Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

bo -> Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 3:45:01 PM)

Threads seem few and far between lately[&:]]so I thought I would start one that concerns this game and Fog of War, I have the WIF computer game and as I have said before and it really helps me understand this game better because I never played the board game, it is difficult to play yourself as you might guess, the one good thing about it is if you start to lose you turn the stupid computer off[;)] Ok enough of that my question would be to all you board game players is, can a Pearl Harbor scenario happen in the board game, meaning if you use the 1939 start for your game against other board game players they would be able to see an invasion buildup against Pearl or any other major target including D-Day as there is no FOW, I do not know if Steve will include FOW if you play against the computers AI, maybe the identity of the forces would be obscure to the human player even though they see the counters, might be a good idea and may not be I don't know, or it might be to complicated to put into the game. In the board game if a Japanese player moved his or her forces say into the waters around Pearl could that player put his counter forces face down so the US player would not know the composition of the opposing forces. this might be a form of FOW, any help here in clearing this up for a noob like me would be appreciated.

Bo



warspite1 -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 4:52:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

Threads seem few and far between lately[&:]]so I thought I would start one that concerns this game and Fog of War, I have the WIF computer game and as I have said before and it really helps me understand this game better because I never played the board game, it is difficult to play yourself as you might guess, the one good thing about it is if you start to lose you turn the stupid computer off[;)] Ok enough of that my question would be to all you board game players is, can a Pearl Harbor scenario happen in the board game, meaning if you use the 1939 start for your game against other board game players they would be able to see an invasion buildup against Pearl or any other major target including D-Day as there is no FOW, I do not know if Steve will include FOW if you play against the computers AI, maybe the identity of the forces would be obscure to the human player even though they see the counters, might be a good idea and may not be I don't know, or it might be to complicated to put into the game. In the board game if a Japanese player moved his or her forces say into the waters around Pearl could that player put his counter forces face down so the US player would not know the composition of the opposing forces. this might be a form of FOW, any help here in clearing this up for a noob like me would be appreciated.

Bo
Warspite1

Bo, just a bit of pre-amble; WIF is an award winning game that has been around for donkeys years i.e. it has stood the test of time; it is proven - it is quite brilliant. In the board game there is no FOW. There will be no FOW in MWIF. It is not needed.

To answer your specific questions I would answer as follows:

If we take Pearl Harbor as an example. Remember WIF is a Strategic level game. There is not the multitude of turns while the Japanese player makes his way slowly across the Pacific, that allows the US player to know what's coming and take precautions. To launch a Pearl - or any attack, you need to be in range of the target. So long as that is the case, you move your units in one impulse.

Why is FOW not needed in a Strategic Game? Well take D-Day or Barbarossa. In either case, Hitler and Stalin knew what was coming.

D-Day - Hitler did not know where and when exactly, but simply that there was a massive build up of arms across the Channel and it was headed his way. In WIF it is no different. You can place units in a number of ports from which an invasion may take place against a number of coasts, and a number of different areas on those coasts.

Barbarossa - Stalin chose not to believe what was happening; he chose not to believe the intelligence. But you cannot - and the Germans did not - conceal the 3 million troops on the border. You cannot in WIF either. Doesn't mean you know where and when the axe will fall exactly.

There is a load of rules that ensure that operations that reflect history can be carried out, but mostly it is down to bluff and double bluff - just like the real war - you need to keep your opponent off balance, that's the trick. Believe me, FOW is not needed in this classic of a game.



bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 5:45:40 PM)

Thank you Warspite for that information, appreciate it and it makes sense to me. But I would like to refer to the back to what I said, then there really can be no sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? I am not saying it is needed nor do I care if there is a FOW in this game, I just happen to be used to it in most of the computer games I have purchased, I am not trying to degrade a proven masterpiece of a board game, I am trying to say that a computer is capable of such a feat whether it is right for this type of a game MWIF I am not sure, I know the purists who play this game at their homes want it to be exactly as it was played by them and their friends I have not one problem with that and quite possible and most likely this game should not and will not have FOW in it. It was just a query that's all, nothing more. Beings the posting here is quite dead at this time I wanted people here to start thinking about the game again, but I would appreciate other comments from not only the board gamers but posters who have never played the board game[;)]

Bo



warspite1 -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 5:59:26 PM)

Bo there can always be a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor so long as the US do not declare war first and the Japanese player wants to go down that route. From memory, the Japanese have to judge very carefully when to declare war on the US. They do not want the US being able to come in first (the US entry date is not set in stone, but depends on a host of factors), but equally do not want to be fighting the US too early - for obvious reasons.

