirely, it would still requite lots of fortresses or troops.

Also, I think fortross ZOC should only be in effect when it is manned.

I agree, I think that's one of the best ideas for ZOC I've heard so far.

[The Pioneer]

Ok, but there should still be a chance of a unit being able to get through weakened or not! That is a very good idea indeed.

[Venger]

You could give units a flag called 'infiltrate' which gives them a chance to pass through a ZOC.

Venger

[Austin]

The combination of no ZOC and no supply restrictions turns military campaigns in the industrial age and beyond into a silly exercise of gigantic hordes of troops clumping together and wandering around for the offensive, or clumping hordes of troops in a city or on a resource in the defensive.

A CivII style ZOC actually allowed you to form a LINE.

Austin

[Apolex]

I agree Austin, and with Venger too. It's ridiculous that your troops have to hold hands across an entire region to simulate a battle line. I get this absurd image in my mind of my army saying, "Red Rover, Red Rover, send the Russians Right Over."

Proper fixing of this ZOC nonsense could probably be the single greatest fix that could immediately add major strategic elements to the game (and add realism at the same time).

-Apolex

[Velociryx]

You gotta look at ZOC from a historical perspective tho, to really understand what's going on.

For the record, I think the current implementation SUCKS, but that is just this gamer's opinion.

ZOC's work for detailed simulations and purestrain wargames because they represent reality.

A unit of tanks isn't just a couple of tanks sitting idly in a field. It's a squadron of tanks, trained to fight together. And with them, they've got guys with guns, and other guys with shovels to plant mines, and other guys with maps....anybody who comes anywhere near these guys WILL have to deal with them, and not just...."Oh look! There go some bad guys! What say let's give them a passing shot from our main gun?"

No...what'll happen is that the guys with the tanks you're trying to get around will move to intercept you, blocking your path. You want by....fight 'em.

The trouble is, you can't implement that well in civ, because there is no "draw" in combat....well, sorta, but not really. There's Kill, Be Killed (in some cases, there's withdraw, but that's hardly the norm).

In detailed wargames, it's actually somewhat rare for a unit to be wiped out entirely. It'll weaken, route, get disrupted, maybe even get captured, but rarely is it distroyed to the man.

Happens every time in Civ, tho, and that's why its so hard to effectively model ZOC.

In purestrain wargames, the lines are at least somewhat static (semi-permanant, let us say)....and entering that line puts you in the kill zone of, usually NUMEROUS units.

Can't effectively model that in Civ, either, what, with Infinite move rails and such.

ZOC was too strong in Civ2 and SMAC, but it's weak to the point of being a waste of time (rather like pollution), now.

-=Vel=-

[SpencerH]

The game needs the concept of supply. It shouldnt be hard to implement and perhaps could be added as a stand-alone patch for those with low-end cpu's that couldnt handle the extra calculations.