Army 'zone of control'

[West3634]

Soooo, in RTW1 we had ourselves a zone of control of just one tile around an army. As we have moved onto napoleon etc weve seen bigger zones of controls. Personally i would love it if we could keep this as i means that armies are more meaningfull, in the way that in Roma Surrectum i used to use 2 legions to defend North Italy, with a larger zone of control i could intercept anything coming across the alps with just one, if it is well supplied !

I would like to see a bigger zone of control which may depend on things such as roads.

Would YOU personally prefer a small zone of control

A zone of control comparable to Napoleon total war

Or a zone of control in which is dependable on certain campaign map buildings etc, such as roads, ports etc.

[SughdianWarrior]

Wouldn't want it as big as in some mods. But an army having varied zone of control depending on terrain and constructions nearby/occupied is reasonable.

[Razor]

I voted comparable to NTW but I'm not against other parables and factors such as infrastructure or the skill set of the general etc..

I do hope that the range to intercept should generally be bigger than the visual range of incoming armies, who would otherwise bypass the zone of interception. To be completely honest I'm not sure how it's done in ETW/NTW and S2TW exactly.

[West3634]

I really dont want to see some army coming out of nowhere bypassing me and taking cities which may have no defences. Alot of the time i do use defensive armies to counter this, especially at chokepoints such as the alps.

[Condottiere 40K]

Should depend on number and type of units - a cavalry based stack would have a greater radius of influence.

[SughdianWarrior]

Oh yeah, true, cavalry should also make difference and so should the skills of a general and certain attached agents.

[Rorarii]

In realtime you don't have to worry about this weird occurance ..

But as Rome 2 WILL BE turn based stategic then I prefer the method of

ZOC radius = Max move distance - last move distance

So If a unit didn't move much last move, it has a ZOC nearly equal it's max move distance.

Of course the weird thing is ,how will the AI handle this .. ??? I shudder to think .. errrr ..

R

[cevap]

In realtime you don't have to worry about this weird occurance ..

Actually in realtime it would be much worse as armies would bypass you and take the city while youd be adjusting taxes in another province, cav armies would also run circles around your army if it had siege weapons. I imagine intercepting armies would be somewhat similar to hunting routing units

Anyway I think it should depend on infrastructure, generals etc.

[nameless]

In realtime you don't have to worry about this weird occurance ..

On the contrary we'd be wasting our time chasing after units like we do on the real-time tactical map.

But as Rome 2 WILL BE turn based stategic then I prefer the method of

ZOC radius = Max move distance - last move distance

So If a unit didn't move much last move, it has a ZOC nearly equal it's max move distance.

Of course the weird thing is ,how will the AI handle this .. ??? I shudder to think .. errrr ..

R

I believe FOTS already follows that.

[SonOfCrusader76]

I just want the ability to carry out a tactical retreat! This idea that you can't go forwards if in a ZOC, fair enough - but you can't go backwards either! You should be able to retreat, no?

[Asgaroth]

I really dont want to see some army coming out of nowhere bypassing me and taking cities which may have no defences. Alot of the time i do use defensive armies to counter this, especially at chokepoints such as the alps.

I personally hated when the enemy army just bypassed my fort which was sometimes happened even if it was situated in a mountain pass, such as the Alps.

So I would like to see the zone of control bigger.

However the zone would depend as stated by the OP, on the buildings you have. My thoughts are that the roads would play a major importance here as they would lower the time needed for your army to intercept the enemy. Furthermore it should depend whether you have heavy or light infantry as garrison as the light infantry is faster, but also it would depend how much cavalry you have in a army, because the are faster with horses, aren't they ?

So I vote for the option 3.

[Futski]

It should be dependent on things like units, roads/infrastructure and how well supplied the army is. Terrain should also play a role. Rough, rugged terrain and mountains should give a smaller area of intercept/control(Of course if you station troops in a mountain pass, it dosn't matter), while flat plains in a nice climate(aka not desert or Germania in the winter) should give a very large field of control. Cisalpine Gaul along the Po river should be able to be controlled by a single army.

[Nearby]

I think there has to be zone of control because its quite silly to see dirty gauls passing by my army and going in to undefended territory... there has to be a frontline made by the army's..

[AngryTitusPullo]

I woild prefer ZOC base on your ownership level of the buildings. The biggest will be your own province. Newly conquered province will be the smallest ZOC. The longer you hold the province and the more 'romanized' (or whatever faction played) the greater control you have.

[Archimonday]

I think its more important for supply to be included than zone of control. Armies of the day would have positioned themselves in places that allowed them to live off the land, often purchasong supplies from the locals and traveling merchants that followed the armies. This difficulty of supply meant armies had to constantly move, and if one Army could put another in a position whereby they would be denied the provisional movement they needed, that army would either have to turn around, abandon its campaign, or face an enemy in battle directly. This is illustrated by Alexanders campaigns in Anatolia. In addition, armies of the period would have divided to utilize the land to its maximum potential, a ratio of soldiers to civilians that was too high would result in the army exhausting the resources too quickly.

[JOZI]

I like the idea that a ZOC can be determined by the units you have... the only problem I do have is that the AI is going to want to go around no matter how big the ZOC is...its always going to want to avoid a battle it doesn't think it can win...

[oppaiO_O]

like the idea of being able to choose by yourself were you want to retreat and i chose option 3 and i think the generals ability or the legions traits should also make a difference and the terrain like if you're near a road or port you have a greater ZOC but if you're in deep mountains,forest,or deserts and such then your ZOC decreases....

[The Nameless One]

I think zone of control should be proportional to movement points. An all cavalry army that has not moved in the turn should control a larger area than an infantry army that has just marched across the map.

[Condottiere 40K]

If you want to break it down, zone of control involves the ability of the army to intercept the enemy if it passes within a certain distance, the extent of which would depend on the mobility of specific units, or the army as a whole.

[Lockcaps]

I think stealthier units should, if in few enough number, be able to go through zones of control. Obviously not full army's but enough to raid the enemy territory and cause some damage.