Request another honest answer

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
..............Gentlemen, it is now far too late to go back to Plan A. We are going to have to live with Plan B

Then Plan B it is.

[pasternakski]

Oui, monsieur. I hope that it does not wind up like the Dyle plan.

[NeverMan]

Complete FoW applied in this game, being such a strategic game, is simply silly, unrealistic, and entirely unhistorical. Complete FoW is meant for more tactical games played in a shorter, game time period, not over 16 years and not in Corp strength. I can't see how anyone could argue for FoW in this type of game and try to make it make sense. It's absurd.

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Oui, monsieur. I hope that it does not wind up like the Dyle plan.

Was that some failed attempt at a serious simulation of the Napoleonic Era at the strategic level? Hope must be kept alive.

[donkuchi19]

I sincerely hope that you are joking about the Dyle plan being a new Napoleonic strategic war game. Anyone with a waving French flag in their info part of the screen should know about the Dyle plan in WWII.

[pasternakski]

Le Tondu, it looks like our offbeat humor just isn't appreciated around here.

Oh, well. Back to my self-absorbed ennui...

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Le Tondu, it looks like our offbeat humor just isn't appreciated around here.

Oh, well. Back to my self-absorbed ennui...

[&:] Dyle, Dyle. Hmmmm......... [8|] [X(][8|] [X(] Oh you mean Dial soap?

http://www.onwar.com/maps/wwii/blitz/

[YohanTM2]

ORIGINAL: Hoche

Is there anyone in this forum that has played EiA that thinks FoW would improve the game?

NO

[Blacksheep]

I vote no as well.

[Mark Breed]

NO to Fog of War. [:-]

I want a computerized version of Empires in Arms! I am not looking for anything else.

Regards,
Mark

[donkuchi19]

The way the Corps are set up now, the FOW is fine. I don't feel the need for any other type of gimmick to change that.

Tondu - I am glad you know what the Dyle Plan was. As I said, I hoped you were joking. Not knowing you, I just wanted to be sure. I usually get humor better than that but working with people that don't know history very well can get you a little apprehensive at times.

The map site is very cool.

[Roads]

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
Hello Roads,

Jomini speaks for himself and that is why I quoted his article in its entirety without inserting any comment from myself. He was there at the highest of levels on both sides. He is the authority and I find it extremely laughable that you are disputing him.

I will say that you blurr things terribly by presenting Jomini's quote as my own. Your lack of attention to detail is amazing.

In regards to Lloyd, he clearly was deluded about his nation's geographical impact upon military operations and Jomini gave three examples to prove it. There is nothing odd there.

Jomini speaks for himself.

Regarding the FOW issue for EiA, Matrix has finally spoken and all I ever will have to say is something like this:


To all,

It is with all of my heart that I wish for you to have many great experiences with this game. May it bring you years and years of joy. It is also my wish that Matrix sells many, MANY copies of it and that a great number of new Napoleonic games finds their way to your computer. [:)] Now that would be nice, wouldn't it?

Take care.
[:)]

I'm sorry about the quote. I suppose I could have added Jomini's name in there, but I sort of assumed people would have already read your original post.

Anyway I wasn't trying to challenge Jomini. All I meant was that the quote suggests that ALL terrain on the map should be unknown until an army enters it, as the generals of the time were basically clueless about the geography of their own countries! I don't see how this would improve the game at all.

And I'm not sure how the fact that leaders were generally ignorant of the geography of the theatre has to do with their knowledge or lack of knowlege of how many corps were in a particualar (game) province over the course of a month. That is the scale that is important here. The fact that they didn't know the geography certainly shows that they were generally in the dark, but I've yet to hear a concrete example of ignorance on the scale of the game.

Another example. In 1801 the allies knew full well that the army of the reserve was being formed in Burgundy. They disocunted it militarily (didn't know the mix of militia to regulars?:)) but they knew it was there. In game terms the army then disappeared for a week or so, and then reappeared in the Val d'Aosta. Did Melas know that Fort Bard was being attacked? Not the saem day obviously, but quickly enough. Did he know how many troops Bonaparte had? Not by a long shot, but he knew that it was army sized. He lost the French again when they headed for Milan rather than Genoa. But again, this was not for a month or more.

The game allows you to know how many corps markers are in a province, and no more. I maintain that it's an adequate representation of how things worked in real life.

edit: But the Dyle joke was kind of funny.

[lp24]

No real additions. Oldtimer is absolutely right in what he says. And if you've played EiA a lot you know he's right. As was stated before, we EiA gamers seem to agree that people wanting Fog of War haven't played the game before. FoW is in no way needed and will only be detrimental to the whole game experience. Forget FoW and complete the game instead

And forget EiH rules untill the first basic game is complete. EiH can be added later if needed. All we want is EiA, and now

[yammahoper]

The semi fog of war already in EIA makes for an exciting game, let me tell you[:)]

I have to agree that total FOW like in Europa UNiversialis would not work, but it would have some hilarious results.

I can see the opening statements for april...spring campaigns result in the spanish caturing london, england capturing paris, russia capturing Berlin, France capturing Vienna, Austria sacking Constaninople while the Turkish army was held up by Austrian insurrection corps and captured Transivania...

yamma

[Didz]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
3) Take 3 examples where the failure to locate a corps or ability to maneuver without the enemy being aware of strength or placement; after Rivioli, Jena/Auerstadt and Waterloo. Neither the disengagement of the Prussians after Ligny, the confusion both Napoleon and Hoenloe suffered in regard to which enemy lay at each town at the onset of Jena/Auerstadt, and the rapid march of Napoleon after Rivoli to stun Wurmser are all extreme examples of fog of war deceisively affecting the outcome of an operation. Each of those took place in an area contained within 1 EIA province, it simply isn't necessary to drill down to the operational and tactical level within provinces, as each commander could place his enemy with certainty in an area that size.

