Should units inside city walls be affected by it?

I fell like maybe this ahs already been discussed but like this situation was doubly frustrating. The Mongol actually seems like it should have a zone of control being a ranged antagonist it could harry you with ranged attacks but if it was a melee unit, should it? I know cavalry up against walls can't make attacks on a unit in a city hex - possibly only true for level 2 walls - maybe my question is more specific than that. Should Nomads (or any unit with move and fire?) have a zone of control?

That's actually... a very good question. The Hordes are very strong as units in so many way, removing their zone of control could be an other interesting mechanic that would add to the asymetry of the horde, balancing them a bit at the same time.

More identity, yet more balance. Two objectives, one modification.

As for other units with move and fire, I suppose it would make sense to have them follow the same rule to avoid confusion. I doubt it would affect the identity aspect of the horde that much, on the contrary, it could give you a taste and help you understand how the "ennemy" works. (I personnaly find the Hordes, as well as Cravers of Necrophages mainly interesting as ennemies, not that much as a playable thing.)

TLDR : again, a very valuable observation.

Ningauble wrote:

Should units inside city walls be affected by it?

I fell like maybe this ahs already been discussed but like this situation was doubly frustrating. The Mongol actually seems like it should have a zone of control being a ranged antagonist it could harry you with ranged attacks but if it was a melee unit, should it? I know cavalry up against walls can't make attacks on a unit in a city hex - possibly only true for level 2 walls - maybe my question is more specific than that. Should Nomads (or any unit with move and fire?) have a zone of control?

Hi Ningauble,

I am not sure if I get your point. Could you elaborate it a little more your point?

While 'inside' a city enemy units can apply zones of control on friendly or allied units. Which seems a bit counter intuitive. I think while I was staring at this specific situation it sort of crystalized. 

So layer 1 of my question is just about zone of control. Enemies applying zone of control on my units from "outside" the city/walls seems somehow less plausible / immersion breaking.
In this specific situation however the units are making ranged (range 1) attacks yes? Ranged units 'could' potentially have justification for having a zone of control as ranged unit could harry units inside the walls with ranged attacks. Literally shooting over the walls to 'enforce' their zone of control. Not doing any effective damage but having an impact. The question was just should enemy units have a zone of control impact at the walls. Granted the walls are level 1 palisades - so okay - maybe. But when their stone walls? Again, okay, maybe. But it's seeming somewhat more implausible. 

Layer 2 of my question was realizing that Nomads specifically due to their gaining the bonuses of ignoring zones of control but not being cavalry - and - having move and shoot seems somewhat at odds with having a zone of control. I realize there's levels of abstraction here but effectively they don't have a formation the same way almost any other unit does. They are meant to represent a much more mobile presence on the battlefield which is their strength (hit and run tactics) but should they also have the same strength for having a formation / being a unit? As I think about it more I find it doubly frustrating that in the image above I couldn't move into the city effectively - out of harms way from the Nomads. Except again, they are a ranged unit shoot over the walls seems plausible as a way to enforce zone of control. But it's a short bow! A hunting bow. Still effective, but over a wall? 

Hope that helps. 

i don't see why not in theory. An attack on walls in real life could damage a unit and take out troops.