Hope I'm answering your concerns okay.



bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 6:51:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Bo there can always be a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor so long as the US do not declare war first and the Japanese player wants to go down that route. From memory, the Japanese have to judge very carefully when to declare war on the US. They do not want the US being able to come in first (the US entry date is not set in stone, but depends on a host of factors), but equally do not want to be fighting the US too early - for obvious reasons.

Hope I'm answering your concerns okay.

I am picking your brain so to speak, and every thing you said makes sense, and I do not disagree with anything you have said as of yet[;)]I do not know if you have computer WIF from ADG? They use a minor FOW in that it does not show the full strength of the opposition in front of you until several battles take place that's if the first battle did not solve the issue. Why is that good because for the first time since you learned the game it now can be done in MWIF by the computer. I know Steve will clarify my questions[;)] You brought up about Stalin knowing or not knowing that 3 million Germans were on his doorstep, many believe that he did know and he did not warn his front lines because he had to have total war and to get his whole nation behind him he had to show his people how ruthless Germany and Hitler truly were, Had Hitler known how vast the Russians resources were with material and people maybe just maybe he would not have attacked Russia[FOW], there are people who believe had Japan not attacked us at Pearl FDR would not have had an excuse to declare war on Germany. There are many many people including my son that believe Pearl was a setup by FDR hoping the Japanese would attack there[no carriers theory] and that an attack on say Wake, Guam, Midway would only lead to an to a small force[easily defeated] not total war to take the islands back[FOW] I do not happen to believe in that theory. What does this have to do with MWIF, nothing just small talk and questions from a novice in the world of WIF.

Bo



warspite1 -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 7:35:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Bo there can always be a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor so long as the US do not declare war first and the Japanese player wants to go down that route. From memory, the Japanese have to judge very carefully when to declare war on the US. They do not want the US being able to come in first (the US entry date is not set in stone, but depends on a host of factors), but equally do not want to be fighting the US too early - for obvious reasons.

Hope I'm answering your concerns okay.

I am picking your brain so to speak, and every thing you said makes sense, and I do not disagree with anything you have said as of yet[;)]I do not know if you have computer WIF from ADG? They use a minor FOW in that it does not show the full strength of the opposition in front of you until several battles take place that's if the first battle did not solve the issue. Why is that good because for the first time since you learned the game it now can be done in MWIF by the computer. I know Steve will clarify my questions[;)] You brought up about Stalin knowing or not knowing that 3 million Germans were on his doorstep, many believe that he did know and he did not warn his front lines because he had to have total war and to get his whole nation behind him he had to show his people how ruthless Germany and Hitler truly were, Had Hitler known how vast the Russians resources were with material and people maybe just maybe he would not have attacked Russia[FOW], there are people who believe had Japan not attacked us at Pearl FDR would not have had an excuse to declare war on Germany. There are many many people including my son that believe Pearl was a setup by FDR hoping the Japanese would attack there[no carriers theory] and that an attack on say Wake, Guam, Midway would only lead to an to a small force[easily defeated] not total war to take the islands back[FOW] I do not happen to believe in that theory. What does this have to do with MWIF, nothing just small talk and questions from a novice in the world of WIF.

Bo
Warspite1

I never saw the appeal of CIF as it was sufficiently removed from WIF to make it uninteresting to me - I will therefore ask a CIF player to respond re that game.

