When I said "a single archer", I was thinking more of other games where a single unit represents like a company of men or whatever.  I forgot that this game actually keeps track of how many individual men are in a unit.  I did not mean a single guy in a fort should project much if any power onto the surrounding tiles of the map.  heh

Could take this one step further even.  If you used your Sov in a fort, maybe he could lay Magical Traps nearby to wreak some extra havoc...  That sounds like it could be pretty neat.

Are you suggesting that we use the unit(s) Map Footprint to determine ZoC's?

Aren't most traditional forts made at choke points in natural terrain, or with greater resources spent a wall is made to artifically mimic this?

I mean if you want to make a fort out in the middle of a plain then why can't I just ride past the fort and go burn down the city further down the road?  Here in the US forts on the plains were used mostly to protect the soldiers based there I believe, and as a base of operations.

I support the chokepoint type of forts.

Otherwise you can get to the tactic most of you are saying by having stealth and sabatage at night, ambushes, etc. in the game as an action during your turn.

Yes you could ride past it in the middle of the plains - assuming there is room to ride around (maybe 2 squares away from the fortification instead of waltzing right through the squares right next to it).  Defensible choke points and protecting resources or other strategic assets right next to a fortification are exactly what I am hoping for.

The real advantage potentially would be to have a force fortified behind enemy lines. If a superior invasion force circumvents the fortification, the force can wreak some havoc, cut supply lines, rally from a safe spot. Otherwise the invading force will expend themselves in a lengthy siege or a costly assault. Forcing (or luring) defenders out of a castle would be an extremely interesting strategy. I don't see why a force that sallies forth should keep its fortification bonus.

They shouldn't keep their fortification bonus.  They should get a different, smaller bonus for being in the immediate vicinity of a Fort, for any number of reasons.  It could be providing ranged support, it serves as a fall-back position for your units, and since you'd hopefully only be building Forts in or very near your territory, when an enemy invades your kingdom/empire, your troops should fight with increased fervor to protect whatever it is they have worth protecting, else they wouldn't be in the Fort in the first place.  Now, from a realism stand-point, each individual troop would have their own personal reasons, but that's just an abstract concept.  As far as the game goes, it only matters that they have something worth protecting to them, and should be reflected in the math.

By that same token, troops in enemy territory should be able to become exhausted or starved via attrition, unless they've secured a supply line to their troops.  Even then though, being far away from home, constantly under duress from opposing forces, and a plethora of other things could factor into why your troops are getting bummed and bogged down.

Building again on Seth's suggestion though...  If the Fortified Heroes can proffer bonuses to the troops in the same fortification or on nearby tiles, then Attacking Heroes should be able to get bonuses to the end of laying waste to their enemies...  I.E., increased Siege capabilities, reduced attrition penalty, etc etc.  This would cause the specialization of Heroes, which may or may not be a good thing.  If implemented well though, it has the potential to be a fantastically amazing system that's relatively straight-forward, yet still provides a depth of strategy and tactics.

Well forts take time to build, and you need a way to protect your workers while they build it.  In real life this also includes resources and logistics that need to be extended and protected to build fortifications.  Many/most games don't allow you to build fortresses in enemy territory as a simple way to abstract these problems.

However that being said, anybody who lets the enemy build a fortress behind their battle lines DESERVES to be pummeled and suffer like they have a dozen bleeding hemorrhoids! 

That being said, I agree with you: you SHOULD be able to lure troops out of fortified positions.  All I am saying is that a fortified troop should not ALWAYS (or even usually) be forced to abandon their fortifications in order to have any useful effect in the surrounding area.  There should be a decent advantage to fortified forces in most situations, but there should ALSO be ways to reduce or mitigate those advantages with the right tools and/or circumstances...

Except that, as I already stated, there are any number of reasons why you -should- get a bonus.  Furthermore, a sallying army should ALWAYS get a bonus on the grounds that, whilst the enemy's been laying siege to the fort, stuck out in bad weather, sweltering heat, and enemy fire from Siege Emplacements and Arrows, the Sallying Army has been sitting inside dry Barracks', Eating well-prepared food, and has access to drinks other than the murky water from the nearby river, which gets polluted every night because the Sallying Army keeps sending men to it to dump feces and only God knows what else into it.

