Fog of War

[MButtazoni]

How is this accomplished in a simulation?

but GGWAW is not a simulation.

[SeaMonkey]

I would break the FoW feature into 3 categories of the quest for intelligence based upon the level of efficiency gained by each belligerent, through investment.

1. Tactical: the revelation of adjacent opposing forces composition, disposition, and level of combat effectiveness.

2. Operational: the abilty to decipher(capture) the opposing forces' plans by revealing their level of supply and availability of the type and amount of reinforcements.

3. Strategic: A somewhat incomplete disclosure of a side's level of research and details of war material production plans.

pretty much self explanatory but you could always add other effects to each category, such as an additional combat modifier to say the "evasion" characteristic for naval forces or the ability to avoid combat in undesirable instances( a lessening of losses) or a complete inablity to engage in a certain area, a quicker catch up in certain research levels, etc., etc. These factors would of course be random in effectiveness but a somewhat higher % of achievement based upon the competency of that side's "Intelligence" level.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

that was then, this is how FoW is in GGWAW:
- FoW is either On or Off. (no varying levels of FoW)
- Each player nation (GE, JA, SU, CH, WA) can have Fow on or off independantly
- with FoW on:
-- adjacent enemy units can be seen
-- enemy units within 2 areas of friendly air units can be seen
-- on the Military Forces screen you can not see the qty of enemy units in production.
-- on the Unit Data screen you can not see what attributes are being researched by the enemy.

This sounds good, and certainly removes almost all need for my suggestions (2) and (3) (and simplifies play). But I still think you might consider adding the 3 months delayed "full state" intelligence [(1), knowledge of enemy force state at beginning of prior enemy turn]. It seems like a good way to balance your (MButtazoni) original concerns at the top of the thread with uncertainty. I think it provides a neat way to get the idea of mass troop movements (and production) without knowing exactly where they are _right_ _now_. Turning this on/off could even be a second level of FOW, providing something of a knob that many seem to be asking for.

Anyway, just a suggestion. I know you'll either take or leave it .

It does seem like there may be some weird (but rarely important) effects from the way you described FOW. E.g. WA engage Japanese navy somewhere in WA turn, Ja retreats, then Ja moves its navy away in Ja turn. Now Germany can't see where the WA fleet is, even though it has not moved since the last time an Axis power (Ja) got a chance to see it. So, Ja player should take notes and inform the Ge player. (Maybe I have the turn order mixed up, but I think you get the picture).

I don't entirely understand attributes and research. You say that with FOW you can't see attributes that are being researched by the enemy. But can you see the status of the attributes themselves? E.g. if Ge has already finished massive research on tank evasion, boosting that attribute level, do you see that raised attribute value? It seems weird to see the value if you haven't yet met it in combat.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: MButtazoni

- FoW is either On or Off. (no varying levels of FoW)
- Each player nation (GE, JA, SU, CH, WA) can have Fow on or off independantly
- with FoW on:
-- adjacent enemy units can be seen
-- enemy units within 2 areas of friendly air units can be seen
-- on the Military Forces screen you can not see the qty of enemy units in production.
-- on the Unit Data screen you can not see what attributes are being researched by the enemy.

Does this apply from land to sea and sea to land as well?

For air units of course it makes sense, but e.g. it seems odd for a sub off of England to know the entire land forces stationed there, and it is not like the sub can be thought to scout and probe like adjacent land units would. Similarly, it seems that a sub off of Canada could easily remain hidden from infantry stationed there.

[cptracks]

First of all. allow me to introduce myself. I've been playing wargames (board and computer) for years; cut my teeth on AH Third Reich sort of thing. I've been following this game and love what I see so far since strategic is my thing. Now to throw a wrench or two into the works (sorry Maurice!) It is one thing to know the general scope of an enemy, another entirely to know how those capabilities translate into the real world. On a strategic level the WA knew about German armour and actually had better in the French Char series etc. but totally misunderstood the doctrine of how they were used in combined arms. End result? Penny packet armour dissapated under massed counterstrike and valiant unsupported charges against enemy panzers that found dug in 88's awaiting. Tactical ignorance leading to strategic misappreciation and disaster. The UK on balance should have expected a much better result for their early desert troop investments based on sheer numbers. The German appreciation of Russian capabilities has been touched on, what about the German misunderstanding of UK air capability. I am thinking of the dam busters where one little innovation that went unnoticed had a huge strategic impact. Another is the German factory camouflage capability that totally misled the WA as to how much damage they were really doing. What I am trying to say is that, at a minimum, fog of war has a very real place in strategic simulation at all levels.