As for FOW in the context you mention re Germany / USSR, I think that we cannot uninvent history and then expect to play a sensible WWII game. We have to make an historical framework around which the game is then played out. WIF does this beautifully, but WIF does not compel a German player to undertake Barbarossa. That said, I have never known a game when the two totalitarian beasts have not locked horns one way or another.

Sorry Bo I really struggle with the conspiracy theories.

To suggest that Stalin did not tell his front commanders that there were 3 million Germans parked on the border because he had to have "Total War" is not a theory I have heard before. He goofed, he mucked up, he stuck his head in the sand - call it what you like, but Stalin had the necessary intel available and he dropped the ball in the biggest possible way.

As for Roosevelt and the whole Pearl set-up thing, well, lets not go there - it tends to start a flame war for no good purpose...




bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 8:03:40 PM)

errrrr I was not suggesting I believe in either theory in fact I do not except them at all, do you only play WIF or do you play other war computer games such as Strategic Command, and if you play them do you let actual time lines play into your thinking if your playing the AI, like D-day has to be in June of 44 or Barbarossa has to be in June of 1941? And do board game players let real life time lines influence them, the only board game I ever played was 3rd Reich.

Bo



Centuur -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 8:10:16 PM)

FOW is everywhere in WiF. There are the search die rolls, there are the rolls for combat resolution, there is the surprise on the first impulse after the DoW etc. etc.
It only isn't put as FOW in the rules as such.
Wouldn't be the worst die roll on a reasonably attack be explainable as: oh my god, it wasn't 2nd line Garrison troops there in Arnhem but two SS Panzerdivisions on holiday in the nice woods around Arnhem, doing some retraining and badly needed RnR?
Concerning Pearl Harbor. It is the way WiF handels this that makes it so very nice. As the Japanese, you don't even have to make it look like a surprise. The US can't do anything to counter you're attack, because historically the US didn't see it's coming (because of the rules). In the game you see it coming, but you are not able to do a thing about it... Now, if that isn't FOW, I don't know what is. The same applies to any DoW's on minor countries (of which a lot did see it coming, question was: when...).
In a strategic game, it would be very strange if you didn't have any clues about what is going to happen next...

I have thought about how to create more FOW in the game, and if this was going to be reasonable. I don't think it is. You can't disguise corps sized troops in most cases. Also the disappearance of large fleet sections is going to be noticed, by spies, air-reconnaisance, etc. etc.
It is the odd die-roll which recreate these kind of things, together with the surprises you're opponent is playing.

If WiF was a tactical game, well, than it would be a completely other matter, of course...


Greetings,


Peter




bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 8:29:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

FOW is everywhere in WiF. There are the search die rolls, there are the rolls for combat resolution, there is the surprise on the first impulse after the DoW etc. etc.
It only isn't put as FOW in the rules as such.
Wouldn't be the worst die roll on a reasonably attack be explainable as: oh my god, it wasn't 2nd line Garrison troops there in Arnhem but two SS Panzerdivisions on holiday in the nice woods around Arnhem, doing some retraining and badly needed RnR?
Concerning Pearl Harbor. It is the way WiF handels this that makes it so very nice. As the Japanese, you don't even have to make it look like a surprise. The US can't do anything to counter you're attack, because historically the US didn't see it's coming (because of the rules). In the game you see it coming, but you are not able to do a thing about it... Now, if that isn't FOW, I don't know what is. The same applies to any DoW's on minor countries (of which a lot did see it coming, question was: when...).
In a strategic game, it would be very strange if you didn't have any clues about what is going to happen next...

I have thought about how to create more FOW in the game, and if this was going to be reasonable. I don't think it is. You can't disguise corps sized troops in most cases. Also the disappearance of large fleet sections is going to be noticed, by spies, air-reconnaisance, etc. etc.
It is the odd die-roll which recreate these kind of things, together with the surprises you're opponent is playing.

If WiF was a tactical game, well, than it would be a completely other matter, of course...


