Zones of Control?

Civ1 had this mechanic. It always annoyed me, but now that I think about it, it is quite brilliant, since it forces you to attack forts you would otherwise just ignore. I'm all for any ideas that make battles at castles more frequent.

Agreed.

I agree if you look at my other posts i want to be able to build tradenetworks and forts and towers etc. and guards that Auto travel the road.

It would allow us to defend ourselves better *as we would have the extra army of the patrolmen* Castles could have commanders *same with forts and towers* that you appoint just like the city lord/gov that's skill level determines the garrisons natural size and strength castles would cost alot of upkeep with larger garrisons but tower commanders wouldn't cost so much because more guards means less banditry on the highway's and more tolls *therefore they almost support themselves* add that up to people not being able to pass into your land without open border and without free trade they can't trade with you.

And you create a very strategic situation.

I'm not in favor of absolutely no movement around enemy troops. Choices are always better, imo.

I would like more if when moving past fortified enemy positions then the enemy ranged units get free attacks and the entire army has the possibility of some kind of ambush attack on the following turn. That way you can choose to take the chance to move past a fortification, but at the risk of taking damage and giving the enemy a large advantage.

Well you could make it so it slows down armys provides attrition *the enemy can leave their fortress burn your camps attack you etc. and harass you untill you confront them* and they can choose to intercept you should you try to move through the area 1-2 tiles around the stronghold therefore allowing them to block movement but making it realistic.

I'd really like to see some ZoC effects for units put in a sentry mode. It makes forts a lot more useful (instead of just going around them ala Civ 4), and more importantly gives you a sane mechanic with which to protect your caravans. Since I'm pushing for caravans to be important, protecting them is also important.

Put garrisons in forts along your trade network, and you can create some defense against cavalry raids. Of course, all those forts and units won't be free, so how many do you really want to build?

Perhaps Zones of Influence, ZOI's, could be a good middle ground. The enemy would be hesitant to enter these areas as they alert the defenders inside immediately, via pop-up, or whatever, to their presence (range could be tied to the noted defenses mention below, thus avoiding attempted end arounds with large battle forces.

Other negative effects could be applied to enemy forces based on what the Outpost/Fort contains in either local garrison or defensive/offensive structures therein.

Of course, any unit designed to spy would have some level of detection prevention, while small in size (some set battle value) and can do it's work undeterred, while gathering intel on said OutPost/Fort.

Agreed with John abit but also we could add in attrition along these structures based on their garrisons.

Zones of Control don't make much sense in a game where combats are resolved tactically rather than strategically.

I don't understand how the presence of tactical battles is relevant to this?  The idea here is to allow you to control access to parts of the map by creating defensive fortifications.  Any combat would still be resolved in a tactical battle.  What's important is that somebody can place a garrison and/or build a fort/castle on the map to defend the surrounding squares or restrict access to surrounding territory (without having to build a city there), and that enemy units can't just walk right by it with impunity by simply choosing not to attack it.

Example: Say there is a valuable mine on a hill.  You probably can't build a fort/castle on that square to protect it, because the mine is there.  But say there is another hill or some other terrain with a nice defensive bonus next to it.  In most games, if you place a garrison there and/or build a fort next to it, an enemy military unit can simply walk onto the mine and capture/destroy it regardless of the castle next to it.  You units in the castle can come out and try to attack the enemy unit, but because the mine is on a hill and gets a hefty defensive bonus, your unit probably fights at a disadvantage...and the castle doesn't help at all because you have to leave the castle (and lose any advantages it would have provided) to ATTACK the unit instead of getting a defensive bonus for being entrenched in a fortified position.

The same thing goes for trying to defend a chokehold on a map to make it harder for the enemy to penetrate into your territory.  You place and entrench units, build fortifications, etc...but when the enemy comes he just walks by right next to your defenses and forces you to attack (losing all your fortification bonuses) while he gains any defensive bonuses for terrain - thus making fortifications and defensive garrisons irrelevant.

It should always be somewhat easier to defend territory than to attack it.  Even a single archer unit in a fort on a hill should be able to protect the nearby surrounding lands unless the enemy comes with a couple similarly tough units and maybe some kind of siege engine or something or a single much more powerful unit, etc.

I agree with soulfire but i also believe forts/castles should spawn 'Patrols' based on their garrisoned commander *its determined based on a skill similar to city Govening* and these patrols should attack bandits monsters and even harass enemy forces. Also the presence of the fort should be able to cause attrition if its commander has certain skills like gurilla tactics or scouting forces garrisoned in the fort *as the scouts will go out at night and burn camps steal food etc.* this would make defense much more interesting and useful and the system for govening is already being created and put into place for cities so this simply expands a concept that's already in play.

I think a single archer could be killed by a single Ninja. The real question is where the equilibrium lies with Multiple Archers vs Multiple Ninjas (if 10 archers vs 10 ninjas, who has the advantage)

I also agree that One archer should be able to kill several units if they have an inefficient way to get past the walls (ladders, battering ram) ... however one archer vs two equivalent units + catapult would be interesting "skirmish".

Is it possible to have decimals for unit-upkeep?

Frogboy's post made me think that a single soldier unit should probably cost 0.1 gold in upkeep, and a party could cost 0.3 (25% discount) gold, and a company could cost 0.73 gold. (27% discount)

In this way, a company is indeed cheaper than ten individual units, as advertised in the tech tool-tip.

a unit of 50 soldiers could cost 3.5 gold per turn (30% discount), and a unit of 100 soldiers could cost 6.5 gold per turn. (35% discount)

a unit of 250 soldiers could cost 15 gold per turn (40% discount), and finally a legion could cost 50 gold per turn (50% discount)

And finally, (for soldier upkeep only) maintenance costs would be rounded down to the lower whole number at each juncture. Thereby, if you only have two individual units and one company, "expected" payment is 0.93 gold, however rounding down, this means no maintenance (or free units).

