 |
|
airdrik
|
 |
Nampa, ID, USA
Oct 2000
time: 22:12
|
|
I don't think that is the horseman's zone of control, but rather his visual radius. My hope is NOT that ZOC's are based on movement, but on mobility, because it is not likely that a horseman has the same ZOC as a cavalry, and likewise a warriors the same as a marine.
I would at least hope for another unit stat: mobility, which determines that unit's ZOC. If not that, then have their ZOC based on defence as well as movement (ie. based on def*movement, or (def^2)*movement), that way ZOC's aren't entirely determined by movement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
I would have to believe that airdrik is right, simply that the circle is the horseman's sight lines.
Of course it could have something to do with he is in a city and the city is making the circle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chronus
|
|
Hey,
Maybe the Zones of Control can be as follows:
The slower unit has its movement points deducted from the faster unit. The result is the number of moves the faster unit can move when moving through the Zones. For example, a tank (movement of 3) is moving through the zone(s) of control of several riflemen (movement of 1) and can, therefore, move 2 spaces for that turn. If any ONE of the units next to the tank is a cavalry (movement of 2) then the tank's movement for that turn is reduced to one (again when moving through zones of control only). Of course, the slower unit will be unable to move at all through the zones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sabre2th
|
|
Borders are in, yes. We haven't determined exactly how they'll be implementing borders, but we will have them in some form.
Sabre
------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nemo. I also hear somewhere some units no ZOC and small zone for other units.
------------------
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
colossus
|
|
Hong Kong
Nov 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-10-2001 12:54 PM
I am very dubious about this variable ZOC system. ZOC have never been about the ability of a unit to seriously challenge the enemy in a stand up fight where both parties are prepared for battle. It is about the capacity of the enemy to lay ambushes, destroy supplies, mine roads and pull night raids. A tank regiment with all its troops asleep in their tents is just as vulnerable as a Roman cohort to a sneak attack. Just knowing the enemy is "nearby" causes a competent commander to slow down, ensure a significant proportion of the troops are combat ready and alert and send out more scouting patrols or set more night time pickets. Lightly armed guerrillas have shown time and again in this century just how effective they can be against even the best equipped modern troops.
|
Very good points!
Realistically, there is never such a thinh as ZOC blocking movement. A unit can always attempt to move through the ZOC of another unit. But so doing risks being harrassed, ambushed, cut off with supplies and communications, and showered by missile weapons. So units don't move into enemy's ZOC, not because they cannot do so, but that they know its little better than suicide.
My recommendation:
Units exerting ZOC do not block movement. Instead they may inflict damage to units passing through ZOC. The amount of damage should be realate to its attack, firepower, terrain, etc.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
colossus
|
|
Hong Kong
Nov 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
As Civ is not a wargame, we may drop ZOC and the game is perfectly OK. Afterall, even a single tile in a 10000 square world is still an area too large for any units to exert ZOC.
But if we want to incorprate ZOC, we have to face the impossible task of allowing a horseman to face a tank. If we allow the horseman's ZOC to stop a tank, the rules will be simple but do not make sense. Conversely, rules allowing for MP differnece, FP, HP and age(modern units vs medieval ones) would be more realistic but inelegant.
As a compromise, I suggest ZOC to inflict damage. This is resonably simple and realistic. The amount of damage done should be related to strengths of advancer and defender, as well as corresponding HP and FP. Thus should be similar to combat damage although the combat is not foght to the death.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by airdrik on 05-02-2001 12:04 PM
I don't think that is the horseman's zone of control, but rather his visual radius. My hope is NOT that ZOC's are based on movement, but on mobility, because it is not likely that a horseman has the same ZOC as a cavalry, and likewise a warriors the same as a marine.
I would at least hope for another unit stat: mobility, which determines that unit's ZOC. If not that, then have their ZOC based on defence as well as movement (ie. based on def*movement, or (def^2)*movement), that way ZOC's aren't entirely determined by movement.
|
It is certainaly not his range of vision, there are two units, of the same type, each is one "unit" away from the horseman, yet one is clearly inside the red circle while the other is out of it (or at best on the line itself.) This would indicate that it is not his range of vision since both should be the same distance within the circle. What it could be, I'm not sure, too many things that might be in the game have not been revealed to us yet. Of course I'm relying on what I see in the picture. If you're going to say something about the angle of the picture as far as to what lies within the circle, then Firaxis has a lot of work to do, because that picture shows what I've stated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grumbold
|
 |
London, UK
Mar 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by colossus on 05-17-2001 11:16 PM
But if we want to incorprate ZOC, we have to face the impossible task of allowing a horseman to face a tank. If we allow the horseman's ZOC to stop a tank, the rules will be simple but do not make sense. Conversely, rules allowing for MP differnece, FP, HP and age(modern units vs medieval ones) would be more realistic but inelegant.
As a compromise, I suggest ZOC to inflict damage. This is resonably simple and realistic. The amount of damage done should be related to strengths of advancer and defender, as well as corresponding HP and FP. Thus should be similar to combat damage although the combat is not fought to the death.
|
Dealing damage relative to the combat strengths of the units involved is going against the point of a ZoC. To repeat myself: ZOC have never been about the ability of a unit to seriously challenge the enemy in a stand up fight where both parties are prepared for battle. It is about the capacity of the enemy to lay ambushes, destroy supplies, mine roads and pull night raids. A tank regiment with all its troops asleep in their tents is just as vulnerable as a Roman cohort to a sneak attack. The unit exerting a ZoC could be completely incapable of hurting the attacker under normal conditions. Just knowing the enemy is "nearby" causes a competent commander to slow down, ensure a significant proportion of the troops are combat ready and alert and send out more scouting patrols or set more night time pickets.
Lightly armed guerrillas have shown time and again in this century just how effective they can be against even the best equipped modern troops provided they avoid a pitched battle. That is why I believe that the damage option, which is a nice simple way of replacing a movement blocking ZoC, should be a straight percentage dealt to the moving unit, not factored by the normal combat ratings of the units. If the attacker wanted to fight it should be attacking the defender, not bypassing it within its ZoC.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2001 19:32
|