Greetings,


Peter



Well said Peter thank you, I really did not say [at least I don't think I did] there should be a pure FOW in MWIF, and the way you and Warspite explained it probably not needed, but with a computer and with what Steve can do with his programming skills all kind of doors can be opened to do things that might be a benefit to the game, I trully appreciate your opinions and your knowledge of the WIF game.

Bo



warspite1 -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/18/2011 8:32:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

errrrr I was not suggesting I believe in either theory in fact I do not except them at all, do you only play WIF or do you play other war computer games such as Strategic Command, and if you play them do you let actual time lines play into your thinking if your playing the AI, like D-day has to be in June of 44 or Barbarossa has to be in June of 1941? And do board game players let real life time lines influence them, the only board game I ever played was 3rd Reich.

Bo
Warspite1

I play very little at the moment and have historically played few game series. CIV (II and IV) and Total War (Rome, Empire and Napoleon) are the ones I got into and enjoyed. From Matrix, WITPAE is a monster, and I am struggling to find the time to do it justice (have not gone beyond Coral Sea scenario); WITE falls into a similar category. It needs time I simply cannot spare [:(].

Do I want an AI that follows history? This is a difficult one. I guess I want what I consider to be realistic within certain parameters, but still presents a challenge. There is no point in everything sticking to historical reality because guess what? We know what the result will be [;)].

In reality, I am just kicking my heels and waiting for MWIF. WIF gives that balance of a "big picture" game that is relatively easy to play but still gives an almost tactical/operational feel. Naming the aircraft counters and having individual ships was the big winner for me.

When MWIF comes out I may play AI or even solitaire to refresh my memory, but I will play Hot Seat and PBEM mostly. Personally I do not think the AI will be that great - the game is just toooo complex (in terms of moving parts) for it to be otherwise.



Red Prince -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 12:32:09 AM)

Just my two cents on a few points:

The USA actually knew 5 hours before the strike at Pearl Harbor that it was about to happen. Unfortunately, the information was sent over a leased commercial line (the Hotline between Washington & Moscow is also leased), and didn't get to the commanders in time. Big oops.

O-chits also help to create a sense of FOW. Any way you use them they do this, but especially when used for a Super-Combined action. This lets you pull off massive invasions in a single impulse, whereas a regular combined only lets you attempt minor ones. Without the Super-Combined, you'd need at least two impulses to do the same thing: a naval, and a land. Merely having an Offensive chit is, in a sense, an example of FOW. It is massed supplies that can be used anywhere on the map to improve your military. In effect, it is multiple "hidden" Corps.

Fog of War, in gaming terms, has come to mean "that which cannot be seen because it is greyed out" while the true definition should be closer to "that which cannot be seen".

Unless I've miscalculated, Japan could have a large fleet based in Japan itself, with land and air elements included and still launch a single-impulse surprise attack on Honolulu. It may fail, but it could be done. And these are forces which are in position to launch against at least a half-dozen key locations, probably more. Part of it will depend on the Optional Rules chosen.

-Aaron



bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 2:23:25 AM)

I stand corrected and as humble and non-argumentive as always,[8|] I bow to the powers that be, NO FOG OF WAR.[&o]

Bo



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 3:29:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

Just my two cents on a few points:

The USA actually knew 5 hours before the strike at Pearl Harbor that it was about to happen. Unfortunately, the information was sent over a leased commercial line (the Hotline between Washington & Moscow is also leased), and didn't get to the commanders in time. Big oops.

O-chits also help to create a sense of FOW. Any way you use them they do this, but especially when used for a Super-Combined action. This lets you pull off massive invasions in a single impulse, whereas a regular combined only lets you attempt minor ones. Without the Super-Combined, you'd need at least two impulses to do the same thing: a naval, and a land. Merely having an Offensive chit is, in a sense, an example of FOW. It is massed supplies that can be used anywhere on the map to improve your military. In effect, it is multiple "hidden" Corps.

Fog of War, in gaming terms, has come to mean "that which cannot be seen because it is greyed out" while the true definition should be closer to "that which cannot be seen".

