Fog of War (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815



Message

Jimmer -> Fog of War (11/20/2009 6:20:56 PM)

This thread is to discuss some kinds of true fog-of-war (FoW) that are both historical and still allow the game to be fun.

Typically, FoW operates on an on/off basis: Either you can see other entities, or you cannot. It seems to me that there should be a graduation in FoW, not a hard boolean value.

"area distance" is the number of borders crossed from the nearest field army of the player looking at the data. Alternately, allow visibility to controlled territory instead of or in addition to corps strengths.

For example, what about having FoW become greater the more area distant ones factors are from the enemy viewing them? Say from one area different (i.e. across one border) anything previously seen is completely visible (including corps strengths from the previous month, if the corps is still present after a battle).

But, if one is two areas away from a corps, all you can see is the corps counters and leaders.

If one is three or more areas away, nothing is visible.

-1 is added to the distance for leaders with a 5 strategic rating. (Alternative: Use all leader strategic ratings in a table as probabilities for seeing values). Historically, Napoleon had many of his early successes because he personally rode around the enemy camp(s) and checked out the terrain and strengths of the enemy.

-1 might be added for large enemy forces.

In game terms, the corps number is equivalent to the corps commander. So, looking for a corps number is the same as having your operatives check out who is in command of the forces arrayed against one.

I invite any ideas on this front. It seems to me that FoW should be much more "interesting" in a computer game than it could be in a boardgame.



NeverMan -> RE: Fog of War (11/20/2009 7:38:06 PM)

Make it an option, though I doubt I'd ever use it.



pzgndr -> RE: Fog of War (11/21/2009 12:55:28 AM)

It's deja vu all over again. [;)]

RE: Another little suggestion - 4/24/2009 9:36:18 AM

quote:

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

quote:

Sounds like good option tabs.

Corps values (hidden/Non hidden)
Army Values (hidden/Non hidden)
Leaders (hidden/Non hidden)
Fleet Values ((hidden/Non hidden)

I am sure that there are many opinions.... best leave it to market factors of the gaming group involved, IMO.


A true FOW option could consider spotting distances, where infantry and heavy fleets can spot into adjacent areas, and cavalry and light fleets can spot two areas away. Beyond spotting range, only generic corps counters and fleets in port would be displayed. Leaders and fleets at sea would not be displayed. Within spotting range, corps and fleet counters by type and generic leaders would be displayed. Only upon entering an area would unit identities be revealed, and perhaps last known unit values (within past couple of turns) could be shown for reference. Allied units should be considered spotted. All this would be consistent with FOW rules in other similar games and would provide a nice option for players to consider. [8D]


I agree - FoW should be much more "interesting" in a computer game than it could be in a boardgame.



Skanvak -> RE: Fog of War (11/21/2009 10:06:16 AM)

Yes, but you have to consider one thing : SPY

With army as huge as the corps used in EiA any descent spy can spot them. Actually population will tell people about it (see the Fow of AGEOD napoleonic campaign where France can see all of Poland during Austerlitz because of the loyalty in the Polish porivinces). The turn are one month long. How fast a spy can travel dduring this time?

I think that Fow will be more pertinent for fleet (and can give a use to the light fleet).

I think we should read more and support proposal with historical evidence.



pzgndr -> RE: Fog of War (11/21/2009 12:07:57 PM)

I have recently been reading David Chandler's book Campaigns of Napoleon and the historical evidence of omnipotent spotting of enemy units all across the map board is scanty, particularly once campaigns begin and forces are in motion.  Do you need examples where Napoleon did not really know where all of the enemy was, such as Austerlitz campaign or Jena-Auerstadt campaign?  Perhaps units that remain stationary for a turn or two could be displayed, since static deployments would be known by local populations and spies.

The FOW spotting ranges I propose are consistent with other games and really only affect your decision making at the start of a turn.  As units move and come into contact with enemy units, the picture becomes more clear and subsequent unit moves can then build into the larger battles you want.  Do you move into battle now or wait another turn??  FOW becomes more interesting when enemy formations are being placed and being moved well beyond your spotting ranges and uncertainty is introduced into the game.  Now you have to consider more unknowns and actually use your cavalry and other units for reconnaissance to gain some information to make decisions. 

For most players of PC wargames where FOW is a standard feature, it makes games more interesting and challenging.  It can also be used to help make the AI more challenging by giving it increased spotting ranges at higher difficulty levels.  Obviously the PC game would play a little differently than how the old board game played ftf, but IMHO it's a plus and not a negative.  Again, as an option players could use this feature or continue to play without it. [:)]



Skanvak -> RE: Fog of War (11/22/2009 11:30:47 AM)

Don't misunderstood me. I am for a FOW. I just want it to be historical.



