Fog of War

[Froonp]

My friend who did not want to buy the game because it did not had TCP/IP bought it anyway, and tells me that the FoW is not implemented for fleets. He says me that you can see what ships are in enemy fleets.
Is this normal ? He tells me that the original game had FoW for the fleets as well as the corps.
Is there something he misses ?

PS : I'm waiting for TCP/IP to buy the game, as my friend confirmed what I though, in that the game is totaly suited to TCP/IP. PBEMing a game where you take 10 mn to move your corps, and then wait for the 6 others players to sit to their PC, read their mails, and perform their moves, when you could have finish the turn in 1 hour if TCP/IP was implemented is disappointing.

[DodgyDave]

sorry, how will TCP/IP work this better then now? saw some refer too it at times, but dont understand it.

[Suvorov928]

Actually, in th board game, there was no FoW for fleets.  Read the rules and you will see that all players know the desigantions and strengths of all fleets at all times.  Only Corps counters were hidden.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Suvorov928

Actually, in th board game, there was no FoW for fleets.  Read the rules and you will see that all players know the desigantions and strengths of all fleets at all times.  Only Corps counters were hidden.

OK, thanks. This may have been my friend and his group that did not play the game right.
Thanks !

[gazfun]

FOW isnt really peratinent this level, I would think that it would more apply to a tactical battlefield.
Anyway, most of the Generals of the time new approximatley where (that is in what Province) the opposing armies where its a bit imposible to hide 50,000 or more troops, in a column LOL everyone marching tip toe.
The French did surprise General Mack in 1805, but the French moved so quickly as to surprise him, but he did know that the French where marching towards Bavaria somewhere

[Thresh]

i'd suggest reading a few reports of battles. rarely did a commander have exact numbers, more often than not it was approximate numbers, and even then it could take a while to figure out who you were fighting and how many you were fighting against.

A prime example of this is the jena-auerstedt campaign in 1806.

As another point, england didn't know about the outcome of the battle of trafalgar and nelsons death until a few weeks after the conclusion.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

i'd suggest reading a few reports of battles. rarely did a commander have exact numbers, more often than not it was approximate numbers, and even then it could take a while to figure out who you were fighting and how many you were fighting against.

A prime example of this is the jena-auerstedt campaign in 1806.

As another point, england didn't know about the outcome of the battle of trafalgar and nelsons death until a few weeks after the conclusion.

Napoleon, in what can only be one measure of his genius, almost always knew the size of the opposing force. Not exactly, of course, but close. In the early days, he used to spend the whole night before a major battle personally scouting the placement of his opponent's forces. In his memoirs, he talks about the battle of Ulm and Austerlitz, and tells in some detail about his plans. He saw that the Austrians had gotten themselves stuck between a river on one side and a range of hills/mountains on the other, and they eventually converged on each other. If France could push her down into this sock-shaped area (Napoleon's term, not mine), and have a force waiting at the choke point, he foresaw that he could decimate the enemy's forces. He claims that he rode all the way around on both sides, checking out the terrain, and got back to his own camp at 4 AM. From there, he told his general staff the lay of the land, and gave his orders. In game terms, this was an outflank maneuver, I suspect. Anyhow, he destroyed over half of the Austrian army. All because he spent time personally finding out what he was up against.

But, this shows up in his high ratings, rather than in knowing strength of corps.

For fleets, it's totally different. Major fleets were always running across each other, criss-crossing the ocean trying to find each other. They would get glimpes from their outlying ships, but no chance to open battle "that time". If I'm not mistaken, this happened the day before Trafalgar, even. Anyhow, I think there's good reason for not having FoW for ships.

The other reason for not having it is because the naval combats are SOOOOO variable. I fought the same battle 5 times last night, just to see what would happen. Here are the losses (the phasing player is first, and that fleets was by far larger than the intercepting player):

2 & 4
4 & 9
4 & 14
9 & 9
6 & 12

They're all over the map (although, still confined to a rather small zone). I think this is a good game balance issue. If we had FOW for fleets, one would never really know what one was up against.

