This info would only be available for the Player with the Fortress, about the enemy army that has approached near said fortress. (or Watch Tower)

This isn't an accurate picture of siege warfare at all. Sieges were filthy, filthy affairs in which the attackers waited for the defenders to die of horrible diseases because the sanitation in those places was terrible. It wasn't a cakewalk for the attackers, either, but at least their supply lines weren't cut, so they had access to something other than well-water and pickled crap. The attackers would launch dead animals over walls to infect the defenders. The defenders would get killed just the same by sniping bowmen. Sure, in modern times we have flushing toilets and canned peaches which help out in a bombshelter, but our ancestors had no such advantage. In a battle of attrition, the defenders of a fortification will always lose if they just stay put. Simply put, the attacker has a means of getting supplies and the defenders do not.

In that respect, the amount of damage a catapult can do to soldiers in a siege is sort of irrelevant. They're not there to kill people (though they can), just to take down walls. Disease is the real killer.

On a gameplay standpoint, why would you punish the sieging army by giving defenders a fortification bonus when they sally forth to attack an enemy? That's quite odd. To me, this makes as much sense as giving the attackers a bonus when assaulting a fortress. You're going onto enemy controlled territory, you don't get a  bonus. I'm not suggesting a penalty either. It just seems odd. I also imagine this getting exploited: With what you are suggesting, it's in the defender's best interest to always retreat to a fortress, then when the enemy lays siege, to sally forth for the fortification bonus. How is this balanced? How does this make sense?

OK I concede. When the Tech called 60x Zoom Binoculars is implement, then we can positively identify what stats a "General" unit has while staying inside the Fortress.

Magicwilnz i have this to say. While their sallying out their Bowmen and Their balista or other armaments are firing from behind their backs down on their enemies also its their land they know it better then the opposition and ontop of that whom say's they'll sit inside and wait? what if they have men all over the area in small posts and in bunker like positions or foxholes waiting and then attack on all sides?

Different tactics=Different bonuses that could be decided by whom is fort commander.

hehe ... its not 60x zoom Binoculars, its spies and infiltrators

Uh... I don't really get exactly what you are trying to say but the drift I get is that the defending army should get a bonus because they know the terrain better and because of entrenchments and secret bases outside of the castle. Personally, I don't really see that. This was not the time of widespread fortifications, bunkers and entrenchments. I assume military forces outside of castles would be town guard and I don't really see them as elite strike force. That being said, bonuses from terrain familiarity seem more like a unit ability rather than a bonus from having a fort in the area.  If a player wants to invest in elite strike forces that destroy siege engines and can sneak in terrain I don't see this as a problem but I don't think it should be a bonus from having a castle.

Fortifications are useful as a base of operations and for tying up the enemy in sieges while the defender's forces rally a relief force. Using them offensively in a way that you suggest I think is neither realistic nor balanced. What you're suggesting reminds me of the preparations the British made for a possible invasion from Germany, though guerrilla action like that was designed just to harass German occupiers and not stop them, and definitely not appropriate for medieval warfare. Hit-and-run tactics would work, but this should be simulated in the tactics used in battles and not as a bonus.

I said dependent on their commander/champion whom is appointed to managing the castle and surrounding land.

Also Fortifications do provide men with better rest  and higher quality food then men on the march therefore a bonus.

Also the land its self oughta cause attrition around a castle because many people tend to settle around them *even if only farmers and simple villages* and these people often caused mild attrition to armies passing through as they assisted defenders in different often unconventional methods.

Also this is a period after the total destruction of life people cling to their empire and offer unyielding support inexchange for food and shelter tell me do you think those men will not fight harder on their own soil? and that the peasants or villagers will not actively resist occupation? the Sovreign is responsible for all of them even being able to survive he is like their God therefore i believe any occupier will have a hard time taking land from any other SOV.

What you are talking about are basically supply lines. Armies cut off from supplies should suffer attrition. Well supplied armies should not. Well supplied attackers should not suffer attrition for no reason. Attrition for the defenders is inevitable.

Attrition for attackers is inevitable if theres a hostile local populace or a well skilled commander. Besides also some Sovs or races/empires might love extream climates that normal troops cannot stand.

