Matrix Games Forums

So, some of you really want to play every turn for 5 hours?! [X(] Good luck! [:D]

I am more or less ok with the current fog of war system, and the way it works now.  There is only one thing I do not like:
 
When my air patrols spot enemy subs, they often report them as Surface Task Forces - sometimes large ones.  I do not see how this is realistic, I can understand a pilot misreporting the id of some ships and reporting them as a bigger threat than reality.  But a sub is a sub, how can they confuse those with surface ships.  Those sub contacts should be reported as submarines I think.

At the moment FOW makes no sense. Player do get message when enemy petrol plane spot the ship, but not when the same plane drops a bomb... Also player is not just high commander, player is TF commander too desiding when to fuel at sea, how many patrol planes are flying etc.

TF commander should know if ship is damaged.

 
I fully agree with Feltan that in armies as in any human organizations the total amount of misunderstandings, false interpretations, dreamed considerations, mistakes,
stupid decisions, unreliable behaviors, counter productive competition and rivalties, and so on, is simply amazing. Thinking deeply about it you become crazy.
The human real mystery is that despite this, most things are going on anyway.
 
So yes, even giving orders to naval units far away can lead to misunderstanding the destination if one has set the "friendly FOW" button ON (say, a dice
roll for each "order change" the player click and validate, so the initial order in ports is automatically correct since usually "written", but later on, by using 
distant transmission and coding/decoding to give "counter orders" may lead minor units to secretly go to the wrong place... not major TF because they are in
permanent or frequent contact with the amirauty and clearly the player is a little bit in the shoes of the big TF commanders as well). No problem with me, a
good idea, when ready to opperate accurately I may want to set this ON with all the other realistic nuisances of the friendly FOW we are pointing out. However
realism depends on who you are as the player... this is what we are discussing indeed.
 
Actually - at least not yet - I don't play the role of a single man, the great admiral or whoever, in a role playing realistic game "top chief of staff". I feel myself
as a wargamer playing a large scale complex addictive game for the rest of my too short life (in a former post I said something like "With AE eternity is no more
a curse"). The BEST wargame ever. So, being not immortal, if some "player friendly" changes can be added I take them to spend more time wargaming AE. For
instance I would like to be abble to select for which TF or air/ground units I want to see the combat animations concerning them (and only these ones, instead
of clicking on most of the animation windows while waiting for the ones interesting me most). Likewise I would like to read the kind of indexed by hexes/base/TF/units
"damage summary report" in the OPS I described above in this thread just to have my... wargamer accurate information in a more fast and friendly way. 
 
Notice that in a future challenge against another wargamer, the "GC in pbem", I will certainly put the "friendly FOW" buton ON for an even more exiting and
realistic experience. But right now, in the long early stage where most of us need to understand the complex game procedures, how to toggle the right
settings and how to organize long term plans while developping our own style and doctrines, like a huge training/testing, we all need the best possible playing
aids and an improved "player friendly" interface giving quick access to hot informations when thinking in front of this beautiful map. If the gaming practice
leads most of us to very similar minor suggestions, then the developping dream team will certainly hear the requests. And the friendly FOW is a very good point
to look at. I insist again that any "player friendly" interface could be friendly enough to make the new features optional, by setting an ON / OFF button.
No need here to impose "constructive requests of few/many/most people" to everybody. So the question becomes : which game changes when "Friendly FOW" 
is ON, which game changes when it is OFF.
 
A last remark concerns newbies. The game has to help them in their learning curve, so FOWed datas on their own army may not really help them/us
understanding the effects of their orders/settings.
 
TZ

I don't think anyone would argue about the fog of war in the real world. But this issue goes to the playability thing. Its a game where you play all command levels. It sort of like not reporting accurately to...yourself.

How about it gets turned on only if the Taskforce is computer controlled?

If a transport in a task force is hit by bombs the result could very easily not get to Nimitz. However, the player also represents the task force commander and would definitely take some kind of action without Nimitz intervening.

We need info on every level we represent when playing. If I am the task force commander it's very unlikely that a ship bombed in my convoy is not going to report getting hit so I am oblivious to it's status until a radio officer finally reports that it went under. It would be an immediate priority.