So that when you have enough units to go over 1 gold per turn (10 soldiers, 3 parties, or 2 companies). Personally I think this is the best way to handle unit maintanence, given the example from Frogboy's post.

@Tasunke:  I like that idea...  But isn't that a little off-topic?

I need a quick preface...  Soulfire, you mentioned that the Archer trying to defend/re-take the Mine from the Fortified Position almost always fights at a disadvantage... 

So why not, instead of penalizing the opponent, just give a bonus to your troops for being in the vicinity of the fort/castle/tower/etc.?  I don't know how this stacks up against all the other good ideas already posed, but it is an option, and one that could be easily implemented alongside some of the other ideas already posed here.  I especially like Seth's idea, and at least from where I'm sitting, it doesn't seem like these two concepts would conflict with each-other...  In fact, in my mind, they support each-other rather well.

Zone of control should take into account the size of the defending unit. A company of 10 men can't "control" a tile and the surrounding tiles. A company of 10 000 men can. Even more if they have some scouts in the army.

In elven legacy some units can ignore zone of controls, and that's a good thing. It opens a lot of possibilities.

Maybe in real life they can't, but it has to be kept in mind that this is all to the scale of the game.  10,000 men to control 9 tiles is...  An awful lot...  There's no real way to keep track of the upkeep of that given the current scale and mechanics of the game.  However, 10 men to control 9 tiles doesn't sound too far-fetched from a gaming stand-point, as that's one more unit than the tiles you're trying to control.

I agree that, assuming some sort of Control Zone mechanic is implemented, there should absolutely be some units that can, at least to some extent, ignore the fact that an area is being suppressed.  Conniving little things like that can really help a game to keep you hooked...  And keep you on your toes as well.  ^^

At the same time, a ZoC doesn't have to mean "nobody can enter thees tiles". It just means they can't waltz right past the fort without being challenged. You have to fight those 10 guys in order to get past them, rather then what happens in something like Civ where unless the defenders are a city garrison, you can just go around them.

Also, as mentioned somewhere above, that the defenders should not have to come out of the Fort to prevent a force from simply passing by regardless of attrition. Losing a small percentage of a force to bypass what could otherwise be a total route would be a small price to pay...

Even if they are granted bonuses for proximity, it pretty much defeats the purpose of building the Fort, for their protection and defense, in the first place. 

Well ... I think that units garrisoned in a Fort should have a natural Zone of Control.

Armies with scouts (long line of sight) should also have a Zone of Control.

City Garrisons, in a city with a WatchTower, should have a Zone of Control.

certain units should be able to dodge most Zones of Control.

A SuperFort/Citadel with scouts (and army), or a giant army with really good scouts, should be able to use a Zone of Control even against units naturally immune to Zone of Control.

Any army consistent of all Cavalry and even poor scouts (only 1 or 2 line of sight), should have a Zone of Control.

all Cavalry armies with really good scouts should be able to exert their Zone of Control vs those units normally immune to zone of control

so, to repeat myself, to emit any Zone of Control at all you need at least one of the following.

1. a Watch Tower
2. a Fort
3. Good Scouts
4. Cavalry

Except it doesn't.  Getting a bonus for being in proximity is exactly what it's about...  You get a bonus for being inside, so why not get a bonus for being on patrol nearby?  It's literally the exact same concept, just extended to units in nearby tiles at a lesser extent, or at least that's how I see it.  I mean, if you get a bonus for proximity while it is there, then it's still better to have one than to not have one.

But, I can't debate the first part...  They shouldn't have to come out from their fortified position to potentially cause harm to the enemy.

Zones of control as i stated before should be A. Zones of attrition caused by forts based on what units are garrisoned.

B the ability to attack ANY enemy moving past *only once as if multiple enemy troops move through the area seperated into different companies only one can be stopped effectively at a time*

C a way to enfore territory/trade also with the forts you could control local traderoutes tax the roads/toll merchants and keep down native monsters thereby establishing a border guard.

Zones of control should be "like a wall of thick air" around armies/forts (that have the ability).

An army can't simply move past such an opponent, if he goes within the opponents Zone of Control he loses all movement points/ ability to retreat until the battle commences (or the next turn starts).

How about a compromise Tasunke? Zones of control are instead an army where Smaller armies can choose to fight or not etc. and large armys can choose to stall entire legions if necessary and depending on the skill of the fort commander different bonuse's/effects come into play?

Maybe it should just be a case where when you enter a ZoC, the defenders in control of it get a free round of combat against the invaders. A small garrison in that case would be able to seriously affect a single unit wandering around, but nine guys in the fort aren't a threat to an army. If it wanted to, the army could take the hits and keep going.

In that case, a garrison of 5000 is a force to be reckoned with and can't be ignored.

The advantage to a system like that is that the ZoC always works and lets the defenders defend territory, but a raiding party can use speed to get past a small garrison with limited casualties (so one fort with 10 guys in it won't totally prevent supply line raids).

OK. It makes sense for local Patrol size groups to get a proximity bonus given that they remain under the protective umbrella of the Forts ranged cover.

I thought we were talking about moving the whole garrison outside, in pursuit of the enemy force, if there was no other way to prevent the avoidance move, so to speak.

That said, if the Zone prevents passes without conflict, then yes, the inside bonuses would be far to great to give up by going outside.

Well bonuses to those that move out because they have had time to fortify the countryside with traps and defenses etc. *based on Commanders/fort leaders skills* Would be nice.