fog of war

[bo]

If this was answered before than I apoligize, will there be a FOG in MWIF, you can only see units next to you or by scout planes that kind of thing. How did you board gamers handle an invasion say of France. Your opponet is not blind and he sees you putting infantry units onto transports and amphibus units [lsts] so he knows an invasion is coming and I realize he [axis player] does not know where the allied player will strike or land and dice have a lot to say about the outcome, or does it just play as well without FOW.

Bo

[Patience]

Bo,

On the board game invasion question..

It is difficult to create a fog of war with the board game due to the inherent nature of the genre.   If the german army has been stretched sufficiently thin through fighting in both East Europe and the Mediterranean the invasion of France should create such an additional tax on precious German resources that it wont matter.  Of course you'll need to put forth a decisive amount of air and ground support as well as additional troops so as to expand the beach head and secure a foothold in France.  In none of the games I've played over the years has not having a fog of war been a real problem.

Hope this helps

[MajorDude]

There is a thread somewhere on this. Fog of war has been much debated. If I remember correctly, it was decided that, for MWIF, a 'physical' fog of war was not deemed to be as high a priority item as creating AIO's, etc.

Also, if you remember the scale of the game, fog of war becomes relative since the groupings and formations we are looking at are often at least division if not corps sized, so it's not very easy to completely hide the existence of 5 to 6 divisions in a hex.

There is also the time scale of the game. Over a period of 2 months, the enemy can get a pretty good idea as to where those 5 to 6 divisions are.

As for knowing the exact locations of those 5 to 6 divisions within a hex, etc., this smaller version of fog of war is included in the CRT's and the roll of the die. A bad result for the attacker can also mean that he had bad luck with his recon and the defender had good luck with his and knew precisely where to set up his defense/ambush.

Fog of war at sea is taken into account by search rolls; a bad roll means your planes and ships just wasted a lot of time and fuel.


So, as you can see, fog of war, as it exists in some other games - hiding from view counters that are x number of hexes away from the other players - , can become quite burdensome and almost counterproductive in grand strategic games. Fog of war in those games can actually be quite as well handled by other game mechanisms that neither detract from nor are a burden upon the game and its players. [:)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: MajorDude

There is a thread somewhere on this. Fog of war has been much debated. If I remember correctly, it was decided that, for MWIF, a 'physical' fog of war was not deemed to be as high a priority item as creating AIO's, etc.

Also, if you remember the scale of the game, fog of war becomes relative since the groupings and formations we are looking at are often at least division if not corps sized, so it's not very easy to completely hide the existence of 5 to 6 divisions in a hex.

There is also the time scale of the game. Over a period of 2 months, the enemy can get a pretty good idea as to where those 5 to 6 divisions are.

As for knowing the exact locations of those 5 to 6 divisions within a hex, etc., this smaller version of fog of war is included in the CRT's and the roll of the die. A bad result for the attacker can also mean that he had bad luck with his recon and the defender had good luck with his and knew precisely where to set up his defense/ambush.

Fog of war at sea is taken into account by search rolls; a bad roll means your planes and ships just wasted a lot of time and fuel.


So, as you can see, fog of war, as it exists in some other games - hiding from view counters that are x number of hexes away from the other players - , can become quite burdensome and almost counterproductive in grand strategic games. Fog of war in those games can actually be quite as well handled by other game mechanisms that neither detract from nor are a burden upon the game and its players. [:)]

Well said.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: MajorDude

There is a thread somewhere on this. Fog of war has been much debated. If I remember correctly, it was decided that, for MWIF, a 'physical' fog of war was not deemed to be as high a priority item as creating AIO's, etc.

Also, if you remember the scale of the game, fog of war becomes relative since the groupings and formations we are looking at are often at least division if not corps sized, so it's not very easy to completely hide the existence of 5 to 6 divisions in a hex.

There is also the time scale of the game. Over a period of 2 months, the enemy can get a pretty good idea as to where those 5 to 6 divisions are.

As for knowing the exact locations of those 5 to 6 divisions within a hex, etc., this smaller version of fog of war is included in the CRT's and the roll of the die. A bad result for the attacker can also mean that he had bad luck with his recon and the defender had good luck with his and knew precisely where to set up his defense/ambush.

Fog of war at sea is taken into account by search rolls; a bad roll means your planes and ships just wasted a lot of time and fuel.


So, as you can see, fog of war, as it exists in some other games - hiding from view counters that are x number of hexes away from the other players - , can become quite burdensome and almost counterproductive in grand strategic games. Fog of war in those games can actually be quite as well handled by other game mechanisms that neither detract from nor are a burden upon the game and its players. [:)]

Well said.

don´t forget the hidden taskforces.

you really don´t know what fleet you are meting.

