Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when playing vs AI

[CV Zuikaku]

So, will it be fixed?

[Cap Mandrake]

There is an issue here. If some AK suffers a bomb hit but survives the intitial report may be confused while the vessel is under attack but the ship's captain may well feel the need to report later if he elects to vary from his assigned orders...or another vessel in his convoy may report. This would be sepecially true after the ship's postion is already known to the enemy.

Even if there is no report to the CNO for every little scratch the commander on the scene may elect to divert to Canton instead of heading all the way back to San Fran, for eg.

Friendly air losses will be known with certainty once the squadron returns so it seems to me freindly air losses should be accurate.

[newoldposter]

Fog of war..exactly that..there is always fuzz with your own troops..ships and planes.

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: newoldposter

Fog of war..exactly that..there is always fuzz with your own troops..ships and planes.

Of course...but the player isn't merely playing the role of Nimitz sittting in his office at Pearl. He also has to step up to play the role of TF commander or base air boss and set up CAP for Port Moresby the next day. The commander at Port Moresby will know exactly how many operational P-39's he has available at the end of the day.

The player can find that information by viewing the screen for Port Moresby or by pulling up the TF screen but I think the original poster has a valid pt. about being alerted to do that by the combat report. In fairness, this was also an issue to some extent in WITP (for eg., finding a sub damaged by a search plane). My recollection is it was possible for a vessel to suffer damage not included in the combat report.

[newoldposter]

what is the real impact here?

[Tazo]

 
It seems to me that since the game allows the player to look at EACH unit on the map and see its TRUE state/status (and even give instantaneous command)
he can deduce which damages were taken from the previous actions and THEN a good aid of play SHOULD help him doing that rapidely !
 
An ON / OFF DAMAGE REPÖRT could be added to let every body decide this level of friendly-FOW.
 
My suggestion in case of ON is to improve and/or reorganaze the already useful OPS report by adding lines like the following ones, summing up hits endured
by units in the just executed turn :
 
"XXX merchand ship (severly) was hit by a torpedoe at hex HHHH"
"CA XXX was hit by 5 bombs and 2 torpedoes and was sunk at hex HHHH"
(...then next hurted boats indexed by hexes).
 
"XXX squadron on YYY airfield suffered 2 kills, 6 damaged and claims 1 kill"  (the true data this time, but summing operational losses, several air to air combats, straffing)
"Pilot ZZZ is credited with kill number 3"  (already done but listed here for the right squadron, to help the reader)
"Ace AAA is promoted to the rank RRR"  (again a guy from this brilliant squadron, a good role playing touch here I appreciate)
"A/C of pilot PPP did crash in landing"  (again the oerational losses from the above squadron)
(...then next squadron damage/credits report and its credited guys and operational losses...)
 
A very instructive synthetic report on air / naval units like this would be applaude I guess. Otherwize ignore it and don't open the OPS or turn the new button OFF.
 
I point out that the OPS report already contain important intelligence on the enemy like "BB xxxx is reported to have been sunk the 15 of august at hex HHHH"
and thus is checked every turn in principle, and is very easy to read since very synthetic and chronologic. The last part could be this "overall damage report"
which may avoid players flying from "hot airfield" to "hot airfield" look at the hurted units by himself... and would help him reminding the various combat reports
by feeling at that final stage the cumulative effect of events on each unit. Then finish the cup of cofee and ready to go for a new turn with all the essentials
top of the head!
 
TZ

[pad152]

There is a reason, it's called fog of war!

Gemany - During the Battle of Britian, pilots reported kills totaling 3 X the number of aircraft the Brits had!

Viet Nam - The daily enemy kills reported when added up exceded the total population of North Viet Nam X 5.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: pad152

There is a reason, it's called fog of war!

Gemany - During the Battle of Britian, pilots reported kills totaling 3 X the number of aircraft the Brits had!

Viet Nam - The daily enemy kills reported when added up exceded the total population of North Viet Nam X 5.

Right, but the issue is not about fog of war for losses on the enemy.

