Fog of War proposal

[BoerWar]

I like the fog of war option in the game but it seems odd that I don't know anything about enemy corps operating on my own territory. I would think the locals would pass along information to their own forces (unless of course they don't like the king).

For future updates I'd propose the following:

For enemy corps on the territory of a conquered minor or controlled free state general information should be provided to the controlling player. For instance, types of troops with general troop strength (perhaps an indication of greater or less than 50% strength).

For enemy corps on the home nation territory of another major power then the controlling major player should get full information (or nearly so).

Major powers in the Fiasco and instability zone could have this "visability" reduced by a level. (i.e. no info in minors and reduced info on home territory).

[Murat]

Or you can just turn off FoW.

[bresh]

Just to clear it up.
FOW option for now, only involves battles between AI's.
Also your locals wouldnt know numbers anyway just cause they see some troop movements in a area several miles abroad. Do they know where some hide, maybe they count the same troops twice.
Corps FOW is really big part of EIA. Remove it and you wont play the same game.

Regards
Bresh

[pzgndr]

With FOW on, I question why we can see enemy leaders attached to corps.  This may have been the practice in the original board game, but does it have to remain so? 
 
As a bookkeeping feature, it would be nice if last known unit strengths could be displayed in parentheses or subdued color or something.  Perhaps for a limited time like 2-3 months.  Granted such information can become obsolete quickly once reinforcements are added or troops are transferred between units, but where known info could be tracked and provided to players that would be nice.

[Killerduck]

On the leaders and fog of war...
I am certain leaders placement were public knowledge on the boardgame only because of the limitations of, well, playing a boardgame. Keeping information secret without allowing for easy cheating was a factor in the design.

Our group has played with leaders secret (honour system) for years and it is much more fun.
I can never forget the battle in Italy where Russia (me) and my close ally Britain landed three corps to challenge the French in Romagna. I had my 1st corps and guards and Britain had 1st corps, all were full. As it was early in the game, it was quite a commitment and we were both confident.
Turns out, the French corps there were both full with over 40 men total and leading was - you guessed it - the Corsican genious himself. We were almost wiped out. Luckily I escaped with a single cavalry to keep Bagration from being captured.

Uncertainty and (calculated) risks are the best parts of the game for sure.

[zaquex]

I think the beleif in FOW is greatly overestimated, there wasnt that many armys to keep track of and the chain of command and therefore who commanded them was usually common knowledge.
 
1812 the russians had 3 western armies 1st (Barclay) 2nd (Bagration) 3rd (Tormasov), The 4th coalition at the time for Leipzig had Allied Army of the North (Bernadotte), Allied Army of Bohemia (Schwarzenburg) (Southern Wing (Barclay)), The Allied Army of Silesia (Blucher), Russian Army of Poland (Bennigsen). Due to the areas of operation and limited speed of travell etc it wouldnt be hard to determine wich army you are facing.
 
When it comes to parts of army and individual corps and commanders it might be a bit harder. Still reasonably easy to know who you are facing although not quite as easy to know what other forces are close enough join the battle. This period describes more than a few battles who was determined by arrival of additional forces/corps that came to a battle because they marched towards the sounds of firing guns.
 
Most if not all major battles was preceeded by skirmishes between smaller forces where intel could be gathered and often also involving capturing of enemy soldiers that could be interrogated. Those who didnt use vanguards, rearguards, flanking skirmishers and cavalry for scouting soon learned or perrished. As true today as it was then that without scouts you fight blind and that intel can be the difference between winning and losing wars.
 
EiA's grand scale have to be simplify all this and more as there is no room ( or time ) for tactical decisions and operations and the information currently given arbitrates all this to a reasonable level without time consuming and complicated mechanisms.

[BoerWar]

ORIGINAL: Murat

Or you can just turn off FoW.

Whether they know everything or nothing isn't the point. It is still odd that in the game the British, for example, would have the same information about a French corps campaigning in Southern Russia as they would about one parading up Fleet Street. I'm merely proposing that it would be nice to have shades of gray if possible.

[zaquex]

Although i agree that there is an unrealistic time issue, the fact that they get information is often not that strange most armies had "foreign observers" from friendly or allied powers who reported back what they saw and found out. The unrealistic part is the "instant" knowledge of some events like battles etc.
 