(not part of Mwif release 1)

and all air planes... you know where the are ....which okay... everybody know that RAF was in souther UK.

but you don´t know were they are going to bomb.... there are a million possible target hexes....

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: bo

If this was answered before than I apoligize, will there be a FOG in MWIF, you can only see units next to you or by scout planes that kind of thing. How did you board gamers handle an invasion say of France. Your opponet is not blind and he sees you putting infantry units onto transports and amphibus units [lsts] so he knows an invasion is coming and I realize he [axis player] does not know where the allied player will strike or land and dice have a lot to say about the outcome, or does it just play as well without FOW.

Bo

With some planning you can often make good, fast, invasions during a combined action. If you compare with the historical d-day invasion ,one could argue, that recreating the d-day in WIF would be a combined action.

And if you play with the optional rule "Offensive Chits" you can make enormous invasions in one impulse with one offensive chit played during a combined action.

Cut from:
16. Offensive chits (option 61)
....
16.4 Combined action
If you play an offensive chit at the start of a combined action, you can perform the maximum number of activities that would be allowed if you had chosen a naval, an air and a land action.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: bo

If this was answered before than I apoligize, will there be a FOG in MWIF, you can only see units next to you or by scout planes that kind of thing. How did you board gamers handle an invasion say of France. Your opponet is not blind and he sees you putting infantry units onto transports and amphibus units [lsts] so he knows an invasion is coming and I realize he [axis player] does not know where the allied player will strike or land and dice have a lot to say about the outcome, or does it just play as well without FOW.

Bo

With some planning you can often make good, fast, invasions during a combined action. If you compare with the historical d-day invasion ,one could argue, that recreating the d-day in WIF would be a combined action.

And if you play with the optional rule "Offensive Chits" you can make enormous invasions in one impulse with one offensive chit played during a combined action.

Cut from:
16. Offensive chits (option 61)
....
16.4 Combined action
If you play an offensive chit at the start of a combined action, you can perform the maximum number of activities that would be allowed if you had chosen a naval, an air and a land action.

Yes, we had a long discussion way back, and the gist of what I got out of it is what Orm was onto here: The fog of war already exists in WIF because freedom of movement is exaggerated (both naval and on land). And the length of the impulse combined with the exaggerated movement, means that you have an appropriately foggy idea about what your opponent will do next impulse.

[MajorDude]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: bo

If this was answered before than I apoligize, will there be a FOG in MWIF, you can only see units next to you or by scout planes that kind of thing. How did you board gamers handle an invasion say of France. Your opponet is not blind and he sees you putting infantry units onto transports and amphibus units [lsts] so he knows an invasion is coming and I realize he [axis player] does not know where the allied player will strike or land and dice have a lot to say about the outcome, or does it just play as well without FOW.

Bo

With some planning you can often make good, fast, invasions during a combined action. If you compare with the historical d-day invasion ,one could argue, that recreating the d-day in WIF would be a combined action.

And if you play with the optional rule "Offensive Chits" you can make enormous invasions in one impulse with one offensive chit played during a combined action.

Cut from:
16. Offensive chits (option 61)
....
16.4 Combined action
If you play an offensive chit at the start of a combined action, you can perform the maximum number of activities that would be allowed if you had chosen a naval, an air and a land action.

Yes, we had a long discussion way back, and the gist of what I got out of it is what Orm was onto here: The fog of war already exists in WIF because freedom of movement is exaggerated (both naval and on land). And the length of the impulse combined with the exaggerated movement, means that you have an appropriately foggy idea about what your opponent will do next impulse.

Although this sounds more like 'forecasting' or 'predicting' what your opponent "can' and eventually 'will' do than it does 'Fog of War', it does play a part in recreating some of the aspects of Fog of War in WIF.


"... Simulations and games

Abstract and military board games sometimes try to capture the effect of the fog of war by hiding the identity of playing pieces, by keeping them face down or turned away from the opposing player (as in Stratego) or covered (as in Squad Leader).

Other games, such as the Kriegspiel chess-variant, playing pieces are hidden from the opponent by tracking them on paper or by using a duplicate, hidden game board..."


This is part of the intent of having a Task Force chart (that was referred to above) so you never really know the actual composition of a certain Task Force until it has been engaged or scouted.


