Im rather annoyed with the zone of control

[shawn858]

Yep, as the title says, I'm pretty darn annoyed with the zone of control right now, or rather how HUUUUGE they can be. For example, I had two armies trying to siege Mediolanum, they enemy attacked and so for my army I chose to flee instead of fight them, as I was outnumbered. Now, my secondary army I had there assisting with the siege can't move. I can't move them back because its in the enemy zone of control, thus, the only way to get my enemy out of their ZOC is to wait for their army to attack so I can click flee button, but you can't control where your army runs to so they usually end up running into a place where I yet again, cannot move my army to a safer location and its usually a rinse and repeat cycle until my armies get wiped for the sole reason of me not being able to just move my army somewhere else.

I understand the need for a zone of control, I like the zone of control, but jesus christ man, when it's so big that I can't move my guy anywhere in the region it seems a little broken.

EDIT: for some reason the zone of control for mediolanum extends into genua territory a little bit, so even though my secondary army is on the very boarder of genua, not quite in mediolanum, I can't move it into safe territory so it can refresh. will upload pictures soon

[shawn858]

sorry, here's a better picture. as you can see, that ZOC is HUUUUUUGE, so huge, its goes into genua, an ally of mine. I'm on my allied side of the border yet mediolanums ZOC pours into it for some odd reason, thus not letting my army resupply and not letting me walk back ten feet to avoid potential danger. As you can see, my stupid army ran up to octuduron instead of running for allied territory



and for some reason there is also a red zone of control around my own army, not really sure about this one, if anyone could provide any clarity that would be great


Double posts merged.

[Champlain]

@Shawn858: Right click the city to attack, then choose retreat and your stack will move out of the ZOC. Escape route is out of your control as it is a retreat and not an organized advance to the rear.

[Hadro]

The game looks great with the new seasons. And, the above post is correct :I

[Phil2]

I totally agree the zones in europe are too big and some are even covering the whole region. It's even the first time in a total war game (didn't tried Shogun though)...
I would rather prefer smaller one, giving more free fields battles. Only in africa and middle east we have enough space.
I don't think modders could change it, as zones are growing with cities...it should be hard coded imo, as for the automatic retreat path.

[shawn858]

Well hopefully in the future CA does something to this, even if they left the ZOC the same, at least let me decide where my men are retreating to, as it stands right now, they just run willy nilly in whatever direction, which usually ends up with them in a very unopportune position, and most times gets the army destroyed

[Cwenraed]

I have had something also similar, but with two armies (granted this was just before 9.0) but my Roman army got stuck in the Arverni army's zone and their army in mine, but both me and the AI did not want to fight each other, so for a several turns while i built up a second army we were both just sitting there.

I understand why this is the case, but i really really wish there was a button called *Tactical Retreat* rather than run away in terror into the worst position possible.

[MagicCuboid]

Generally I like zones of control because they help the AI get large armies together. However, in this case it can be very annoying. Here's something that's happened during my campaign a few times: I use my army's whole movement to get to a town and then sack it. Your army is normally allowed to ride away after a sack, but mine didn't have enough movement points. The next turn, my army was stuck in its zone of control. My only choice was to sack the poor city again, and then leave. Dirty business, war.

Rather than shrink the zone of control, I just wish an army was allowed to leave a zone of control if it starts its turn in one. That probably can't be changed by us, though

I understand why this is the case, but i really really wish there was a button called *Tactical Retreat* rather than run away in terror into the worst position possible.

I wish this all the time. Maybe with the choice to sacrifice men, but then choose where you want the army to retreat to. That's not to mention the times when the army has "already retreated", even though it only moved about 100 yards away. It's so silly to me, all the Patrician generals who throw their lives away because the retreat button is grayed out. Some of the best battles in history involved well conducted retreats which allowed an army to fight another day.

[Scion of Africanus]

I wonder if it's advisable and even worth it to forward this concern to CA. It considerably limits the strategic features of the game, but, once again, is this really hard-coded into the core of the game without any possibility of a mod fixing it or a patch update fixing it?

[stevehoos]

I wonder if it's advisable and even worth it to forward this concern to CA. It considerably limits the strategic features of the game, but, once again, is this really hard-coded into the core of the game without any possibility of a mod fixing it or a patch update fixing it?

Not without mod tools. I complained about this the first week of release (before I was banned from their propaganda site) never got a response; But at CA.....

[Cope]

Not without mod tools. I complained about this the first week of release (before I was banned from their propaganda site) never got a response; But at CA.....

propoganda site lol.

Also yeah, ZoC is less than ideal in many situations.

[zonks40]

Not without mod tools. I complained about this the first week of release (before I was banned from their propaganda site) never got a response; But at CA.....

The ZOC can be modded, it has been adjusted in the past, and also you will notice a variation between different mods in the size of the ZOC.

[stevehoos]

The ZOC can be modded, it has been adjusted in the past, and also you will notice a variation between different mods in the size of the ZOC.