The reasons I don't just suggest penalties for the attacking are, 1) As already stated, Players like Bonuses better, 2.) It helps to keep the Math involved for the player simplified if all they have to do is add instead of add and subtract or any number of mathematical equations, for each bonus and penalty applied, and 3) It forces the attackers to bring a larger army than they would need otherwise, which when dealing with a Siege, should always be the case anyway.  If you look at the Civilization model, they handled this very poorly by allowing Siege free-reign over destroying the enemies defenses, and therefore, nullifying their fortification bonus.  After that, you could have your siege actually attack and damage many/all the units in a tile, which should also be a statistical impossibility.  The amount of rounds a catapult would need to fire to damage EVERY unit would be staggering, and utterly unrealistic/unfeasible.  The problem is, if you don't proffer a bonus to the Sallying Army, then they'll never get to the point where they can actually destroy the Catapults and attempt to break the Siege, giving the Attacking Army a great deal of impunity in their actions, since the Sallying Army really can't do anything about them being RIGHT THERE at their front friggen door.

Goodness knows if there ever were actually a Zombie Apocolypse, and a group of Zombies were sitting at my door, I'd first pick as many off as I could with my Rifle, then burst out my front door, machete's swinging in a fury like has never been seen before.  Same concept applies, just trade the Zombies for non-undead or inanimate things.

If an enemy unit passes within 1 tile of the Defending Army's Zone of Control, then the Defending army has a chance to initiate battle with the Enemy army.

In UI terms, there will be a pop-up for the defender saying "enemy army is approaching. It has X,Y,Z units, with a total combat rating of C, approximate Strength Ration is R, enemy generals stats are A,B,and E."

Then the defender can clearly see his own strength and units, the enemy's strength and units, and the option to initiate battle.

For EVERY enemy army/unit that enters the zone of control, the defender has the option to initiate battle. So if 50 individual cavalry raiders attempt to pass through the zone of control 1 by 1, then the defending army can Tac-Battle them 1 by 1, if it so chooses (and it probably will).

Hey, I like the Pop-Up idea. lol

But I would disagree with that much information being available without having to send out your Scouts to actually detect the enemy visually, while hidden in a Forest or whatever.

If you give away info, then the enemy can retreat. That ain't no FUN!.

I am in favour of zones of control, and for ameplay reasons because they make several things possible. Since GAMEPLAY is what actually matters ill address realism afterwards as it is only slightly important here.

Zones of control allow you to get a better feeling for your 'country', Without them, it is impossible to maintain the territorial integrity of your state. You dont have enough units to put one or more in every single tile in your land. So you need A way to exert control over the land without doing this. Fortifications should come in 2 grades in my view. major fortresses with a 2 hex radius zone of control and minor ones with a 1 hex radius. The actual effect of a zone of control should be to make all movement stop upon entry to the zone and then limit all further turn to turn movement to 1 hex until out of the zone of control. Regular units should themselves exert a zone of control of 1 hex. This allows for a careful defender to use units and fortresses to make it very hard for someone to simply walk units across their kingdom, and whilst not entirely stopping movement means that the attacker is moving slowly enough to be intercepted by any available defending force.

If one wants to make this a little more sophisticated, then zones of control could also be movement dependant. If you have flying units then they can ignore zons of control not exerted by units unable to fly (or without very long range attacks).

Without zones of control, all you have is single stacks of moving units with no ability to restrict enemy movement and that in my view means your territory doesnt feel like 'your country' as you have no real way to control access to it.

Now to the realism. Zones of control ARE realistic for several reasons. In a modern context they are very realistic as you have fast, mobile, ranged units to intercept enemies, you have flying units, you have radar and satelite to detect enemies, and artillery and missiles able to engage at enourmous range. A modern millitary force has a very large zone of control, potentially hundreds of miles.

On the other end, a medieval force would have less, but not none. No respectable comander is going to fail to patrol an area, to have scouts, lookout towers and so forth, and will have an awareness of what is happening within a certain distance of him. He would however lack the ranged ability to necessarily intercept the enemy. However he would not lack the ability to destroy the enemy's supply train if the enemy does sneak past him, so the enemy has real problems marching right past defending units regardless.

Now we come to Elemental, which is Fantasy Medieval. This has magic rather than technology. The justification for extended zones of control exists once more as the means to detect a passng enemy can be magickal, from crystal balls to enchated spyglasses to speaking to birds. So does the ability to affect enemy troops and supplies at a distance. The logis for them and the gameplay reasons both hold in my opinion.

Of course some units would be able to ignore them. Mostly units with exotic movement abilities like flying or burrowing, or teleporting, or phaseing. And untis too small or too stealthy to be detected.