This game needs true fog of war option (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

MVokt -> This game needs true fog of war option (12/21/2019 3:29:02 PM)

I mean, along with the default game fog of war option, there should be a true fog of war option in which you don't see enemy units deployed deep into enemy territory. All strategic wargames have this option.



Jeff_Ahl -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/21/2019 4:11:57 PM)

I agree.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/21/2019 4:13:28 PM)

I will take it into consideration.



Uxbridge -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/21/2019 7:55:58 PM)

If considered, don't make a total blanket. In many games you can't see anything beyond a couple of hexes, which is just as unrealistic as the opposite. But some more security would be nice. Maybe only 50 % of units beyond paratrooper range, randomly chosen, will show up. After double that range only 10 %. Could be interesting if the game could also show a "ghost unit" now and then. But not a complete darkness.



AlbertN -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/21/2019 8:38:39 PM)

I've no issues with the game as it is, but then again I come from tabletop gaming where you can see all the pieces - in most games even you know precisely which pieces are and their combat factors.



tyronec -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/22/2019 9:37:33 AM)

Would endorse having some more FOW, as suggested above would need to be balanced and well thought through.

For the first few times you play the game it is fine with things as they are. Playing the AI it is fine.
However once you get to know how HvH games go you want to look at doing something a bit more subtle or try to take the opponent by surprise. In my latest games it feels like a lot of it is down to taking advantage of any little mistakes the opponent makes rather than being creative. The only surprises are against neutrals.

History was different, lots of major offensives launched that came as a total shock.



Simulacra53 -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/22/2019 11:23:54 AM)

Deep fog of war combined with uncertainty factor.
The further from the front, the more hard information decreases (recon, interrogation, electronic etc) and speculation (“analysis”) enters.



PanzerMike -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/22/2019 1:17:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Would endorse having some more FOW, as suggested above would need to be balanced and well thought through.

For the first few times you play the game it is fine with things as they are. Playing the AI it is fine.
However once you get to know how HvH games go you want to look at doing something a bit more subtle or try to take the opponent by surprise. In my latest games it feels like a lot of it is down to taking advantage of any little mistakes the opponent makes rather than being creative. The only surprises are against neutrals.

History was different, lots of major offensives launched that came as a total shock.


Yeah, like the Ardennes offensive in 1944. Total surprise for the Allies. It should be possible to amass troops for a major offensive without it being obvious to the opponent right away. So perhaps starting from a two hex range FOW should be greater than it is now.

Or maybe introduce limited number of ghost armies for a player to act as a diversion. Like the Allies did before D-Day. They created fake armies (operation Fortitude) and the Germans fell for it.

Last idea: cloaking armies. Give player limited number of cloaking units. Placed on top of a real unit. That unit is then much harder to detect. This way a buildup like the Germans did for the Ardennes offensive with utmost secrecy could be simulated.



ncc1701e -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/22/2019 7:16:20 PM)

Like the idea of ghost corps/armies. The Russian were very good at applying it too. Maskirovka, anyone?



Tejszd -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/22/2019 7:30:52 PM)

Definitely think FOW would be beneficial playing against the AI or H2H.

Given the 1 week turns and size of units detection would be possible but the percentage should be tied to other things;
- Air recon either by not using/reserving units (auto use planes without missions or dedicate a percentage) or manually target locations to recon (new attack type with High detection and lower damage/risk to planes)
- Air activity in an area (increases % chance, Low as this was not the focus of the mission)
- Partisan activity in an area (increases % chance, Med/High)

Concealment could also be a new attribute to invest in pr unit. German's used enemy vehicles/uniforms/etc..



RandomAttack -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/22/2019 9:07:35 PM)

Before making any major changes like this that are not optional/configurable, I would suggest Alvaro maybe host a few polls to gauge the actual interest of at least the people that read there forums. Personally, I think FOW is fine as it is. I also think the game complexity level is right in the sweet spot.



MVokt -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/23/2019 3:48:40 PM)

A CEAW or Stretegic Command War in Europe fog of war type would be enough IMO. And always as an option keeping the current fog of war system as default.



ago1000 -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/23/2019 3:55:49 PM)

+1 on RandomAttack.
If you change the current FOW then you would need to include more techs and/or units to counter it. For example, 100% FOW in the Atlantic, you would never find a sub in the Atlantic. (hex game system not zone - you need a possible location of where the subs are hunting). Do you then include them in the abstract supply (escorts sinking them) system or create a cheap unit(ASWs group) to patrol and protect the convoy lanes to counter subs.

Ghost Armies or Fleets may be interesting unit though in HvH play. Very cool idea. Used to disguise your intentions, just for looks, cheap to build, but useless otherwise. (Don't think I have ever seen that in a game?)




AlvaroSousa -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/23/2019 4:49:03 PM)

Some things for everyone to consider on why the FoW is the way it is.

All the other games.
No detection levels at sea
Little ability to create a decoy naval mission
Not a real board game feel with missing counters and an empty feel.
Surprise your fleet ran into mine, now you are dead because you had to stop
A ton of clicks to find the Bismark by actually scanning a map

WarPlan
Detection levels at sea
Easy to create a decoy naval mission
Feels like a real board game full of colors and counters
Realistic naval movement and no cheese speed bump units
Finding the Bismarck is based on recon levels and more accurately reflects what happened

In truth both sides knew generally where everything was. They just didn't know amounts and values. Only educated guesses. High altitude recon aircraft would pass each other in the sky even in 1944.