The other thing is the interception rules. If a fleet is going to successfully intercept, it follows that it knows where the enemy is. This being the case, it's obvious that the interceptor knows approximately the size of the enemy fleet. This kind of thing happened a lot.

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: gazfun

FOW isnt really peratinent this level, I would think that it would more apply to a tactical battlefield.
Anyway, most of the Generals of the time new approximatley where (that is in what Province) the opposing armies where its a bit imposible to hide 50,000 or more troops, in a column LOL everyone marching tip toe.
The French did surprise General Mack in 1805, but the French moved so quickly as to surprise him, but he did know that the French where marching towards Bavaria somewhere

Uhm.....take a look at the following campaigns:

France '40:
Doh!! 600.000 germans just popped out from the Ardennes!
D-Day '44:
WHAT?? are you telling me that there are 6000 allied ships in front of NORMANDY ???
Pearl Harbor '41:
Naaah, those planes are ours....just relax.
Waterloo 1815:
Don't worry, the French are definitely NOT moving this way.

[zaquex]

Its not fair to compare 1940's with 1800's due to speed and distance motorized armies move at, and as an example, at the time for Pearl Harbour the US Command had the Intel but choose to ignore it, it wasnt beleivable, so no warning was sent to Pearl Harbour.
 
Scouting out armies was easier during the 1800's (they moved slower, in bigger formations and without any real effort to conceal or camoflage themselves, and usually even in very colorful outfits) and most countries used spies/agents (counting masts at harbours wasnt very complicated), pidgeons are said to have been used to carry at least the message of the victory at waterloo and I wouldnt rule out that pidgeons where used at other places during this era.    

[Thresh]

that explains why napoleon thougth he was fighting the entire prussian army at jena while davout was driving it from the field at auerstedt....

[fvianello]

that explains why napoleon thougth he was fighting the entire prussian army at jena while davout was driving it from the field at auerstedt

My same tought

Anyway, thinking that scouting / recon was easier in 1800 with horses and pigeons than in 1940 with jeeps, radio, planes and radars is really an interesting concept.

Even the concept during 1800 the formations were "bigger" than in 1940 is a good one, considering that an average army was 200.000 men compared to 1.500.000 + 2000 tanks + 10000 trucks + everything else in the 1940.
I presumed that 2 panzerdivisionen moving in attack formation toward a schwerkpunkt 1 km wide are easier to spot than 15000 men marching in column...What an idiot I am

[nappy]

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

that explains why napoleon thougth he was fighting the entire prussian army at jena while davout was driving it from the field at auerstedt

My same tought

Anyway, thinking that scouting / recon was easier in 1800 with horses and pigeons than in 1940 with jeeps, radio, planes and radars is really an interesting concept.

Even the concept during 1800 the formations were "bigger" than in 1940 is a good one, considering that an average army was 200.000 men compared to 1.500.000 + 2000 tanks + 10000 trucks + everything else in the 1940.
I presumed that 2 panzerdivisionen moving in attack formation toward a schwerkpunkt 1 km wide are easier to spot than 15000 men marching in column...What an idiot I am

Actually in theory, that 1800 colum may be eaiser - the then smaller army units tended to march along loads with unit banners and usually in long colums and stay within some sort of contact. Heck remember the debacle of french communication Waterloo. You could literally count the soldiers marching by in many cases. Indeed, even the battlefields were smaller and thus you could guage a enemy's strenght a bit easier. But a large moden formation would actually be spread over a larger area (which modern communication could intergrate better) would bedevil an observer; who would have to take a lot more detail to be of intel any use as its doubtful you could tell 6o,000 from 600,000 over 500 sq. km.

Naps

[fvianello]

yes, sure.

[zaquex]

First formation and army is not quite the same and to compare intel on army group level with divisions or even corps isnt really doable.
 
