Option 63 -- Intelligence

[Neilster]

No worries. The fact that FOW was mentioned recently twigged my memory.

I thought of another potential hiccup. A player could move a weak unit so that it was adjacent to an enemy and then use the info that that reveals to decide what to do with more powerful ones. Either that or they do the same with any unit and then undo the move. Doing the former might be somewhat realistic in a smaller scale game but seems highly unlikely with hexes of MWiF dimensions, especially across major rivers and/or frontiers.

Perhaps factors that would affect FOW could include weather, geography and the quality of the units in question.

Cheers, Neilster

[Anendrue]

FOW sounds like an obfuscated issue to me. [;)]

[composer99]

I've never been particularly fond of the notion of Fog of War in WiF-style monster games. They're already long enough and difficult enough, and there's almost an overload of information to manage to begin with. Adding in the Fog of War, no matter how historically realistic it is, tips the game over into no-fun territory - at least, that's my opinion.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: composer99

I've never been particularly fond of the notion of Fog of War in WiF-style monster games. They're already long enough and difficult enough, and there's almost an overload of information to manage to begin with. Adding in the Fog of War, no matter how historically realistic it is, tips the game over into no-fun territory - at least, that's my opinion.

I tried FoW with CWiF in a Barbarossa scenario and was amazed at how interesting it became. I didn't notice anything extra I had to analyse but rather was impressed by how much it enforces real-world style command, where you have to do the best with the limited information you have when deciding where to move and attack. It eliminates gamey combat factor counting and it's associated CRT manipulation.

As it's an option, it's not being forced on anyone anyway. As I've said before, I think it's an appropriate thing to introduce to a computer version, adds realism and enhances replayability. wfzimmerman's suggestion of perhaps meshing FoW with intelligence points seems to have real merit and might provide a way of resolving some of the issues I raised above. If that option is not being played, some generic intelligence ability of the major powers might exist, modified by local factors.

Cheers, Neilster

[trees trees]

there is a lot of potential to improve the game with a Fog of War optional rule. but I think that potential should be explored in MWiF 2.0

[Jimm]

Interesting discussion.

Another take is considering how important the idea of mis-intelligence was - characterised by Maskelyne's fake dispositions of tanks & planes, for instance to mislead Axis intelligence and hide preparations for invasion. Not sure how possible that would be to implement...

Intelligence to represent Ultra & Magic is all very well, but if you believe Neal Stephenson's take in "Cryptonomicon" the allies probably could not take advantage of much of the info they learned for fear that they would give away the fact that Enigma (& Jap equivalent) had been broken and so prompt the Axis to change their code systems. Spending 80 intel points in a turn might just give the Germans a clue!

Talking of FOW hiding the strength of units: The fact that all indiviudual units have set factors is surely a legacy of the boardgame limited to bits of printed cardboard. Is it necessary to have factors visible at all?
For that matter, (and slightly straying from subject) do they need to stay static throughout the game? One weakness of Wif I always thought was the inability to simulate unit exhaustion (of both men & equipment) of being in operation for long periods of time without relief and also contrast veteran status and "green" units. Its too fiddly to do anything like that with WiF but there seems no reason why you couldnt do it with a computer game.

Jimm

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Jimm
Interesting discussion.

Another take is considering how important the idea of mis-intelligence was - characterised by Maskelyne's fake dispositions of tanks & planes, for instance to mislead Axis intelligence and hide preparations for invasion. Not sure how possible that would be to implement...

Intelligence to represent Ultra & Magic is all very well, but if you believe Neal Stephenson's take in "Cryptonomicon" the allies probably could not take advantage of much of the info they learned for fear that they would give away the fact that Enigma (& Jap equivalent) had been broken and so prompt the Axis to change their code systems. Spending 80 intel points in a turn might just give the Germans a clue!

Talking of FOW hiding the strength of units: The fact that all indiviudual units have set factors is surely a legacy of the boardgame limited to bits of printed cardboard. Is it necessary to have factors visible at all?
For that matter, (and slightly straying from subject) do they need to stay static throughout the game? One weakness of Wif I always thought was the inability to simulate unit exhaustion (of both men & equipment) of being in operation for long periods of time without relief and also contrast veteran status and "green" units. Its too fiddly to do anything like that with WiF but there seems no reason why you couldnt do it with a computer game.