Unless I've miscalculated, Japan could have a large fleet based in Japan itself, with land and air elements included and still launch a single-impulse surprise attack on Honolulu. It may fail, but it could be done. And these are forces which are in position to launch against at least a half-dozen key locations, probably more. Part of it will depend on the Optional Rules chosen.

-Aaron

You can do an invasion but not the historical port attack in a single impulse. That is because port attack precedes naval movement in the seuqence of play.



paulderynck -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 5:14:18 AM)

And a successful invasion would be much more damaging than a port strike on Pearl Harbor. On the the surprise impulse the entire fleet could be sunk or even captured. With the right moves into the surrounding sea zones, the ships that succeed in running for it could be found and sunk too. Major ugly for the U.S.



Red Prince -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 9:56:32 AM)

quote:

You can do an invasion but not the historical port attack in a single impulse. That is because port attack precedes naval movement in the seuqence of play.

And:
quote:

And a successful invasion would be much more damaging than a port strike on Pearl Harbor. On the the surprise impulse the entire fleet could be sunk or even captured. With the right moves into the surrounding sea zones, the ships that succeed in running for it could be found and sunk too. Major ugly for the U.S.


Both items are very true, indeed [:)]



Centuur -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 1:14:16 PM)

If the US player did garrison the Hawaii Islands, than a Japanese invasion isn't an easy thing to succeed. The Japanese has more to do on that first impulse and normally will not be able to get enough land units to do the job. Off course, the unlimited division breakdown may change this, as invading with divisions from SCS may free some units to do some extra work elsewhere...



Red Prince -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 1:48:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

If the US player did garrison the Hawaii Islands, than a Japanese invasion isn't an easy thing to succeed. The Japanese has more to do on that first impulse and normally will not be able to get enough land units to do the job. Off course, the unlimited division breakdown may change this, as invading with divisions from SCS may free some units to do some extra work elsewhere...


Never said it would be easy, just that it would be possible [;)]



Sewerlobster -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 2:01:56 PM)

I'm sure this was answered before. Will MWif have the Task Force rule, which of course adds a layer of fog of war. I don't think it"s a necessary addition -- but it seems like one of those things a computer could handle better than it gets handled when playing face-to-face.



Red Prince -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 2:28:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

I'm sure this was answered before. Will MWif have the Task Force rule, which of course adds a layer of fog of war. I don't think it"s a necessary addition -- but it seems like one of those things a computer could handle better than it gets handled when playing face-to-face.

No, the Hidden Task Force rule is not going to be in the release. There is still some effort being made to allow players to create task forces for their own purposes (to help keep track of what you are planning to do), but they will not be hidden. It has not yet been implemented in the beta version, and may end up as a post-release item (that's a slightly informed opinion, though I've never asked Steve about it).



macgregor -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 8:19:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

Threads seem few and far between lately[&:]]so I thought I would start one that concerns this game and Fog of War, I have the WIF computer game and as I have said before and it really helps me understand this game better because I never played the board game, it is difficult to play yourself as you might guess, the one good thing about it is if you start to lose you turn the stupid computer off[;)] Ok enough of that my question would be to all you board game players is, can a Pearl Harbor scenario happen in the board game, meaning if you use the 1939 start for your game against other board game players they would be able to see an invasion buildup against Pearl or any other major target including D-Day as there is no FOW, I do not know if Steve will include FOW if you play against the computers AI, maybe the identity of the forces would be obscure to the human player even though they see the counters, might be a good idea and may not be I don't know, or it might be to complicated to put into the game. In the board game if a Japanese player moved his or her forces say into the waters around Pearl could that player put his counter forces face down so the US player would not know the composition of the opposing forces. this might be a form of FOW, any help here in clearing this up for a noob like me would be appreciated.

Bo
Warspite1

Bo, just a bit of pre-amble; WIF is an award winning game that has been around for donkeys years i.e. it has stood the test of time; it is proven - it is quite brilliant. In the board game there is no FOW. There will be no FOW in MWIF. It is not needed.