The problem is that your own losses are also fogged. If the combat report says that you lost 4 aircrafts in air combat, when you in fact lost 18 aircrafts, then the combat report just doesn't make sense. The commander of the squadron that lost 18 aircrafts will know by end of day how many aircrafts didn't come back and will report 18 lost. If he reports 4 lost, it just means he can't count...

Thanks [:D]
fbs

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: pad152

There is a reason, it's called fog of war!

Gemany - During the Battle of Britian, pilots reported kills totaling 3 X the number of aircraft the Brits had!

Viet Nam - The daily enemy kills reported when added up exceded the total population of North Viet Nam X 5.

Yes, of course, but we are talking about friendly loss reports collated after the heat of the battle.

What we are really talking about is a playability aid for the management of air groups and ships with losses for that day of battle. Already WITP staff does this for some items (like search quadrants for eg.). I am pretty sure Adm King did not have a real time map of the world with a search arc for every Allied squadron in the Pacific and Indian Ocean in his office.

[Tazo]

Yes pad, I agree. By "true data" for kills I meant "official data" taken into account by the hierarchy so they can be FOWed of course.
This is just the ones that are added in the screen of air units "total kills" on the pilot list. I don't know if they are true but at least
"army official" in the game. I would prefer them to be FOWed of course, but still they can be reality if the (old button) FOW is OFF
(newbies or testers may be concerned!). When chosen FOWed at least summing them up in a report gives an upper bound to the
truth... and medals to our pilots!
 
The key "true data" in my suggestion is the part concerning destroyed/damaged A/C of each air unit, these ones could be either
NOT FOWed or FOWed depending on the ON / OFF (new) button chosen by the player. That's it, everybody can choose and the
"damage report/summary" is only an "aid of play" included in the OPS, opened or ignored. The same with boats, the bombs/torp can
be real or FOW according to the same button ON / OFF.
 
 

[toonces]

Agree fully with the OP.  FOW for enemy is great.  FOW for friendly is just annoying.  It's not really FOW...I can go in and click on the unit and get its true state.  So really it's just a time-waster.

[Admiral Scott]

agree..a time waster!

[Captain57]

I have to agree with fbs. This is a game after all. We all love the super detail, but this issue can detract from the enjoyment. If it is taking 3 hours to prep for each turn, that will become dull after a while. I recommend addressing this. Just my 2 cents worth.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: pad152

There is a reason, it's called fog of war!

Gemany - During the Battle of Britian, pilots reported kills totaling 3 X the number of aircraft the Brits had!

Viet Nam - The daily enemy kills reported when added up exceded the total population of North Viet Nam X 5.

Concerning the BoB, AFAIR official British reports tripled German losses and reported own losses correctly, while German reports contained roughly correct numbers for British losses while admitting to a third of own losses.

As concerns fog-of-war in AE, I haven't yet played many turns, but I think getting correct numbers of enemy operational losses day-by-day should be impossible, for that you'd need an agent with a radio right beside each airfield. You might get occasional loss numbers by ULTRA.

There should also be more misidentification of ships in combat reports, especially night surface combat; usually there should be only partial information about the enemy participants, maybe just the class or the type, instead we get something like this:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tacloban at 81,85, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Haguro
DD Oyashio
DD Amatsukaze

Allied Ships
xAKL Kanlaon II, Shell hits 13, and is sunk
xAKL Latouche, Shell hits 2, and is sunk



Low visibility due to Rain with 85% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 85% moonlight: 6,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
CA Haguro engages xAKL Kanlaon II at 1,000 yards
xAKL Kanlaon II sunk by CA Haguro at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
xAKL Latouche sunk by CA Haguro at 4,000 yards
Combat ends with last Allied ship sunk...


This is a report for the Allied side. Bad visibility, and all Allied ships sunk, where does the information come from?
I'd have expected, at best, something like

CA Haguro class
DD Kagero class
DD Fubuki class

or, seeing as this were merchant ships,
1 BB, 2 cruisers

Enemy subs are always (correctly?) identified, even if they evaded detection.

It wouldn't come amiss, either, if sometimes completely fictitious ships were reported, like the famous carrier "Ryukaku".

