Zone of Control again.

**Modestus** · March 25, 2009, 11:48 AM

Right as some of you know I have been looking at Zone of Control for armies and settlements trying to understand as best I can why some tactical maps that are being generated appear to be incorrect

Some evidence of this is experienced by the player when reinforcements arrive from the wrong side? or they are intercepted by the AI from a settlement and find themselves on a battlefield with a fort?

As far as I can tell if you are intercepted by the AI from a settlement because your army has entered its ZOC and that city has a fort the same map will be generated. So whatever your position is on the campaign map relative to the settlement if you are intercepted from a settlement with a fort the Game will generate the same tactical map.

I have tested Konigsberg and , every interception at the ZOC marked X generated the same map.

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Settlements without forts seem to have a greater variation in maps

Some observations,

First these battles are incorrectly described as interceptions they are not. The maps that are being generated are what we now understand as being the only type of settlement map in the game either a fort or a small village\town . On the campaign map you are being intercepted but the tactical map that is being generated is the same one that would be used for a siege.

The best way to illustrate this would be to imagine that your army has been intercepted 20 miles outside London on a river crossing but when the game generates the tactical map there is no river and you are now 2 miles outside the London in a village, the same village that you would have to fight in if there was an attempted breakout from a siege.

Secondly it seems that quite often if you are intercepted from a settlement (with or without a fort) that your army is nearly always incorrectly deployed between the main settlement (city in the distance) and the fort\village , look behind your army.

Finally and rather strangely these maps do affect reinforcements. Reinforcements will arrive on the tactical map relative to their position on the campaign map. This is why reinforcements appear to be incorrect, in fact they are correct and its the first armies deployment that is incorrect.

To illustrate this I will use London again, imagine that your army has been intercepted 20 miles outside London on a river crossing but this time you have reinforcements near by. When the game generates the tactical map there is no river and you are now 2 miles outside London in a village.
Your first army is deployed incorrectly with its back to London but since the reinforcing army is approaching London on the campaign map they will arrive correctly in the rear of the enemy.

Not sure if this is happening in all interceptions but judging from comments made about reinforcements it does appear to be the case.

**~~Norpheus~~** · March 25, 2009, 11:50 AM

Considering how many maps we have on multiplayer, I wouldnt doubt if there was a few in singleplayer aswell...

**Kudro** · March 25, 2009, 01:26 PM

I wonder if this is something Darth could address in his mod? As frustrating as this problem is, it doesn't sound like it would be terribly difficult to fix.

**Bob the Insane** · March 25, 2009, 02:08 PM

You know, I am almost convinced all the issues we see with reinforcements and deployment positions on maps is all related to the game mixing up the attackers and defender's positions on the campaign map when generating the battlefield.

I think it bases any battle on the campaign map position of the attacking army but sets up the battlefield deployment as if it was the position of the defending army (assuming the attacker is the defender). I think the mistake here is that it should be using the defending army's Campaign map position.

In the above case of interception the attacking army is in the settlement so you get a settlement battlefield...

This is all a big guess on my part of course...

**Angrychris** · March 25, 2009, 02:16 PM

zone of control is not my friend

**CDMan477** · March 25, 2009, 02:30 PM

Perhaps this will be addressed in the game play update. I'm actually more disappointed in the limited reinforcements (i.e. not having multiple armies availible if possible for each side at once like RTW and M2TW) than which direction they appear from although it is rather annoying.

**worm00** · March 25, 2009, 04:40 PM

I don't think the "mixup" of attacker's and defender's positions is in fact a mistake. I think the rationale an "en passant" thing: your attacking army attempts to march next to the enemy, passing "behind" him; then the enemy figures it and somehow (abracadabra) forces a confrontation. Thus you have to attack, but the enemy is now "behind" you.

An explanation is that the would be cutting off your supply line, you are forced to turn around and face them.

If we accept this explanation, this means you should only enter anybody's zone of control if you are so much stronger that he will either not force a battle, or you don't care if he does.

Although this is a somewhat satisfactory explanation for me, it doesn't really justify the forts... Unless you think of the zone of control as a dynamic "risk type" (or shogun or medieval) type map. That would make sense -- if in the fort maps the reinforcements appear "correctly" (is that the case? I don't know). Surely, it can't be said that you tried to pass by the fort, went behind it, and then had to fight...

**Kudro** · March 25, 2009, 06:20 PM

On the contrary, I do believe it is a mistake. And quite a big one at that. For me, this issue completely voids the strategic movement of my army on the campaign map. If I place my army on a bridge, and I am engaged by someone trying to cross...the battle map does not render me as defending that bridge, but somewhere far away from the bridge. I don't want to have to carefully move my troops so that the edge of the ZoC is touching the bridge, I want my army's position to correspond on the battle map where it is on the campaign map, just like it has in RTW and M2TW. If the developers intended it to be the way it currently is (which I highly doubt), then a tutorial or the manual should have fully explained how it works. Modestus appears to be spot on with his assessment of what's really going on with the ZoC issue.

**priam11** · March 25, 2009, 06:32 PM

It has got to a point that I will completely avoid battles with medium to strong reinforcements as they will be directly behind me.

**Modestus** · March 25, 2009, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Kudro

On the contrary, I do believe it is a mistake. And quite a big one at that. For me, this issue completely voids the strategic movement of my army on the campaign map. If I place my army on a bridge, and I am engaged by someone trying to cross...the battle map does not render me as defending that bridge, but somewhere far away from the bridge. I don't want to have to carefully move my troops so that the edge of the ZoC is touching the bridge, I want my army's position to correspond on the battle map where it is on the campaign map, just like it has in RTW and M2TW. If the developers intended it to be the way it currently is (which I highly doubt), then a tutorial or the manual should have fully explained how it works. Modestus appears to be spot on with his assessment of what's really going on with the ZoC issue.

Well I presume you are referring to an earlier thread but I believe now that in the main ordinary\open battles between armies including interceptions are reasonably OK. Of course its very hard to tell however if you factor in the influence of a settlement things go pear shaped.

The best solution is the obvious one, generate a map at the point where your army is intercepted , the terrain and the reinforcements should reflect your real position on the campaign map.

**aeoleron9** · March 25, 2009, 09:22 PM

I'm always puzzled by the fort-intercept battles...what's the reasoning behind it anyway. You want to march past a fort, you get intercepted, and for some reason it turns out to be a siege battle. What did the fort just magicked itself to block your way or something?

**Frederf** · March 26, 2009, 12:08 AM

Can someone explain to me how intercepting works? I've run through enemy ZOCs many times and never been intercepted and vice versa. Under what conditions is the interrupt ability available?

**aeoleron9** · March 26, 2009, 12:43 AM

1. The AI can decide not to intercept if the odds are not in its favor. Problem is it doesn't take account of reinforcements, so you can goad it to attack your lone unit which is backed by a huge stack.

2. If it's an attack move, like if you're attacking something behind the ZoC, you can't be intercepted in my experience. Yep, it kinda beats the very purpose of ZoC, which is to intercept enemy attacks. I think it's a bug.