To answer your specific questions I would answer as follows:

If we take Pearl Harbor as an example. Remember WIF is a Strategic level game. There is not the multitude of turns while the Japanese player makes his way slowly across the Pacific, that allows the US player to know what's coming and take precautions. To launch a Pearl - or any attack, you need to be in range of the target. So long as that is the case, you move your units in one impulse.

Why is FOW not needed in a Strategic Game? Well take D-Day or Barbarossa. In either case, Hitler and Stalin knew what was coming.

D-Day - Hitler did not know where and when exactly, but simply that there was a massive build up of arms across the Channel and it was headed his way. In WIF it is no different. You can place units in a number of ports from which an invasion may take place against a number of coasts, and a number of different areas on those coasts.

Barbarossa - Stalin chose not to believe what was happening; he chose not to believe the intelligence. But you cannot - and the Germans did not - conceal the 3 million troops on the border. You cannot in WIF either. Doesn't mean you know where and when the axe will fall exactly.

There is a load of rules that ensure that operations that reflect history can be carried out, but mostly it is down to bluff and double bluff - just like the real war - you need to keep your opponent off balance, that's the trick. Believe me, FOW is not needed in this classic of a game.

I have an old TV that's been around for donkey years, tried and tested if you're interested, and a VCR, ...



Orm -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 8:42:05 PM)

The best fog of war is when your opponent see your forces but does not see what you intend to do. When you manage that the suprise can be total and devastating to your opponents morale. This can be done in World of Flames. Both with minor operations and at times major, game changing, operations.

One example of this is a realy early declaration of war on Commonwealth by Japan. Japan was in no way ready for this war but the Allies was even less ready. This DOW (along with several lucky die rolls) made the CW navy take staggering losses.In this game the Allies morale collapsed with a surrender of the Allies.



warspite1 -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/19/2011 9:07:56 PM)

quote:

I have an old TV that's been around for donkey years, tried and tested if you're interested, and a VCR, ...


I presume that was a staggeringly feeble attempt at humour? Some things can be bettered by amendments over time. Some things can be spoilt by - so called - improvements.

World In Flames does not use, does not need, and would not be improved with "FOW". Live with it [8|]



bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/20/2011 12:06:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

I have an old TV that's been around for donkey years, tried and tested if you're interested, and a VCR, ...


I presume that was a staggeringly feeble attempt at humour? Some things can be bettered by amendments over time. Some things can be spoilt by - so called - improvements.

World In Flames does not use, does not need, and would not be improved with "FOW". Live with it [8|]

Hey Mac, hey Warspite, easy guys open forums are just that, open forums with all opinions honored as being mostly constructive. I have learned my lesson with some negative comments in the past[:-]
The post I started was a question about FOW, not trying to change anything just curious. I do have a problem with [live with it] Warspite we are now talking about the power of the computer and what it can do with, excuse the comment but an old board game, it would seem to me that in the board game FOW was impossible so how do you know if it is good or bad [not being argumentative] All of the comments in the above posts, well almost all of them were constructive and said with true game passion, and as was stated not needed in the MWIF game. Okay again no problem with that leave it the way everyone always played it, but hmmmmm the computer is a pretty powerful tool and could make a great game even better with new innovations. [[&:]I guess]

Bo



warspite1 -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/20/2011 12:22:55 AM)

Bo lets be clear - having an opinion that happens to be different to mine is not an issue for me. What I took exception to was the way my opinion was rubbished.

As far as the power of the computer is concerned; yes of course there are lots of ways that the computer can make playing the game easier (stopping false moves), and indeed better (China being on the same scale as Europe) but if memory serves, Steve's brief was to bring to the market a game that represents WIF as closely as possible, not to make wholesale changes.

I maintain that IMO, FOW is not needed and will not improve the game. If people want it as an option in MWIF2 then that;s great however. But that is just my opinion and that is the last I will say about that, but I do not need someone in a snide fashion telling me that having that opinion makes me someone from out of the Ark; a simple I don't agree because, works.

