Do You Miss ZOC?

[Inverse Icarus]

well, which way do you like better for zones of control?

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm a civ2 zoc man myself. it made it so you could have a impervious defendible border without having men on every tile.

[wilbill]

I have no problem with the system as it is.

[Willem]

I like the way it is now, more or less. I think that Forts should at least have the old rules, and I would like to see the free shot improved. It's next to useless as it stands IMO. So I guess I'd have to go with "None of the Above".

[Mickeyj]

I think troops posted in fortres should have a ZOC that way you could set up borders.

[Datajack Franit]

SMAC rulz

[Traelin]

No no no to Civ2 ZOC. Although it would be interesting to see it applied WRT forts.

[piratebrun]

At first (when civ3 first came out) I hated the new ZOC... couldn't make a solid border without masses of units.

Well, the more I use it, the more I like civ3's forcing you to mass troops on the border in order to keep enemies out (more realistic - I KNOW IT'S JUST A GAME :P). Also it works in reverse, you can slip troops through your enemies lines to work the same damage on him!

Plus the free shots are nice (if you have enough troops that have them) to pick away at your enemies.

[HolyWarrior]

There's good and bad...

At first, I missed CIV2's ZOC rules, as one of my tactics was always to secure a chokepoint of maybe one tile wide. OTOH, it pissed me off when the AI did it, catching my unit behind enemy lines, then it demands me to move the unit out. Hello, I can't get out, you're blocking me!

[Jaybe]

I like the idea that you CAN move through ZOC's, but I would prefer that it would be more hazardous (or sorta STUPID) to do so. Say, twice the chance there is now to take damage, PLUS one or TWO HP's may be lost.

Also, I sure wish that Coastal Forts weren't dependent on ZOC's: They should fire any time an adjacent coast is ENTERED, and if the ship stays during your turn, it takes ANOTHER shot!

[ranskaldan]

Civ3 definitely.

It makes no sense for a phalanx to defend against a tank this way.

[DuncanK]

No ZOC. It's not realistic. If you want to control a zone you should have to control every square. It's one improvement for Civ3. Too bad that didn't implement imoprovements from SMAC like allies to same square.

[Acererak]

Civ2 style ZOC was too powerful. It was too easy to get trapped. Kind of ridiculous that you simply can't move.

Civ3 ZOC is pretty good, though I've not seen it work that well.

I really like the idea that Fortresses get an 'enhanced ZOC' where they get double the chance of hitting and/or damage. But no way to Civ2 style ZOC.

Perhaps two separate units whose movement overlaps, creates a kind of weak ZOC in those overlapped squares? That way you don't have to create a completely sealed border, you'll still get a free shot of some kind, but it won't be nearly as effective as a fort.

I like these ideas! Can anyone tweak this?

[Mr. President]

Zones of control as we know them in CivGaming are the right idea with a very clunky implementation.

[TacticalGrace]

If you are at peace with someone then how can civ2 style ZOC make sense.

equally if you are at war then how can a ancient age unit mantain a ZOC against a tank?

Imagine a mountain tile with warrior unit defending it. alongside is a road. I want to drive my tanks down the road. In civ2 I can't. Why? because there are warriors in the way? no, they're on the mountain. because it wouldn't be safe to pass the warriors : they'd attack. I let them attack, but I just drive through, but civ2 says I can't. I have to attack the warriors in the mountain... but I don't want to go into the mountain... in the end civ2 forces me to do the exact opposite of what would happen in real life: I drive my tanks into the mountains.