My 2 cents - separate the gameplay aspect from the realism aspect, and let the game-play drive the decision. It's a fantasy fictional game and those are written in reverse order of importance.

Game-play wise, defenders need to be able to develop and express classic defensive advantages - interior lines of communication/supply/movement, the ability to prepare and improve terrain for defensive bonuses, and to be able to create and man choke points.

Attackers need to be able to capitalize on the fact that a defender can't be strong everywhere, leverage terrain of their own (if the defender fails to do so or can be drawn out of position), and (going back to #1) have *opportunities* (not guarantees) to be able to bypass choke-points (either by good maneuver or potentially tactical mobility advantages - e.g. horses or magic).

I'm somewhat less concerned as to whether this implies a specific 'zone of control' feature beyond a single 'tile'. It can be addressed with how maps are created (particularly with respect to 'impassable' or restricted-movement terrain), and other map features that factor into tactical combat (I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that controlling the high ground will be factored into combat; add in things like swamps, forests, and the like). If you can identify choke points - and/or potentially create ones where it's reasonable, you've pretty much got what you need for interesting game play (e.g. maybe you can expand a single-'square' fort to 'control' adjacent squares, but you can't *practically* wall off a miles-wide plain (late game magic is always another story - destroying such a wall is also).

Giving some units the ability to 'intercept' is another good way to present a feature LIKE zone-of-control but restrict it to types that make sense; e.g. perhaps an outpost gives all units +1 to visibility range, and also units with 'intercept' (most flying units, light-to-medium cavalry, non-capital warships, etc.) +1 to their intercept range, but it won't confer intercept on units that don't already have it. I like giving the defender the choice to actually intercept or not, though that may be tricky to do since the strategy level is turn-based. If it could be done, I'd like that.

In the end, I think map design is going to do a lot to either demonstrate the need for something like a ZOC attribute, OR to prove that this game won't need anything so mechanical.

Chris

Thanks to the poster above for getting us out of the grognards' den. Fun has to trump realism, so let's not worry about how it works or worked in real life

Intercepting in a zone of control is a great idea, though as mentioned tough to figure out in a turn based overland. A way to do this that I've seen before (don't remember the title and am slacking off on break at work, so can't look it up) is to shade an area (it was toggle-able so you didn't have to see all the circles all the time) and if you pass through that area, you're prone to being attacked or harried. Designating a unit as an active defender tells it to create a ZoC and protect that zone proactively. Of course, in the game, the way to game the system was to pull a unit left, say, with a diversion and let the main force bear right when the defender had used its movement; I would have loved to be able to decide which unit to intercept. But something like that, even though it involves moving the active defender and losing tile bonuses, is a great idea to implement a ZoC that's not absolutely arbitrary (you can choose to move through it, but you'll pay in blood) and yet also gives some defensive strategy. Makes tank / healer unit pairs monstrous for cutting off chokepoints, of course.

And since there's some animosity about the whole Rock, Paper, Scissors thing, (and I've not yet this post said anything original to the thread ;_; ) may I humbly suggest we use a slightly more complex, yet patently pellucid advantage system... Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock?

Just make it simple.From war games ZoC and overruns behave like this:

When a unit enters a Zone of Control it must stop movement, even if it has remaining movement points. Except to attack the enemy unit. So any unit exerts a ZoC, units in forts just make it less interesting to attack it.

Overrun,  when you enter a ZOC and kill the enemy unit, wining by X%. You have completely demolished the enemy and can keep moving. Otherwise movement is done.

I'd rather be able to set units to ambush.

ZOC is nice and all, but you can't have small skirmisher units hiding in ambush, or just plain hiding no matter what.  You can't set up screens in front of your defenses to come at the invading army from behind and cut off retreat, or disrupt the supply lines after they pass.

ZOC alone is just too simple.

allowing an army to hide in ambush (this would be cool)

allowing a hidden screen that purposely lets the army pass, and then attacks from the rear when battle with a second force commences (this would be cool)

allowing for a small defensive (scouting force) to retreat (would be nice)

allowing for a well equipped/well prepared defensive force to exert a Zone of Control ... whereby all potential attackers passing through the area would be forced to face the defending army in a tactical battle (with "supply" bonuses) if the defending army, after seeing the attacking army, so chooses to engage them in combat. (that would be cool)

Having stealth armies that can move around on the map relatively hidden, invisible to the opposition and immune to ZOC (this would be cool)

If there are any "concealment" units in the game, you can hide them in the nearby woods and use them to attack the enemy units that come near. You don't need any additional game rules for that. I'm against adding new and complicated rules.

I think a simple ZOC system (like units haveing to stop when coming near enemy units) would be good. Also the tactical combat should have something like ZOC (like the "attacks of opportunity" in AoW).