Not getting this info to the player representing that TF commander is not effective FOW, it's a mistake. Requiring the player to click on everything on the map is an annoyance, not something to make the game more interesting.

The kind of FOW you should get is reports on enemy ships damaged, enemy planes damaged/downed, and sighting reports

I would like to be able to turn OFF the FOW for friendly side when playing against AI. WitP AE is already a lot more work as is without doing more manual work of finding what actually happened during air/naval/land battles.

Thanks!

All these are really good points, including the policy of "let's fool my commander and tell him a lie about my true readiness because he doesn't want to hear reality" -- that's very valid, just look at Hitler.

Problem is that the commander (you) can check at any moment the true readiness of the troops, including un-measurable things like experience and administrative skill, so the friendly FOW system is not really hiding information, just making it miserable to find it around.

If we're talking about implementing a realistic FOW system for friendly forces, including loss of communications and assessing units qualitatively rather than quantitatively, then I'm all for it -- that's an interesting approach. But the game doesn't implement that: the only thing that is fogged for friendly forces is the combat reports.

The combat report misses informing that one of your ships was hit, but at the same time you can pinpoint exactly where is the ship, how many fires it has on board and what's the % hull integrity, so the combat reports look oddly inconsistent. Whenever a feature looks oddly inconsistent, I end up really in doubt if the "feature" is really a design decision or a bug. I mean, can you truthfully say that the combat reports are not missing combats because of a bug? There's no way to say that!

I said all that with all the love in the world: I'm still in awe of the level of detail and grandness of the design.

Cheers [:D]
fbs

ORIGINAL: fbs
... If we're talking about implementing a realistic FOW system for friendly forces, including loss of communications and assessing units qualitatively rather than quantitatively, then I'm all for it -- that's an interesting approach. But the game doesn't implement that: the only thing that is fogged for friendly forces is the combat reports...

fbs,

A very valid point.

Regards,
Feltan

No doubt to late, but tie the unit report screen to unit morale/disruption/damage levels.  Maybe below certain levels it's greyed out, or the stats could be off +/- accordingly, and highlighted.  i.e. a unit that just got the crap kicked out of it, retreating in disorder, etc., it's reports (when you click on them) could be wildly inaccurate.  Or just a little.  Or totally accurate.  Just as in RL, you just wouldn't know.

As far as ship damage goes, even the Captain or TF CDR might not know just exactly how badly damaged his ship(s) are/is in the immediate aftermath of a battle/taking serious damage, why should you?  You just need to know whether it's badly hurt, and if you need to get it to port.  Let only ships in ports display totally accurate status reports.

ORIGINAL: Tazo

 
I fully agree with Feltan that in armies as in any human organizations the total amount of misunderstandings, false interpretations, dreamed considerations, mistakes,
stupid decisions, unreliable behaviors, counter productive competition and rivalties, and so on, is simply amazing.

This, in the game, is already simulated via the complexity of the interface.

I just don't find that FOW increases my turn time at all. The combat reports are there to tell me where combat occurred. Other things tell me what really happened. But that's just me.

But if the combat report doesn't tell you that combat occured, and you don't happen to look at that ship/TF during the turn, you have no way of knowing.

Imagine the Neosho is struck by a bomb. Although Nimitz might not have known about it that day, the captain of the ship would certainly have been aware that the ship is burning. As the player, you might never check the status of the ship and have it continue to sail on as if nothing happened instead of going to the nearest friendly port for repairs. That simply is not realistic. FOW or not.

I really don't see a valid reason for having friendly fog of war in the combat reports, but not in the individual displays. And for gameplay purposes, I don't see the point of having friendly FOW at all.

FOW for enemy = 1
FOW for friendly = 0   

I am completely new to the game. Maybe I should remain silent until I really know what I am talking about.

Nevertheless.

FOW in a strategy game is a great thing.
FOW in a war game is a must.