If hostile denizens are such a problem, why not just have sporadic revolts? I guess there are possibilities of "incidents" where soldiers get randomly murdered by townsfolk (but I think more likely is that the soldiers randomly murder townsfolk) but I'm not sure this should be simulated as "attrition" from a gameplay standpoint.

Personally I would just like to see a Computer player that cannot enter you ZoC without declaring war. Especially since those pissy little bastards always scream at me the second one of my units try to cross thier precious ZoC and forces me to declare war just to keep exploring.

I don't really like the idea of "zones of control" because it basically makes areas impassible for no reason other then the enemy has a unit parked there. The only way past is to attack that unit which doesn't make sense cause it's like if the enemy has a fort on the mountain next to a valley why do I have to scale the mountain and attack fort in order to go through the valley?

It gives to much power to defending units as they get all the bonuses of their good defensive position while forcing the enemy to engage. Not only is it unrealistic it's not a very good implementation of a strategic element.

The point of having key fortifications at strategic points was as a staging point to keep a fighting force well supplied to counter advancing armies. So like in the example above if someone wanted to pass through the valley next to the mountain fort the defenders could choose to let them pass or they could come out of the fort and attack them. They didn't force the invaders to attack them by being there and they curtaining didn't prevent them from passing by. The invading forces were often more concerned with getting flanked though as if they left that force behind them when they were engaged in a later battle those forces in the fort might follow them and hit them hard.

The other point of those forts was if the invaders didn't take them then their advancing army would be cut off from supplies because the fort's defenders could easily launcher attacks on any supply convoys enroute to the invading forces. This as well as the flanking threat is what I think they originally were trying to show in Civ and other games that have done zones of control. The problem is the mechanic is very cumbersome and doesn't do a good job of implementing it.

Rather then doing zones of control I think a much better approach would be to have a "patrol" option for your units. Any enemy unit that moves from one adjacent space to another adjacent space next to the unit on patrol gives the unit the option to attack that enemy unit. In order to balance things out the unit on patrol should have at least 1 movement space left so they don't try to abuse it by moving as far as they can to land next to someone and potential get a free move out of it.

That's because usually in a TBS game, defending units are bad. Particularly units defending space that isn't a city. It's too easy for attacking forces to simply go around any defense that isn't a city garrison. Forts in particular are lousy for that reason, there's almost never a reason to attack one.

ZoC mechanics make those defenses and defensive buildings useful, because an attacker simply can't walk right by them.

furthermore, area of control means that the defending unit has the opportunity to attack, not necessarily that the attacking army has to invade the fortress.

Nevertheless, after the defenders attack and route your army, they immediately return to their fortress.

Not sure what you mean by defending units are bad? Typically defending units are pretty good and they benefit even more from city garrisons. If you mean the player is using weaker units to defend their city and relying on the defense bonuses then that's more the player's choice then the game issue. Often range units like archers get a larger bonus then being out in the open but that's only natural as they have cover so they don't get mowed down in hand to hand. I think you'd need to cite specific examples as bad balance is not really an excuse for adding a poor mechanic.

So far I haven't really seen ZoC matter that much in games that it's been in. It's often still easy to simply find a route around the ZoC so that it's little more then a minor annoyance. In the end it often does little other the exploit weak AI which isn't smart enough to figure a way around. So the AI is forced to attack as intended by the ZoC but in MP most other players simply go around.

And Defensive buildings are useful. If your enemy chooses to ignore the force you park there you can then use it to flank them. I know in Civ I often build a fort near the front line of a hostile nation. That way I can park a good size stack of units there. If we do go to war and their attacking force ignores the fort which they often do I have most of those units head into their territory and either begin pillaging or sacking less defending cities. I often have enough defenses of my own on the front line cities they attack that I don't need to recall the fort units.

In some cases though I use the fort units as flanking positions with the fast moving Calvary to hit the weakened enemy forces after their failed siege. Or hit small groups of straggler units that they are trying to move up to the front line which is sieging my city. The point is that I use forts as they have typically been used which is more as staging points then as a means of actually blocking enemy advancement. Capturing forts was often key because armies didn't want to get flanked while retreating like I do with my calvary after units fail in a siege and are retreating. They also needed a place to rest if they did fall back which is also what I use it for so my forces can heal up without needing to go all the way back to my cities which could be 6+ or so turns round trip.