Similarly, as aircraft recognition on both sides was somewhat hit-and-miss, air combat reports should misidentify aircraft types part of the time, maybe drop in the occasional Messerschmitt or Junkers.

And lie about own victory points!

[CV Zuikaku]

ORIGINAL: Tankist

I have to agree with fbs. This is a game after all. We all love the super detail, but this issue can detract from the enjoyment. If it is taking 3 hours to prep for each turn, that will become dull after a while. I recommend addressing this. Just my 2 cents worth.

Exactly. And the FOW is in extremes. either there is none at all, or there is super FOW on even our own units... but only in reports as we can see the real situation by clicking on each unit. The problem is that I do not want to click on every TF on the map each turn just to check the real situation. It is extremely time consuming and can be avoided by simple "xAK XYZ have been reported hit". All after all, ships being attacked and hit usually send distress signal. Allied ships and axis ones sended distress signals- especially when damaged. What is the logic of ships captain ,when his ship is attacked, hit by bombs and left burning, who do not send report about that? Sir, sould we radio the Pearl for help? No, forget it, FOW is good, it will be fun if they don't know about this mess [:D]

[88l71]

Well you'd think it'd be accurate at least when a ship is in a TF, as long as at least one ship survives. If just one ship I could see the radio getting damaged or perhaps the ship exploding/sinking very quickly.

[carnifex]

If the game forced the player to be a Theater commander only, then friendly FOW on combat reports might apply. But in this game you wear many hats; composing individual TFs, setting single squadrons to CAP or sweep. You need accurate information to be able to play those roles.

[John Lansford]

When Carlson made his raid on Makin in early 1942 with the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion, he had no idea how many of his men were lost until both subs returned to Pearl Harbor.  The units were all mixed up and those missing were assumed to have gotten on board the other sub.
 
When Juneau was sunk, no one reported the sinking until several days afterwards. 
 
It's happening more often in AE than it did IRL, but FOW was a problem with the Allied units as well as damage assessment of the enemy.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: pad152

There is a reason, it's called fog of war!

Gemany - During the Battle of Britian, pilots reported kills totaling 3 X the number of aircraft the Brits had!

Viet Nam - The daily enemy kills reported when added up exceded the total population of North Viet Nam X 5.

Yes, of course, but we are talking about friendly loss reports collated after the heat of the battle.

What we are really talking about is a playability aid for the management of air groups and ships with losses for that day of battle. Already WITP staff does this for some items (like search quadrants for eg.). I am pretty sure Adm King did not have a real time map of the world with a search arc for every Allied squadron in the Pacific and Indian Ocean in his office.

Talk about fog of war!

Go read Chuck Yeager's book, in Viet Nam he and his air group were rated on planes available (flyable), even if they were shot down, or crashed or just plan broken, so when under inspection he would have some of the inspected planes take off and land at another base and have the numbers on the planes changed to the lost/damaged aircraft and then flown back, just to keep the pencil pushers in the puzzle palace happy. [:D] This was the only way he could pass inspection, it seems the inspection process didn't take into account plane lost in war (true story)!

[Feltan]

I don't think there should be a change here -- I like it the way it is.

As a veteran, I can tell you with scientific certaintly that your typical headquarters is trying to sort out what friendly units are doing and where they are far more than doing the same for enemy units.

I am sure every veteran on these boards could relate stories about missing, over due or misplaced friendly units whether they be ground, naval or air. As an army veteran, I have personally witnessed a Corps commander bitching out his division commanders who had co-located and left a huge gap in friendly lines.

And let us not forget that the events in the game took place 60+ years ago; before the age and expectation of instantaneous communication. Mesages were written before sending and upon receipt; transcription errors happen -- no digital machine communications, no computers, no GPS.

If the designers wanted to model reality they could have increased this. It would not be out-of-bounds to give orders for a ship to sail to, say, Brisbane only to find it in Sydney several days later. Not often, but it could happen -- and in WWII I am confident it actually happened more often than one might believe.

Regards,
Feltan