My thoughts:

Air Force:
the Air Force is more of a small pile. As everyone knows each squadron, each face, even the rookies (we talk about a small carrier or a small airfield).
The commanders write their reports after the machines landed.
Now, if a face is missing on the table, at dinnertime, the empty plates can not be overlooked.
I think there is no room for error, that is, reports should be correct.

Ground troops:
combat stress, misinterpretation of commands to soldiers lost to be scattered, anxiety, confusion, injury, hunger, or, or, or.
That the commanders here lose is understandable. So wrong reports, why not.

Navy:
it is not credible that the rapporteurs, someone fail to see the sinking drama of a ship with more souls than some small town residents.

For the smaller battle ships (PT, maybe also DD), which belong to the mass merchandise, I could imagine that when one or other of the daily report mistakes are made for some reason i. e. sloppiness.

For uncovered commercial/cargo/civilian ships, I could understand that after a attack some the undisciplined vessels no longer be found.
Nor can you have a captain of a civilian fleet hardly make an allegation, if this is the lose and by lack of exercise and training false reports.

Submarines:
Here it will become difficult. Submarines are quiet, mysterious, unknown and invisible (also hazardous and common).
The fact that a sinking overlooked or mistakenly reported in the past often been reported (often by a massage [Radio Tokyo?] by the enemy).
Anyway, I find the topic of the submarines in the game by far is not yet exhausted. So many more room for enhancements and development (Sorry the half of german inside speaking).

My opinion / answer / vote on the subject of this tread:
Commercial/cargo/civilian ships: FOW for friendly - yes

Small naval vessels: FOW for friendly - possible

Fighting/Battle ships / heavy steel: FOW for friendly - no way!

Subs: FOW for friendly - possible (this would be plenty of room)

Air Force: FOW for friendly - perhaps bur not insignificant in the context.

Ground troops: FOW for friendly - yes

If FOW for friendly isn´t possible to realise in the way I would like see it, I vote for the complete elimination of FOW for friendly.

For discussion incidentally:
DATABASE in the game: why I already know in 1941 what ships/planes/weapons, etc. will be 1945 available.
Yes, exactly - by my magical crystal ball!
To be consistent, those future prophecies the data bases should not be visible.

These are good points from Templer. I think that realistic FOW for friendly submarines is a fascinating subject, given unique characteristics of their operations. Right now you control a sub exactly the same way as you control a battleship, so there is a large terrain open for improvements. I suspect that this is something too big to take as a patch to WITP AE, but is an excellent area for WITP III - The Most Loved and Supreme Grand Commander Edition (WITP MacArthur for short)

Cheers [:D]
fbs

There is no fog of war if you can click every unit and find out its exact status, which is something all of us can do if we want (although there might be fog on how the damage occurred). This is about forcing every player to check every unit vs. giving him a heads up on actual aircraft losses and ships damaged so he can save time. I'd rather have a quicker turn myself. If players still insist, then make it a toggle option.

Cheers,
CC

ORIGINAL: fbs


These are good points from Templer. I think that realistic FOW for friendly submarines is a fascinating subject, given unique characteristics of their operations. Right now you control a sub exactly the same way as you control a battleship, so there is a large terrain open for improvements. I suspect that this is something too big to take as a patch to WITP AE, but is an excellent area for WITP III - The Most Loved and Supreme Grand Commander Edition (WITP MacArthur for short)

Thanks for the honey fbs.

But hold back with WitP III. I´m still sweating blood and tears to get in WitP:AE

Ok hate to bring this up again but ....

Looking for supply ship to rangoon, should have arrived today. Can't find it and watched the entire replay and nothing about any action or combat with it.

Search for ship, gone. Hmmm. look at ops report 4 times it sees a plane but does not report being bombed and does not show up as "we admitted the loss of xxx today". Lookee here found it under the info sunks ship screen apparently sunk by 250kg bomb.

I think that info should be reported somewhere as someone (even in government) would have noticed that the chow didn't arrive.

Please some more info in reports especially large losses like ships/subs/bases etc. I am sure that IJN would have seen a report xxx was hit.

Thanks
Pat

One more issue.

If I atack a sub, it´s usally dipped. So why can I see wich sub (name) do I atack? We are with FOW aren´t we?