Yes I know Calvary aren't a "defense" unit but the point is your suppose to have a mix. It's suppose to a game like paper, rock, scissors. And complaining that your rock keeps getting surrounded by paper doesn't help the argument it's not balanced. Especially since most units like catapults, cannons, and such that are good at sieging tend to be really slow in most TBS games.

If your in such a bad position that you can't strike back at the enemy at all then your just like some of the countries in the past who had to fortify themselves in their castles while raids pillaged their lands and then wait for them to leave. And just like in RL history your defensive army is stuck holding it's position. You need to either wait till they weaken themselves from sieging or bring a force to meet them on the field of battle to prevent them from pillaging your land.

No what he refers to is defensive units cannot attack at a distance or even harass invaders.

Also Rock Paper Scissor's is a rather stupid dynamic to use for real strategy sure pikemen are good against calvary and sure bowmen are good versus pikemen or swordsmen but they don't always trump eachother...i never liked those dynamics.

And in RL most raiders and sieges were stopped or impeded by defenses placed at strategic locations and soldiers whom utilized their knowledge of the land defensive moral advantages and the fact that they had access to large stockpiles of supplys whereas invaders needed supplylines.

Often times a small band of raiders or bandits could impede a wareffort by cutting off the supply chain for even a week.

not only this but calvary were often used defensively to intercept enemy supplylines with quick hit and run attacks and raids.

If you want to simulate this, then you should have players making raider units and cutting supply routes, rather than just having a bonus for simply having a fortress in the area.

^ This, exactly.

Defensive units are bad not because they're actually "bad units", but because defending anything that isn't a city in your standard TBS is useless. You can't stop me from simply going around your defensive units. In order to stop me, you have to attack, at which point *I* am the defender and I get the defensive bonuses in the engagement. Forts in particular are largely pointless because unless you somehow get lucky with a map with a natural choke point (or in Elemental you create one that I can't undo for some reason), I've got no reason to ever attack the fort. With that in mind the best defenders outside of a city are actually strong attacker units.

ZoC lets you create a defensive garrison at a fort that is actually capable of defending the surrounding territory. With a reasonably sized force you should be able to exert a ZoC over a 5 tile radius, which makes going around possible but drastically less practical (and if I build enough forts and garrisons i can protect my entire trade route).

Yep I agree with tridus i want to be able to station forts at all of my borders and roads..even if its expensive a spreadout defensive military is better to me particularly if well equiped trained and mobile *with horses and scouts* then afew large armies roaming about.

And indeed i believe forts with scouts or horsemen or even just a mobile defensive force could exert control over several miles of territory Simply because their's always afew men patrolling enough to send a message back to the fortress...or to go with the magical approach theirs always a creature or a mystical orb etc. something to know the enemy is coming and counteract them.

Rock, Paper, Scissors is one of the fundamental concepts of gaming and nearly every good game that has any kind of strategy element is based on its concept. The only alternative is a linear progression and that is boring since it's simply a matter of bit the unit that is better then all others.

I think the problem is your misunderstanding the concept. Rock, Paper, Scissor is an example of the concept in most extreme form and often used as a reference when referring to the basic concept. And that concept is that everything is strong against something while being weak against another. Thus everything has a counter in which equal numbers will win out. So like in the case of Calvary vs Pikemen with a battle of 1v1 the Pikemen will win. But if the odds change to 2v1 then the extra Calvary could turn the battle in their favor. Also other things like terrain, flanking, and etc can be added to the mix. But the premise still remains in a normal 1v1 fight the Pikemen will come out on top.

The smaller the gap in terms of advantage one unit has over another means picking the right unit becomes less important. And thus strategy in the game becomes less important and things degrade into a simple matter of numbers. Which side has more units wins rather then which side executes a better strategy to counter the other person's strategy. And if it comes down to nothing more then the number of units it's an exercise in better economy management not warfare.

But that's the thing. You do have to go to the enemy and you do become the attacker. This is how it is in RL. If someone wants to avoid a fort they simply go around it. They know the enemy forces have to come out to face them. The defense bonus you get is because of the fortified walls but you have to leave the safety of those fortifications to strike out at the invaders.

In fact attacking the sieging army is often how sieges had to be broken. Either the defender would get reinforcements or the attacking army would of weakened itself enough that the defending forces feel confident enough to come out of their fortified positions and charge the enemy.