Jimmer -> RE: Fog of War (11/23/2009 5:28:34 PM)

Yes, agreed: Intelligence is limited. Range is a limiting factor. Movement of enemy forces makes exacting intelligence impossible more than a few hours/days/weeks out. One may "hear" (through spies) that a particular corps is present 300 miles east, but one wouldn't know the exact composition unless one fought it recently.

Definitely should be only an option. Even the current FoW is optional. I'm interested in it mostly to see how it changes the game. It's obvious it would, but "how much?" and "in what ways?" are my questions.

Also, this should take a distant back seat to other stuff being contemplated for 1.07, 1.8, etc.



Jimmer -> RE: Fog of War (11/23/2009 6:09:01 PM)

Regarding knowing exact compositions, perhaps it was only Napoleon, and then only in his early career. I forget which, but either Ulm or Austerlitz in 1805 was an example I recall from what I've read. It's the one where he had a range of hills on one side of the enemy and a river on the other. He determined that if he could entice the Austrian army to come forward, he could send part of his force around them, thus trapping them on all four "sides". In his memoirs it as chasing the enemy "into the toe of a sock" (paraphrased).

That kind of commitment to personally gather intelligence was common for him early in his career, but as time went on he did less and less of it.

In any case, this kind of this would be extremely limited. One cannot travel on horseback very far and still be able to get back to run the battle the next day.



Skanvak -> RE: Fog of War (11/23/2009 6:19:31 PM)

At the scale of EiA, wouldn't 300 miles east be precise?
Having limited information like which unit leave their garrison position (Only show original position and the first area moved to show what we know).

On the interface, I like the interface to tell me what I should know with a nice display (not a log). Making record keeping to mimic what my intellignece should report me is not really interesting.

I go reading may be be back in a month or two with interesting idea on the subject :D



Ashtar -> RE: Fog of War (11/24/2009 12:24:18 AM)

quote:

Do you move into battle now or wait another turn?? FOW becomes more interesting when enemy formations are being placed and being moved well beyond your spotting ranges and uncertainty is introduced into the game. Now you have to consider more unknowns and actually use your cavalry and other units for reconnaissance to gain some information to make decisions.


Remember the scale of EIA: turns are one month long, and a single area is a couple of hundred of kilometers wide. Cavalry reconnaisance? Your concepts are appropriate for a smaller scale game (both n time and space), not EIA.



pzgndr -> RE: Fog of War (11/24/2009 12:38:56 PM)

quote:

Remember the scale of EIA: turns are one month long, and a single area is a couple of hundred of kilometers wide. Cavalry reconnaisance? Your concepts are appropriate for a smaller scale game (both n time and space), not EIA.


Ashtar, this is about strategic and operational recon, not tactical. That's understood. These aren't "my" concepts so much as standard PC wargame FOW effects. Even at the grand strategy scale of EiA, it is simply not realistic or historically accurate that MPs would have such a clear picture of their opponents dispositions every turn.

For a ftf board game it's difficult to implement true FOW where enemy unit locations are not known. Dummy counters are used in some games, and 1-factor ghost corps can be used to effect in EiA. Clearly there is already some uncertainty in the game in not knowing corps strengths. But just because things were done one way in the board game does not mean they cannot or should not be done in a PC wargame version. Again, as an option. One thing I would add is that any friendly unit that moves and spots an enemy unit would be restricted from undoing its move, else you could have "free" recons and that wouldn't be right.



bresh -> RE: Fog of War (11/24/2009 1:00:35 PM)

Personally i dont think this idea would be leaning close to EIA, so i would not be using it.

Technically this would seem to require alot of new coding to, and Marshall has his work cut out for now.

Regards
Bresh



pzgndr -> RE: Fog of War (11/25/2009 12:38:00 PM)

quote:

Marshall has his work cut out for now.


This discussion thread is not about "now" but for down the road when Marshall gets around to game enhancements. As Jimmer stated up front, "This thread is to discuss some kinds of true fog-of-war (FoW) that are both historical and still allow the game to be fun." For those who are able to appreciate PC wargaming, as opposed to board gaming or simple pbem of board games without more realistic FOW effects that a PC can provide.

quote:

I doubt I'd ever use it... i would not be using it


So what?? I'll probably play some small group (2-4 player) pbem games one of these days but probably won't ever get into 7-player classic EiA pbem games with UMP rules and without any of the EiH or other enhancements, but I won't be a jackass and not support all those features (I do!) so everyone can eventually enjoy this game, with whatever options they want. Why chime in with stupid negative comments? [:-]



Jimmer -> RE: Fog of War (12/1/2009 4:51:25 PM)

The other thing I brought this up for is for human-vs-AI play. Once the AI plays intelligently, this would be a reasonable way to handicap the human: Allow the AI to see the whole board vs. the human only some. Or, allow the AI to see MORE of the board, but not all.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.859375