Jimm

My mandate/contract is to implement WIF FE on the computer, (i.e., MWIF). That's a ton of work and I am fairly adamant/vicious in refusing to expand on my task list. However, I inherited a Fog of War optional rule from CWIF. So, there is an opening here for me to do something along those lines without a great deal of effort. The key phrase here is "without a great deal of effort". WIF is a solid game and doesn't really require more options to be a viable product.

I am still undecided about FOW and I reserve the right to eliminate it entirely as an option for MWIF product 1 (i.e., it is not part of my contract with Matrix). For now, I'll let it gestate.

[trees trees]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

One weakness of Wif I always thought was the inability to simulate unit exhaustion (of both men & equipment) of being in operation for long periods of time without relief and also contrast veteran status and "green" units.

I've always thought WiF handled this well with the system of flipping units and HQ re-organizing (flipping units face-up again by turning over an HQ unit). Green/Veteran units are reflected by blindly drawing from the force pools. If you want more of a veteran but smaller army, scrap the lower factor units. For a bigger army of green units, don't ever scrap anything. The attritional nature of warfare is not represented, as Jimm mentions due to the original cardboard pieces, but that's just a playability trade-off that I'll take...eliminate one whole counter rather than try to remember that all your pieces steadily get weaker with time at the front. Even with computer aid I don't want to do Staff work, I want to be the commanding general.

I do hope the regular Intell Optional is in the game, that was my understanding. It would add a lot of work though so I wouldn't mind if it is not in at first either.

[Neilster]

I've always thought WiF handled this well with the system of flipping units and HQ re-organizing (flipping units face-up again by turning over an HQ unit). Green/Veteran units are reflected by blindly drawing from the force pools. If you want more of a veteran but smaller army, scrap the lower factor units. For a bigger army of green units, don't ever scrap anything. The attritional nature of warfare is not represented, as Jimm mentions due to the original cardboard pieces, but that's just a playability trade-off that I'll take...eliminate one whole counter rather than try to remember that all your pieces steadily get weaker with time at the front.

Yes, and even if a corps is continuously in the line, regiments or even whole divisions would be pulled out for recuperation. There were many historical examples of corps being almost continually in the line for years on the Eastern Front. As a trade off, long periods of little activity don't improve a corps' combat factors, even though they would be receiving reinforcements and training.

It might be my imagination, but I thought when playing CWiF my undestroyed land units gradually increased their combat factors over time. I seem to remember a panzer corps getting stronger. I'm most probably wrong but it would make sense given that the Czech tanks and Panzer 2s would be replaced by long barrelled Panzer 3s etc.

Cheers, Neilster

[Froonp]

It might be my imagination, but I thought when playing CWiF my undestroyed land units gradually increased their combat factors over time. I seem to remember a panzer corps getting stronger. I'm most probably wrong but it would make sense given that the Czech tanks and Panzer 2s would be replaced by long barrelled Panzer 3s etc.

Your imagination Neilster [:D]

However, I would love for such a system of green / normal / crack units to exist, both for land units, and also for air units.
Not for Naval units though.
A unit would be green until its first fight, and become crack after X fights (about 5-6).
A green unit would be black print and 1 combat factor below the normal (printed) value on the counter. A crack unit would be white print and 1 combat factor above the normal (printed) value on the counter. The normal value would be the value that the counter would have without the rule.

[Neilster]

Ah! My faulty brain at work again.

I know what's going to happen now. Steve will post saying "I've a mandate to implement WiFFE...." [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Ah! My faulty brain at work again.
I know what's going to happen now. Steve will post saying "I've a mandate to implement WiFFE...." [:'(]
Cheers, Neilster

And we both know he will be right. This is the only way to see MWiF hit our computers this decade [:)].

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Yes, and even if a corps is continuously in the line, regiments or even whole divisions would be pulled out for recuperation. There were many historical examples of corps being almost continually in the line for years on the Eastern Front. As a trade off, long periods of little activity don't improve a corps' combat factors, even though they would be receiving reinforcements and training.