"... The term "fog of war" has become jargon in military and adventure video and computer games, in the more limited sense of enemy units or characters being hidden from the player.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 1_hexa.jpg


Often this is done by obscuring sections of the map already explored by the player with a grey fog whenever they do not have a unit in that area to report on what is there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... Of_War.png

The player can still view the terrain but not any enemy units on it... "


While this can be okay in discovery-style games such as the Civ series, it makes less sense in the context of a WIF-style game.

WIF is first and foremost a "board game". As such, players have to be able to make sure that everyone is playing correctly and "above board".

Hiding parts of the map is impractical, and hiding or covering up units on the map is cumbersome and makes it difficult to check things if one player "challenges" another over switching units or unit placement, not to mention the nightmare of verifying movement rates while taking into account weather and terrain for units that you aren't supposed to be able to see. Such a system would be so burdensome and require so much time and manpower in the physical game as to make it both unplayable and no fun.



"... One early use of fog of war was the 1978 game Tanktics designed by Chris Crawford, which was criticized for its fog of war system detracting from the fun of the game. Crawford later noted that "...when the games get too realistic, they lose their appeal."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fog_of_war


So, you see, since WIF the board game basically does not use these types of physical "Fog of War" for its major playing surface (for the reasons stated above in this thread), and even though MWIF could implement "unit hiding", "blacking out" or "graying out" large parts of the map and what is on it, if you did do this, you would, in effect, be creating an entirely different game that would:

1 - completely alter the game's dynamics and the way it is played,

2 - probably create the need for a completely new part of the game involving scouting, spying, and espionage on a grand scale,

3 - be un-reproducible in WIF the board game, thus damaging the link between the two.


Now, when Ullern refers to,


"... The fog of war already exists in WIF because freedom of movement is exaggerated (both naval and on land). And the length of the impulse combined with the exaggerated movement, means that you have an appropriately foggy idea about what your opponent will do next impulse. "

this could be inferred to include what might be called,


"(Strategic) Operational Fog of War

Within the operational theatre the commander undertakes tasks as directed by the Military Strategic level, ambiguity continues to relate to adversary capability and intent but is coupled with own directive ambiguity, the commander not having the full sight of the strategic imperative. As operational tempo increases at this level the ambiguity experienced by the commander is susceptible to delays in communication of the tactical situation and the ebb and flow of own force, and adversary force interaction.... "


This means that, let's say, you only expect a turn to last 4 'rounds', for any number of reasons or factors. So, you estimate that your opponents can only move x number of spaces, and do y number of things during this turn. Consequently, you feel your harbors, borders, etc. are safe as long as you do z number and types of things.

Now, let's say, the turn ends up lasting 8 'rounds', and you suddenly find your harbors, borders, etc. being overrun by the enemy since you were unprepared because you counted on the turn being shorter.

This means that your forecasts were wrong and your predictions unfounded. Could you have known the turn was going to last 8 'rounds' instead of 4? No. Could you have planned for that possibility? Yes. Does that mean you could have planned and prepared for every possible eventuality? More than likely, no.


This is what makes WIF and MWIF so interesting and such a challenge. It is also what makes this part of the game also a part of rendering the "Fog of War".

[Ullern]

I have to give you credit for a good post MajorDude.

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: ullern

I have to give you credit for a good post MajorDude.

I agree.

[Skanvak]

Thought I think that developping a fog of war for MWiF is not a good idea now and should be for the expansion .

I do think there is too much free information about production essentially and may be about the strength of the unit that could be hidden (from both player may be until the unit see the battel line).

[Sewerlobster]

I thought the unit strength of builds was hidden until unit arrival. Is this not to be so?

[MajorDude]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

I thought the unit strength of builds was hidden until unit arrival. Is this not to be so?

In WIF, they are chosen face down in a random fashion, and then placed face down on the production spiral, not to be revealed until produced.

In CWIF, you choose from the production window the TYPE of unit, so you don't know which one you will get. You CAN look at your unit type pool beforehand, but the choice of unit is random and hidden until they become available as reinforcements iirc. [:)]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: MajorDude

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

I thought the unit strength of builds was hidden until unit arrival. Is this not to be so?

In WIF, they are chosen face down in a random fashion, and then placed face down on the production spiral, not to be revealed until produced.

In CWIF, you choose from the production window the TYPE of unit, so you don't know which one you will get. You CAN look at your unit type pool beforehand, but the choice of unit is random and hidden until they become available as reinforcements iirc. [:)]

Most units build show their strength after they are built. In fact all units except newly begun ships show their strength as soon as they are built.

Cut from:
13.6.7 The production circle
When you build a unit, you must place it on a future turn’s slice of the Production Circle.
....
Place naval units face-down if you build them from the force pool. Place all other units face-up (including naval units you build from the construction or repair pools).