 

[pzgndr]

I think the beleif in FOW is greatly overestimated, there wasnt that many armys to keep track of and the chain of command and therefore who commanded them was usually common knowledge.

I tend to agree but we do have the FOW option. It's not so much a question where the leaders are generally, but which specific stack and corps are they with?

I'd argue that FOW off should be really basic but perhaps retain a few hidden elements by default, such as corps strengths. FOW on should be more advanced, and challenging.

[BoerWar]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I'd argue that FOW off should be really basic but perhaps retain a few hidden elements by default, such as corps strengths. FOW on should be more advanced, and challenging.

Yeah, something along this line is what I'm proposing here. With FOW on provide the players with some generalized knowledge of enemy corps strengths and factor types (maybe 25%, 50%, 75% or max) , but make the information available to other players less reliable based on where it is operating (home territory, controlled territory, unaffiliated territory).

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I'd argue that FOW off should be really basic but perhaps retain a few hidden elements by default, such as corps strengths. FOW on should be more advanced, and challenging.

Yeah, something along this line is what I'm proposing here. With FOW on provide the players with some generalized knowledge of enemy corps strengths and factor types (maybe 25%, 50%, 75% or max) , but make the information available to other players less reliable based on where it is operating (home territory, controlled territory, unaffiliated territory).

Sounds more like you wanna play something else
I would hate the reduction of what fog of War provides for corps.

Regards
Bresh

[fvianello]

ORIGINAL: bresh
Sounds more like you wanna play something else
I would hate the reduction of what fog of War provides for corps.

My same thoughts....
Moreover, this game is a porting of a boardgame so it should keep all the basic rules unchanged. And no, it doesn't matter if someone thinks that "they would make the game better".

If you want to make a computer version of Monopoli, you don't change the rules, no matter if you think that actually Trafalgar square property should cost more and be located in another area of the playing surface.

[pzgndr]

I'm certainly not proposing any reduction of FOW for corps strengths; I see that as an important feature of the game.  I even suggested for FOW off to keep corps strengths hidden by default.  But I do think where corps strengths have been revealed in combat, these known strengths could be tracked for reference.
 
We do have the FOW option.  One way or another players will change the basic rules of the game.  So the question should be perhaps, 1) should FOW 'off' be the default board game rules and FOW 'on' something new and more challenging, or 2) should FOW 'on' be the default board game rules (no more and no less) and FOW 'off' something more simple??
 
I would opt for #1.  Then make FOW 'on' more challenging.  As suggested, leaders could be hidden.  Enemy corps and city garrisons within their home territories with no friendly units adjacent could be hidden.  Enemy fleets at sea with no friendly fleets adjacent could be hidden.  Etc.  There are a lot of new things that could be done in the computer version that could not be done before on the board game.  Players would still have the option to play the traditional standard game.

[bresh]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

I'm certainly not proposing any reduction of FOW for corps strengths; I see that as an important feature of the game.  I even suggested for FOW off to keep corps strengths hidden by default.  But I do think where corps strengths have been revealed in combat, these known strengths could be tracked for reference.

We do have the FOW option.  One way or another players will change the basic rules of the game.  So the question should be perhaps, 1) should FOW 'off' be the default board game rules and FOW 'on' something new and more challenging, or 2) should FOW 'on' be the default board game rules (no more and no less) and FOW 'off' something more simple??

I would opt for #1.  Then make FOW 'on' more challenging.  As suggested, leaders could be hidden.  Enemy corps and city garrisons within their home territories with no friendly units adjacent could be hidden.  Enemy fleets at sea with no friendly fleets adjacent could be hidden.  Etc.  There are a lot of new things that could be done in the computer version that could not be done before on the board game.  Players would still have the option to play the traditional standard game.

The current FOW option, is just for keeping FOW for AI vs AI battles.

It would not be a good saleargument selling a EIA-game which had many different rules, from what the game was based on.
I prefer changes that makes it closer to EIA, not away. Then it would only be EIA-inspired. And im not sure all would had bought/buy the game then.

Regards
Bresh