[ratster]

I wanna make sure I understand this. Each playable side can have FoW turned on/off independently.

Does that mean if FoW is on for the German player, for example, that he cannot see all the other opposiong research/units/whatever, or that they cannot see his?

[WanderingHead]

Hey, my old question seems to have been dropped, but I am still wondering.

With FOW turned on, do sea units get full visibility into adjacent land zones? And vv, do land units get full visibility into adjacent sea zones?

[WanderingHead]

Hey folks, any chance of getting the question answered? Is the third time the charm?

With very little going on on the boards, all we anxious and impatient masses can do is stew and ponder and wonder.

With FOW on, do naval vessels give visibility to adjacent enemy land zones, and do land forces allow one to see adjacent enemy submarines?

Also, with FOW on, is there any visible indication of which zones you are blind in? For example, does a zone appear slightly grayed (darkened) if you can't see in it? This would help in avoiding the necessity to carefully calculate exactly where you have visibility and where you don't.

Have you done anything to verify game balance with FOW?

I'm quite interested in FOW (which hasn't been shown in any AARs yet [of course, there are understandable difficulties in that [;)]]) since I expect that's how I'd prefer to play. Have any of the testers played a full game with FOW?

Thanks all, and please get back to Case Geld ASAP.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

Hey folks, any chance of getting the question answered? Is the third time the charm?

With very little going on on the boards, all we anxious and impatient masses can do is stew and ponder and wonder.

With FOW on, do naval vessels give visibility to adjacent enemy land zones, and do land forces allow one to see adjacent enemy submarines?

Yes

Also, with FOW on, is there any visible indication of which zones you are blind in? For example, does a zone appear slightly grayed (darkened) if you can't see in it? This would help in avoiding the necessity to carefully calculate exactly where you have visibility and where you don't.

No.

Have you done anything to verify game balance with FOW?

Not sure how many testers have played so far with FOW. I've been too busy pushing for beta to verify where things stand on this.

I'm quite interested in FOW (which hasn't been shown in any AARs yet [of course, there are understandable difficulties in that [;)]]) since I expect that's how I'd prefer to play. Have any of the testers played a full game with FOW?

They'll have to say.

Thanks all, and please get back to Case Geld ASAP.

Becuase so much has been added since this game began, I'm not sure you'll see it completed. Too much of the game needs testing now, and play using old versions doesn't provide good test. I've got 4 PBEM games going myself now and unfortunately we need what testing time we have focused on the game instead of posting AAR's. Obviously I'd love the testers to post more AAR's, but it's been tough to get that kind of time commitment from the testers.

[Oleg Mastruko]

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

Have you done anything to verify game balance with FOW?

Thanks all, and please get back to Case Geld ASAP.

I did play some games (both PBEM and solo) with FOW on and game balance, as such, is generally unaffected by FOW.

O.

[Cheesehead]

Becuase so much has been added since this game began, I'm not sure you'll see it completed. Too much of the game needs testing now, and play using old versions doesn't provide good test. I've got 4 PBEM games going myself now and unfortunately we need what testing time we have focused on the game instead of posting AAR's. Obviously I'd love the testers to post more AAR's, but it's been tough to get that kind of time commitment from the testers.

Personally, I've seen enough of the AARs to know this will be a good game. It wouldn't bother me if you testers never posted again. I'd just as soon you devote your time to getting the game on the shelves...but that's just me. [:)]

[Oleg Mastruko]

Writing an AAR usually takes more time than actually playing the game.

Also, development is fast, and with every new test version, with added features, going back 5 or 10 versions back just to play AAR game seemed like downgrading. Sometimes new beta versions released to testers are not compatible with old save game files, and - in order to keep playing AAR games - testers must have kept two versions on their PCs (current test version, and old AAR game version). As you remember, our latest AAR game got stuck on a version that is so old by current standards, it makes no sense in continuing that game now... So many new features were added in the meantime.

O.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
Personally, I've seen enough of the AARs to know this will be a good game. It wouldn't bother me if you testers never posted again. I'd just as soon you devote your time to getting the game on the shelves...but that's just me. [:)]

OK all, I agree. Test away, debug, improve.

The AARs are just candy to while away the time until February. But I'd rather have the game earlier and/or better.

Oh, and thanks for the answers.