Take the point and thats pretty much how I rationalised it myself (otherwise when do these poor chaps ever get home on leave?)
Flipping units to represent attrition is fine as far as it goes within the limits of the bits of cardboard legacy but it is a bit, well- binary! I just recall a cracking old computer game from the 1980s- "Eastern Front 1941" where you saw your initially rampant wehrmacht divisions running out of steam (and working tanks) as the winter wore on and invariably ended up collapsing to inglorious demise to the russian hordes. Mind you that's that game and this is Wif, and as far as "mandates" go I'm happy to see the WIFFE transferred over lock stock & barrel and leave the silly distractions to email forums...
Jimm

[wfzimmerman]

ORIGINAL: Jimm

...
Flipping units to represent attrition is fine as far as it goes within the limits of the bits of cardboard legacy but it is a bit, well- binary! ...
Jimm

I don't think it's just an issue of the cardboard legacy. One of the good things about being "binary" is clarity -- which is a key goal in either a game or a model.

For infinite shades of gray, read a book ....

[trees trees]

Eastern Front 1941 was my first and last computer wargame. I'm very much looking forward to my next one.

But speaking of Green, Veteran, and Crack units, I'd sure like to see a computer version of GDW's old civil war game A House Divided. That is a fun game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: trees trees

Eastern Front 1941 was my first and last computer wargame. I'm very much looking forward to my next one.

But speaking of Green, Veteran, and Crack units, I'd sure like to see a computer version of GDW's old civil war game A House Divided. That is a fun game.

The two previous computer war games I did were under contract to GDW.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It might be my imagination, but I thought when playing CWiF my undestroyed land units gradually increased their combat factors over time. I seem to remember a panzer corps getting stronger. I'm most probably wrong but it would make sense given that the Czech tanks and Panzer 2s would be replaced by long barrelled Panzer 3s etc.

Cheers, Neilster

That was not a feature of CWiF, but WiF, when you include Patton in Flames and America in Flames, includes heavy unit upgrades that you can use to increase the combat factors of your units. PatiF and AiF are not going to be implemented in MWiF, since they're not strictly speaking part of WiF:FE, but I rather imagine (and hope) that they will be in future editions of the game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

ORIGINAL: Neilster

It might be my imagination, but I thought when playing CWiF my undestroyed land units gradually increased their combat factors over time. I seem to remember a panzer corps getting stronger. I'm most probably wrong but it would make sense given that the Czech tanks and Panzer 2s would be replaced by long barrelled Panzer 3s etc.

Cheers, Neilster

That was not a feature of CWiF, but WiF, when you include Patton in Flames and America in Flames, includes heavy unit upgrades that you can use to increase the combat factors of your units. PatiF and AiF are not going to be implemented in MWiF, since they're not strictly speaking part of WiF:FE, but I rather imagine (and hope) that they will be in future editions of the game.

Yes. The units are already included in the counter mix. I also have done the graphic depictions for them (modified from what CWIF had done for them). However, there are no rules for adding them to the scenarios or using them in combat, etc..

[lordzyplon]

I believe that FoW should be an option, like much else.

Personally, i am firmly against it, as I feel it would change the gameplay as a whole. However, I know that, throughout all of history, there have been conflicts were people wouldn't step back and take a look at the whole picture-usually this happens: . I am sure that there are people who will want FoW, so it should be included.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lordzyplon
I believe that FoW should be an option, like much else.

Personally, i am firmly against it, as I feel it would change the gameplay as a whole. However, I know that, throughout all of history, there have been conflicts were people wouldn't step back and take a look at the whole picture-usually this happens: . I am sure that there are people who will want FoW, so it should be included.

Providing Fog of War as an option had been my intention. However, early discussions on the topic raised a whole lot of detailed issues about how to implement it. In turn, that caused me to be concerned about how much play testing it would need. So I am now at the point of seeing it as a poorly defined optional rule, that requires a lot of coding and play testing. I seem to have 4 choices: (1) keep it the way CWIF did, (2) remove it entirely, (3) do something quick and dirty, or (4) devote a bunch of time and energy to it. My mother always referred to option #3 as "a lick and a promise" - a reference to keeping my hair from sticking up in the back when I was a kid.

I continue to brood on this without reaching a definitive conclusion.