No FOW is quite acceptable for the game, we have to assume that all the dazzling affects such maneuvers could create are contained in an abstracted manner within the combat system.

True, but I think you are looking for a justification of your own arguement rather than historical fact.

If we take the 1815 campaign for example the FOW aspect of that campaign which is relevent to a game of this scale is not the confusion over the location of the Prussian Army after Ligny but the mutual confusion over the location of the armies prior to the start of the campaign.

We know for instance that Wellington beleived that the French Army was centred much further to the North than it actually was and that it was far more dispersed than it actually was. Mainly becuase he was relying upon inside information warning him of any last minute movements and concentrations frm a French informer who never delivered the goods.

We also know that Napoleon despite a quite extensive network of pro-French informers managed to convince himself that the Prussian Army was centred far further south than it actually was and that Charleroi was actually the weak point in the line where the Prussian and Allied armies met. In fact he hit the Prussian Army almost at the centre of its front driving its right flank back into the British rather than away from them and it was only Blucher decision to concentrate at Ligny that created the gap between the two armies. They actually marched away from each other in the opening stages of the campaign.

At that level some form of FOW is justified. Not hiding the armies completely but certainly disquising their level of readiness and displacing their location.

[TheGreek]

While the points Didz makes are valid historically, you still have to remember the scale of EiA. When the Army of the North moved out, ALL 10 of its corps would have been in ONE area of the EiA map (Soissons). The Prussian army would probably have had 3 corps in the Namur area and one the the Liege area. The Anglo-Allied Army would have been spread out in the Namur, Brussels and possibly Antwerp areas.

With forces so close (by scale), total FOW would not make sense. Like many respondents, I think the EiA rules hiding corps strength but revealing corps location is the most reasonable FOW for the game.

[Roads]

In fact those 10 corps were not in Soissons province for very long. They were concentrated from along the entire north eastern frontier in about a week. The EiA Waterloo campaign probably goes something like this:

French turn. All Corps march on Namur province (probably). They meet 3 or 4 Prussian corps in combat. Wellington reinforces the battle with 3 British and two allied corps. French win first day of combat, lose the second badly. Game over.

[Billy2003s]

If folks want to be able to know where every unit is on the board at all times, that is fine with me. Without any options for some sort of FOW, the game will be nothing more than a caricature of the Napoleonic Wars. In my opinion, it will be incomplete.

Any Wargame of any period is in fact only a representation of that specific era/situation/action.

Do not for one minute think that you will be making the same decisions that a national leader would have made back then, because you will have way more information at your disposal than any leader could possibly have had. And that would be especially true if you played one of the poorer nations like Spain or Turkey.
[/quote]

You cannot seriously think that even with Fog of War that you are remotely in the same decision making position/process of any national leader of that time? You have the benefit of historical fact. You also are aware of specific capabilities.

Whilst I appreciate your request for Fog of War I do feel you are taking it a tad too far. Why not play tiddly Winks blind folded[:D] now thats Fog of War, oh no wait I've got it, When it comes out why not sit in front of your screen blindfolded. there you are Fog of War. Glad to be of assistance old chap[:)] if you need any more help give me a shout[:D][>:]

Billy

[pasternakski]

This is a port of a game that already establishes its level of fog of war. You will not get any changes.

I have played tiddly-winks blindfold. It's rather fun, as long as your opponent is a well-endowed woman who giggles when she tells you where your misguided winks have landed.

[Pippin]

My 3 cents worth…

Ok I was taking a look last night at the best war game ever! “Billy Bo Bob and the Mars Invaders!”. I noticed that while riding in the buggy-mobile the rate of sink when jumping over craters is 1/3 the fall rate of our current earth gravity when doing the Newtonian mathematics. However, I spotted a big flaw. If I pick up the Billy Bo Bob phaser, then hop into the buggy mobile, then the rate is still 1/3 the fall rate.
What!!? With the extra added weight, the fall rate should be faster! Yes, I know that two masses should accelerate the same rate with gravity but that is only in a pure vaccume. Mars is not a pure vaccume and there should be resistance in it, which should be carefully detailed to in the strategic game!

As a furthermore test, I ended up doing a full inventory load-up first before entering the buggy. I stocked up on two phasers, 4 mars cocktails, 1 Mars-aram-bazooka, and 4 super duper missile thingies. I then hoped into the buggy and the SAME UNREALISTIC results occurred!

In any real invasion on mars, the LAND BUGGY SHOULD NEVER FALL AT THE SAME RATE when you have different weighted weapons in it! This is totally un-realistic, and I demand the developers improve the rule set!

Now, there are some wise-guys out there who think making the proper changes will un-balance ’Billy Bo Bob and the Mars Invaders”. They think that the Billy Mother ship will collide with the 4’th Asteroid of Tohagamaganiminuts, and that the Billy Papa ship will be too heavy to lift off the ground with only a 44-tesla-nuclear-bio-chemical-super-upgraded-coil. Well, how do you know unless you try!? Anyway, I don’t think there will be a problem, because we can always replace the Papa and the Moma ships with the Billy Baby ship.

I demand a realistic version!