First of all radar wasnt really used in 1940 if you dont count some air warning radars and possibly some naval vessels, none of which is really useful for spotting enemy troops...
 
Planes are good for spotting things, but also gave a good reason why you dont want to be seen, the concept of concealment didnt really exist during the napoleonic age.
 
Also in the age of blitzkrieg its not so much where the division is today that is a problem but where it is tomorrow and when you hear about 15000 men in column marching towards whatever, you might still be able to do something about it, when you see 2 panzerdivisions in attack formation its already to late.
 
And about pigeons as being an inferior technology to the 1940´s radio...
 
Pigeons has been used at least since 2090 BC, egypt, persians, greeks and romans all used pigeons, the french king Charlemagne outlawed pigeons use for all but the nobility and they where concidered a symbol of power and nobility until the revolution. It is documented that pigeons was used by Rotschild to report the outcome of the battle of Waterloo, Rotschild set up a pidgeon network in the early 1800's it is alledged he used this to make a fortune. Reuters set up a network of 46 pigeons for there news service during the 1850's. Between 1860 and 1890 pigeons was incorporated in most modern regular military services. 

Pigeons was used extensivly during both world wars, over 500 000 pidgeons is estimated to have served in military services during world war one, at least 20000 was killed. The Germans had 50,000 birds ready for use when WWII broke out, United States Pigeon Service used 54.000 military pigeons and the British about 250,000 messenger pigeons during WW II. To be caught with a pigeon without a permit in occupied france was a sure death sentence and 32 British pigeons where awarded the dickens medal (highest posible animal decoration for bravery). In the 1940´s pigeons still outperformed the radio in many areas, like range, reliability, being harder to intercept and impossible to triangulate, and pigeons are sometimes still used today. Trials was even made with pigeon guided missiles during the 40´ies.

[DodgyDave]

actually back then, you dont have to count men as such, you looked at banners.
if a regiment back then was 900 men and you saw 12 of those banners, then you could assume that there is max 10800 men.

moving along in columns, will still leave scouts on horses with advantage, because a full numbered regiment, would be a certain lenght and if its only half of the usual, possible cut down to 400 to 600, then they might report 43th Regiment, half strength, possible 450 only.

so not too many troops back then to keep track off.

[fvianello]

Zaquex, you should write the pentagon asking them to go back to pigeons communications. I'm sure they'll understand the error they made during all these years and throw their radio and GPS systems into the sea.

[fvianello]

Nappy, you seem to assume that a 1940 scout should search a large area to find enemy, while a 1815 one would only look right at the spot where the enemy column is.
Actually, the austrian scouts in 1805 had to recon the whole border, from Italy to Strasbourg, to find out where the bulk of the french army was. Exactly as they would have to do in 1940 or today.

Another thing you seem to assume is that modern armies are spreaded along a vast area, while the napoleonic ones were concentrated. Actually, modern armies travel most of time in long columns along roads, except for the head elements that are dispersed for tactical reasons.

Regarding roads, in 1815 columns moved along roads (even small ones actually), and in 1940 panzers and trucks moved along the roads exactly in the same way.

In short, reconaissance was not easier in 1815. it was HARDER.

[zaquex]

I'm sure that pentagon and us survailance organisations are concerned with how to intercept or stop certain "terrorist" organisations use of pigeons and know alot more of the benefits and limitations of pigeons than you or me.

[Murat]

Anyone who thinks the information of this era is absolute and there was no FoW feel free to look up the War College (USA, sorry but they like playing the war games) rules and look at how little information THEY allow you to get from the board and their modified VP structure.

[AresMars]

Murat, I would be very interested in looking at the War College rules you refer to. Would it be possible for you to share their location?
 
I for one prefer more FoW in a game, but I happen to get pleasure from hearing the results of events around the board....part of the fun, but not "true" in real war....
 
AresMars