James Taylor -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/23/2019 4:49:53 PM)

I like the current system at sea except no symbols should be seen in open ocean hexes unless adjacent to an enemy unit. I definitely like the obscurity of attack initiation where "no fleet is found".

It would be realistic to have air units reveal naval units in a passive recon role when they are deployed in the proximity of the coast. Say 90% on a coastal hex to a 5% chance at the max range of the air unit, varying in percent depending on tech enhancement and effectiveness/experience.

The AI would have to roll for every possible spotting implication. The same could be done on land although I recognize that the turn may have a longer resolution time in between players. The AI is pretty fast in the current iteration, I could stand a little less efficiency in that department.

Perhaps a unit could have recon value affixed to its other attributes depending upon its strength which is subject to its health, experience and effectiveness to apply to the recon algorithm.

There are many ways to improve this feature and I for one think it is a most, if not THE most, compelling feature of any wargame.



James Taylor -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/23/2019 5:05:29 PM)


Sorry Al, we'll have to disagree about this statement and you know there are many examples in the Pacific that puts this on the path of being not realistic.

quote:

In truth both sides knew generally where everything was. They just didn't know amounts and values. Only educated guesses.





Tejszd -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/23/2019 6:09:45 PM)

Close Combat games with the strat layer showed all Battle-groups in contact and then used a percentage per side for detecting/showing BG's behind the front line setup per game. So that is only 2 variables.

Prefer War in the East as it shows BG's in contact and then based on air missions (either automated or manually ordered) shows units behind the front line.



Chilperic -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/23/2019 7:12:38 PM)

IMHO what's lacking is voluntary deception. Fortitude in the West, Maskirovka in the East should be represented.Ultra should be present too. Daunting task, even without considering AI. But yet...it should.



RandomAttack -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/23/2019 9:13:43 PM)

Yes, there was plenty of deception-- there were also plenty of cases where the intel guys knew EXACTLY what was where and why but the "leadership" didn't want to hear it for whatever reason. Cherry-picking intel-- a military/political tradition since armies have been around. [:'(] IMO, unless you have an entire separate intel model it's too much a slippery slope to get into. Even then, it will spur endless debates about the results.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/24/2019 4:51:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor


Sorry Al, we'll have to disagree about this statement and you know there are many examples in the Pacific that puts this on the path of being not realistic.

quote:

In truth both sides knew generally where everything was. They just didn't know amounts and values. Only educated guesses.





Not exact numbers but they had an idea of what was out there. Codebreaking is assumed in FOW here



ncc1701e -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/24/2019 9:18:42 AM)

Not sure it is working against AI but against a human, split corps into three and bring them behind the frontline in Russia. Then, let your enemy guess where is your next move.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/24/2019 12:58:41 PM)

That is correct. The Russians can split armies.
With navies you can send a decoy out with a patrol group. Think of Midway. Turn one Japs send fleet to the Aleutians USA player takes the bait and sends their main fleet there also.
Turn two Japs move on Midway.



Simulacra53 -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/24/2019 1:10:30 PM)

You can have both with a circle of uncertainty - mimicking codebreaking, reconnaissance, but also decoys.
Some plans, units or events you just do not know about, some are where you don’t expect them and some are stronger / weaker than expected.

However the fundamental factor here is game design and here the idea is to create a board game. WarPlan is a game, not a simulation.
That’s fine, although not my personal preference.



James Taylor -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/24/2019 2:25:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Taylor


Sorry Al, we'll have to disagree about this statement and you know there are many examples in the Pacific that puts this on the path of being not realistic.

quote:

In truth both sides knew generally where everything was. They just didn't know amounts and values. Only educated guesses.





Not exact numbers but they had an idea of what was out there. Codebreaking is assumed in FOW here


OK, I'll give you that, but misinterpretation is always a part of the human condition.

Its probably not so much the numbers but the location. Sure, the Kido Butai was running around somewhere in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific or even in the South China Sea, but the exact locations represented by the counters is nothing but a deflection from reality.

I'm not sure what the answer is, could be decoys, maybe an association of transparent counters in the general area with "?" marks is all your opponents sees.

Anyway this is not so much an issue with land based units but in the open ocean, something else would be beneficial to the game mechanics.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/24/2019 5:06:17 PM)

It also has to not be tedious for the player that they have to manage with more than say 1 decision every once in a while.



James Taylor -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/24/2019 5:36:45 PM)

Completely off the top of my head. Let's say a fleet that travels more than two ocean hexes away from a land hex with high recon capability automatically generates two apparitions.

The further out to sea, the fleet generates additional ghost images, depending on the level of enemy recon, in the hexes it travels through.

These decoys would be in a random distribution around the traveled path and generated by the AI, fading away following the next turn or two turns, etc.

No player interactions.



James Taylor -> RE: This game needs true fog of war option (12/24/2019 5:40:26 PM)

Look at history. How many sightings were there of the different taskforces sent out by the Japanese for operation AF and AZ before they reached their designated targets.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.4375