One final thing though. Some people do not seem to realise that programming such a new feature at this stage would delay the game no end. When do we want this game released?




Red Prince -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/20/2011 12:41:39 AM)

With the numerous possibilities for different combinations of wars, game modes, nation assignments, etc. I don't know if it would even be possible to get a working FOW programmed to run bug-free in any reasonable amount of time. And, while the rules forbid the USA player from telling even his allies the exact entry pool numbers, interplayer communications force players to use the honour system. Fog of War in NetPlay or PBEM would have the same problem. What's to stop one player from telling another what he knows?



bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/20/2011 1:33:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

With the numerous possibilities for different combinations of wars, game modes, nation assignments, etc. I don't know if it would even be possible to get a working FOW programmed to run bug-free in any reasonable amount of time. And, while the rules forbid the USA player from telling even his allies the exact entry pool numbers, interplayer communications force players to use the honour system. Fog of War in NetPlay or PBEM would have the same problem. What's to stop one player from telling another what he knows?

I would hope integrity would stop the dedicated player Red,
hey Warspite that could have been Crussdaddy using Mac's name[:D])] and you are right a new feature like that would push the games debut back and trust me War I don't want that but who knows maybe the evil genius has already put it in[;)][no names]

Bo



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/20/2011 8:57:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

With the numerous possibilities for different combinations of wars, game modes, nation assignments, etc. I don't know if it would even be possible to get a working FOW programmed to run bug-free in any reasonable amount of time. And, while the rules forbid the USA player from telling even his allies the exact entry pool numbers, interplayer communications force players to use the honour system. Fog of War in NetPlay or PBEM would have the same problem. What's to stop one player from telling another what he knows?

When you get down to the nitty gritty as to what Fog Of War means, a wealth of different opinions appear. No two people agree. In fact, they are often astonished to discover that other people don't understand the 'rule' the same way they do.

When I looked into coding FOW (briefly - 10 hours or so several years ago), what I discovered was the rule could not be written in clear English for everyone to understand, much less get everyone to agree on. If it can't be written in plain language, it certainly can't be written in code.



Red Prince -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/20/2011 2:14:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I would hope integrity would stop the dedicated player Red,

Ahhh, a dreamer. [:D] I would hope so, too. All it takes, though, is one bad nut to ruin a good war . . .



bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/20/2011 2:49:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

With the numerous possibilities for different combinations of wars, game modes, nation assignments, etc. I don't know if it would even be possible to get a working FOW programmed to run bug-free in any reasonable amount of time. And, while the rules forbid the USA player from telling even his allies the exact entry pool numbers, interplayer communications force players to use the honour system. Fog of War in NetPlay or PBEM would have the same problem. What's to stop one player from telling another what he knows?

When you get down to the nitty gritty as to what Fog Of War means, a wealth of different opinions appear. No two people agree. In fact, they are often astonished to discover that other people don't understand the 'rule' the same way they do.

When I looked into coding FOW (briefly - 10 hours or so several years ago), what I discovered was the rule could not be written in clear English for everyone to understand, much less get everyone to agree on. If it can't be written in plain language, it certainly can't be written in code.

There you go no FOW, I am not saying its needed I am just used to it in all the computer games I play, and never playing the board game I will take Warspites word for it that it is not needed.

Bo



bo -> RE: Pearl Harbor etc. FOW (6/20/2011 2:59:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

quote:

ORIGINAL: bo

I would hope integrity would stop the dedicated player Red,

Ahhh, a dreamer. [:D] I would hope so, too. All it takes, though, is one bad nut to ruin a good war . . .

How did you know I am a dreamer have you been talking to my wife.[:D]
Really Red I used to play cod2 and it took me a long time to actually believe that players cheated, talk about being naive whoooo. I guess its because how can you compare talents in a given game if you are going to cheat. Did I ever kick a ball out of the rough playing golf, OF COURSE I DID, but that's not cheating that's par for the course[;)] In reality I cannot imagine what you players went through to play the board game with all the rules and such, you people have my highest esteem[&o]

Bo



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.827881