Even with scouts all it did was notify the fort occupants of enemy positions in case they wanted to launch an attack. This can simply be achieved by having units in the fort get a Vision bonus to clear out the FoW.

I think the problem in part is people hear of historic warfare and how one army had to take some fort, or pass, or such before they could continue on to another city or such. So they want to create that element in the TBS games with their forts hold the front line. The problem is the reasoning behind why that historical battle took place isn't present in the game. Armies had to take forts along their route through enemy territory because they were often near the roads and even a small garrison of troops could use their scouts to spot supply convey's and intercept them. This would leave the bulk of the army without supplies such as food. In order to secure their supply lines they had to take out the enemy fortifications.

I've always thought it would be interesting if a game actually implemented supply lines for armies. This would prevent armies from simply running deep into your territory and attacking the least defended city on the other side of your empire. A common tactic by players but dumb AI usually hit front line cities which are better defended. I've seen some games try it but their execution was so bad it was like why bother? Such as a unit that simply given unlimited supplies to who ever is with it. When it comes down to it though the real problem is the lack of supply lines mechanic. Because ZoC can always be gotten around they only increase how far around the enemy has to go. Plus they rely heavily on you finding just the right position to take advantage of them. Otherwise it's just a worthless mechanic that sees no use.

That's true. The forts exist in the game, but the mechanics to make the forts useful don't exist. So they're generally a waste of time. People want stuff like ZoC to fix the waste of time part, and because there's no way in most games to automate defending your territory very effectively. You can't take 500 units and say "hey defend this border", because they'll stand in a tile or two and guard that.

In that sense, it doesn't matter how accurate to RL it is. It's a game solution to a game problem.

Another approach to making forts valuable without zoc would be to make forts have more than one use.  Some possible uses would be:

- training troop

- allow units to be set to intercept which would allow them to respond to an army that enters their zoc and attack... maybe even with a bonus.  Thus forts don't just influence one hex, but a hex and all surrounding hexes

- some wargames have a concept of wintering... If the weather turns bad and you arn't in a fort you take attrition because of deserters, disease etc..  You could implement this a number of ways in elemental.  Units might get a bonus to maintenance cost because they are cheaper to maintain in forts for example

- allow some remote buildings that would be protected by the fort like mines, farms, etc...

- Have some spells that need forts to work like portals

- give some bonus like prestige or gold for having forts since they are a symbol of military might

- have forts provide a large view area and reduce the view area of troops so it becomes cost efficient to build them

I'm sure we could come up with a huge list of these types of things to make forts have value.  Not that I'm against zoc as a mechanic.  I've seen it implemented well in may games, but it has to be an integral part of the movement and combat system... not a bolt on.

 This has been an interesting read, topic and discussion.  Gonna throw my hat into the flames.  I had a chance to visit and go to school in England for a time.  Of course, enjoying fantasy and all that stuff I really loved exploring the castles and keeps.  The town I stayed in had a very small tower keep in roughly the center of town.  This is in Guildsford.  It was placed there by William the Bastard AKA The Duke of Normandy AKA William the Conqueror AKA William 1st King of England.  You can read a decent amount of material about him in wikipedia.  It was one of the first, but not the first fortification that he built and would continue to build throwout his lifetime.  Most of the castles in England built by William were for one purpose only.  To demoralize and break the surrounding inhabitants into complete and total subjugation.  They were built to intimidate.  They succeeded overwhelmingly.  There might of been a couple tough fights in parts of Wales. 

  So what I think is that there were castles built with ZoC(like the ones above that William had created).  They were used in a more offensive role than maybe some other castles built in europe or elsewhere for defensive purposes.  Castles became less of a measure of subjugation and more of a center for administration when the town or outlying areas they protected or covered turned into cities.  The little Keep of Guildford is now very much hidden from view because of the large surrounding city that engulfed it(it is still wonderful to check out if you go there).  Its also next to the Lewis Carrol museum.

  Anyways, I think the idea of a ZoC mechanic or some method of devising a sphere of influence around a castle of fortress is a great idea.  I don't have anything to offer better than the previous posters on this subject for now..  

William the Bastard, One of the stars of pretty much the best book in my personal collection "Badass!"