PJJ wrote:I don't quite understand the logic behind this mechanism. How is a small force able to stop a larger one making any progress without battle? It would make sense if there were a blocked mountain pass or something like that, but even such an obstacle could be attacked and most likely taken by the stronger force. Why is the big stack unable to get that military control simply by marching into the territory, especially if the said force also contains light troops?
My guess is that this is supposed to represent that generals usually didn't want to have enemy presence in their backs, which would threaten their supply and communication lines. But then again it doesn't make sense to counter that rule by planting troops in the region adjacent to the stronghold. The whole supply- and communication-aspect is handled via the supply system anyway, so that the Zone-of-Control is unnecessary in this regard? Perhaps the supply system isn't hard and unforgiving enough for the player? If supply lines were a really essential feature, then you really wouldn't want an enemy stronghold in your back, regardless of Zone of control. You'd feel the need to conquer that stronghold, not be forced to stop for a turn. But as long as units carry enough supply for 3 months (!) (internal stroage of 2 --> the first effects of lack of supply set in in turn 3), they're perhaps a bit too independent, and players don't feel the need to capture strongholds on their way. An army should not be able to act cut off from supply for three months! But then again I don't know how the AI would react.