I like the "intercept" idea a little more than the ZOC.  Either might be better than nothing.Agree with Zentax that "I think map design is going to do a lot to either demonstrate the need for something like a ZOC attribute, OR to prove that this game won't need anything so mechanical".

Ambushes sound nice, but I was disappointed by they way they worked in Rome:TW.  If they can't implement them better somehow, don't do them at all.

A switch on armies to disable auto-engage isn't additional game rules. It's not even something you'd want to be ambush specific.

You're not likely to want to auto-engage large armies from the safety of your fort.  Not unless you get to attack them from it.  A system that forced it would really bite.

On the other hand, under a decent concealment system, armies will be more easily viewed from up close than afar.  A small force trying to slip past your border patrols for a raid would be something you'd like to nab.  If only undetected armies could ambush, a high recon force would always be able to pass through as they'd spot the defender just as easily.

A switch would be simple.  Complicated would be trying to code all the different scenarios.

You don't even need an "auto engage" system, merely there is a pop-up (for the defender) every time an army comes into range of your ZOC army. (on the attacker's turn). The attacker's move pauses when his unit comes into range of the ZOC, thats when pop-up happens, and you make a choice. Then either battle happens, or you decide NOT to fight, and then the attacker's turn continues.

If you DO fight, afterwards you are auto-placed back into your ZOC position, wether it be "fort", "camp", or just an empty tile.

Granted it is a fantasy game, at the same time reality has a lot of inspirational material. Detailed models do provide a lot of emergent strategy and simply looking at what would happen "in real life" gives us reasons why particular strategies would and would not work.

And simply because something is "realistic" does not mean it's complex. Realistic simply means things resolve in a believable way. There is a sweet spot where "realism" intersects with "simplicity", IMO.

While I agree that realism is a good thing, why should we strive for "simplicity" and shun complexity?  Complexity is a good thing, IMO.  This is a strategy game, not candyland!  Complexity often leads to diverse and unique strategies, and endless possibilities.  Look at Dwarf Fortress: even though its still an unfinished alpha, people have done some incredibly awesome things with its extremely complex systems, it's been all that I've been playing while waiting for Beta 2.

For example: Mermaid farming.    Because of the obscene valus of mermaid bones in the game, one player captured and bred mermaids for their bones.  If the game had been simplified and abstracted, this, and many other projects would not have been possible.

In fact, the combat system in that game is amazing: it even tracks organs, bones, and even teeth:  if one of your dwarfs loses an arm, it's gone forever, a leg, they'll need a crutch, making you think twice before you put a powerful hero into a dangerous situation, he might never recover fully.  With HP systems, you can go down to 1 HP, and be fresh as a daisy, after some recovery time.

And so, I see no reason complexity should be shunned, it may take longer to learn the game, but after you do, it shall be far more rewarding.

I'm not saying we should make Elemental as complex as Dwarf Fortress, that would be incredibly difficult and time-consuming, but we should embrace complexity with open arms.

Though if it weren't an almost unattainable goal, I'd say make it at least as complex as Dwarf Fortress.    Though I'd probably be the only person to ever play it. . .

Brains!!!.....uuurrrrgggnnnn *insert hungry Zombie noise here*.....BRAINS!!!!!

About time we get some more smart people around here. Welcome to the club, brother.

OK, I'll try to continue the discussion about simplicity and complexity that started in another thread.

I guess your "club" will have to make its own mod, which complicates things as much as possible  The normal game is going to be quite simple, which is good for me. I prefer diversity over complexity - the basic rules should be simple, but there should be many things to "explore" in the game - units (or unit components), spells, NPCs, items and so on, with their own special abilities. A good example is the "Magic: the Gathering" card game, I think it's not a coincidence that the information cards in Elemental look much like the MtG cards.

Some ideas posted at this forum are really too complicated to be worth implementing. Remember that Stardock is a company which purpose it to make money, so they won't implement anything that probably won't be interesting for a wider audience. I have nothing against realism, but it shouldn't be the only reason to add a new feature to the game - it should be also fun. And I think that if you need to write a "wall of text" to explain your idea, it's probably not worth adding to the game 

Another thing is the AI - adding a new feature might seem easy to do, but the hardest part is to "teach" the AI to use it, which can take much more "engineering hours" (as Frogboy says) than implementing the feature itself.

lol true, and well said. Also though don't forget that to many people, Diversity IS Complexity. I don't think the basic game mechanics should be over-complicated. I do think they should be Fun, of course. Game-play needs to take the forefront. If it's not Fun to play none of the other parts matter. Same as with the AI in-fact. If it's not smart enough to challenge the player it won't be "fun", and so none of the other cool things it can do will matter.

I won't argue for Complexity for Complexity's sake, only for Funner (More Fun?) game-play. I didn't mean that to come off like I was saying people who don't like complexity are stupid or anything, they aren't. No worries