Correct, but what can't be modded is the fact (unless I am mistaken, Haven't played in a while) that the AI waltzes right through the players' ZOC rendering forts a useless option. Speaking of such, I still can't get over how uninspired the forts are done in this game; must have taken someone a whole 30 minutes to make that scene.

[zonks40]

Correct, but what can't be modded is the fact (unless I am mistaken, Haven't played in a while) that the AI waltzes right through the players' ZOC rendering forts a useless option. Speaking of such, I still can't get over how uninspired the forts are done in this game; must have taken someone a whole 30 minutes to make that scene.

I agree about the forts, what CA did was to use March forts, which the Romans built at the end of the days march, what they should have in the game is the Campaign fort, especially when it takes 6 months of game time to build.
It is also very frustrating when the AI passes through the ZOC, I'm not 100% certain, but I think they are able to do this if they are attacking an army or settlement, it does render a screen around an area useless.

[Butan]

Zone of control is a one size fits all unfortunately there is problems when its small, when its average, when its big... What do you guys think would be best?
But I really prefer anything over the old TW system where you had to be touching an army, literaly a pixel away, to reinforce.


By the way, the path used by a retreating army can be anticipated, if you take into account the angle of attack and the maximum retreat distance: it will travel through everything (except impassable terrain) as if it was normal terrain, and flee directly opposite the entity you are retreating from.




When there is impassable terrain, you will see the retreating army taking roundabout routes, but always end up where it should. There is only two exceptions afaik: when there is multiple "targets" around you, the retreating angle is modified and can give some surprising results; and when the predicted retreat place is impassable terrain itself it will go to the closest passable one.

Retreat is quite OP when you have your back to difficult terrain, because you will move more than anyone can possibly go, making you impossible to pursue. Makes for some "what the " moment, where an army will pass through forests, swim to the other side of a river, and take a little stride around mountains and hills.

Didnt play a DeI campaign for a few months so this could have been changed.

[Epic28]

I hate the large ZOC personally. It's quite frustrating having an enemy army reinforce the AI during one of your assaults thats not even visible within the Fog of War on your campaign map. Feels artificial.

I'd rather make the Fog of War cover the Zone of Control or just go back to the old TW style of one movement point = ZoC.

[Diocle]

'Equation of the Failed Game' by Professor K. von Diocle:

Mega Campaign Map - (Gigantic towns + tons of impassable terrain + gigantic zones of control) = Total Failure = Rome 2

[Ritterlichvon86]

The ZoC is necessary, removing or making it smaller will open a whole new box of problems such as:
- Armies ambushing attackers before every settlement's ZOC kicks in
- the inability to keep armies in the settlement ZOC intended to reinforce the settlement's army + garrison, since it can get attacked from the outside
- more other stuff I don't want to think about now

The solution is simple - if we have a giant army of 2 stacks and retreat right after an attempted attack before contact, we must retreat both parts of that giant army. That way the logical syntax is also correct strategy and gameplay-wise. I think it is intended how it is right now.

By applying equal stati to all armies that take part in an action, we realize also what is missing is that if you have two stacks to besiege one settlement and both are in reinforcement range, both should suffer from attrition, not just the besieging one.

[Butan]

By applying equal stati to all armies that take part in an action, we realize also what is missing is that if you have two stacks to besiege one settlement and both are in reinforcement range, both should suffer from attrition, not just the besieging one.

True, one simple exploit in Rome 2 is to besiege with a fodder army while the elites are waiting a few clicks away if it was possible, it would be realistic that all allied armies in the range of combat suffer attrition, whether the besieging has been ordered by the human or the allied AI.

The solution is simple - if we have a giant army of 2 stacks and retreat right after an attempted attack before contact, we must retreat both parts of that giant army. That way the logical syntax is also correct strategy and gameplay-wise. I think it is intended how it is right now.

Yes... like after losing a battle, all stacks engaged retreats. The problem still subsist that they retreat individually, without keeping their cohesion, and are easily destroyed... IMO, as you suggest, they should all retreat together as soon as one break contact, be it after or before any battle; but they should also do so together and keep their relative distance and stay in each other reinforcement range (that would be a feat, in some parts of the grand campaign map!).

[stevehoos]

Being unable to put a fort at a choke point to block an advancing AI army is an egregious anti-strategy blunder. It's simply retarded, even for some true arcade game; no other deduction is appropriate. Then compounding this is the fact that the player is hindered by that very thing; how cute. Guess that's what you get when you have a bunch of 20 something interns who have never read a history book making decisions, collecting ideas, and throwing them together to form a video game.

The transport ships being unable to ram is a valid idea, (even after 7 DLCs and a year and a half later) but the AI army (non fleet) garrisons will drop the moorings and come out to attack a blockade. Did it not dawn on these programers that this needed to change in the AI or else the idea is mostly null?