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: MajorDude
In WIF, they are chosen face down in a random fashion, and then placed face down on the production spiral, not to be revealed until produced.

Most units build show their strength after they are built. In fact all units except newly begun ships show their strength as soon as they are built.

Cut from:
13.6.7 The production circle
When you build a unit, you must place it on a future turn’s slice of the Production Circle.
....
Place naval units face-down if you build them from the force pool. Place all other units face-up (including naval units you build from the construction or repair pools).

We always played Wif with all but the face up naval units as face down --- I guess we missed 13.6.7

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: MajorDude
In WIF, they are chosen face down in a random fashion, and then placed face down on the production spiral, not to be revealed until produced.

Most units build show their strength after they are built. In fact all units except newly begun ships show their strength as soon as they are built.

Cut from:
13.6.7 The production circle
When you build a unit, you must place it on a future turn’s slice of the Production Circle.
....
Place naval units face-down if you build them from the force pool. Place all other units face-up (including naval units you build from the construction or repair pools).

We always played Wif with all but the face up naval units as face down --- I guess we missed 13.6.7

I'm certain that in WiF versions prior to the latest, the reinforcements were kept blind from the other players until arrival. But then for WiFFE, we found the rule Orm quoted.

[MajorDude]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: Orm


Most units build show their strength after they are built. In fact, (as a result of the changes brought about by WiFFE, now) all units except newly begun ships show their strength as soon as they are built.

Cut from:
13.6.7 The production circle
When you build a unit, you must place it on a future turn’s slice of the Production Circle.
....
Place naval units face-down if you build them from the force pool. Place all other units face-up (including naval units you build from the construction or repair pools).

We always played Wif with all but the face up naval units as face down --- I guess we missed 13.6.7

I'm certain that in WiF versions prior to the latest, the reinforcements were kept blind from the other players until arrival. But then for WiFFE, we found the rule Orm quoted.

Agreed. This obviously fell under the bean counters' axe with WiFFE, "No, I wanna see 'em so I can already start calculating my attack numbers dude..."

It's almost a shame because this was obviously done for the board game and is not really necessary in the computer game, but since it is a wiffee, I guess we get stuck with it.

Not knowing the real quality of what was coming out of the boot camps until they got their stripes was very much a part of the game for us. If we already know, then why don't they just change the purchase point system so we pay more for a 7-3 than a 3-3 and be done with it?

Oh well, minor point, but it was a cool part of the game. I guess the accountant/bean counter players won out over the other guys. [8|]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: MajorDude

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish



We always played Wif with all but the face up naval units as face down --- I guess we missed 13.6.7

I'm certain that in WiF versions prior to the latest, the reinforcements were kept blind from the other players until arrival. But then for WiFFE, we found the rule Orm quoted.

Agreed. This obviously fell under the bean counters' axe with WiFFE, "No, I wanna see 'em so I can already start calculating my attack numbers dude..."

It's almost a shame because this was obviously done for the board game and is not really necessary in the computer game, but since it is a wiffee, I guess we get stuck with it.

Not knowing the real quality of what was coming out of the boot camps until they got their stripes was very much a part of the game for us. If we already know, then why don't they just change the purchase point system so we pay more for a 7-3 than a 3-3 and be done with it?

Oh well, minor point, but it was a cool part of the game. I guess the accountant/bean counter players won out over the other guys. [8|]

Not the beam counters. A more likely push came from someone who built an armor and wanted to know whether it was the 6-6 or the 10-6 that was still in the force pool.
--
Another possibility would be to know whether the unit was coming in Canada, Australia, or the UK. That I can see as a very reasonable requestjustification for the change.

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Not the bean counters. A more likely push came from someone who built an armor and wanted to know whether it was the 6-6 or the 10-6 that was still in the force pool.
--
Another possibility would be to know whether the unit was coming in Canada, Australia, or the UK. That I can see as a very reasonable request/justification for the change.

Oh I much prefered the not being allowed to know if it was the 6-6 or 10-6. When Russia's getting an unknown armor unit next turn, Germany had to plan for a bigger assault. Now the bean counter can go, "Oh, Russia's only getting a 6-6 -- so the most I will need to assault at 2:1 is ______". That is a sort of bean counting.

And nothing was more fun than you opponent needing to defend the Tower Bridge and seeing his disappointment of the armor being Anzac.

[MajorDude]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Not the bean counters. A more likely push came from someone who built an armor and wanted to know whether it was the 6-6 or the 10-6 that was still in the force pool.
--
Another possibility would be to know whether the unit was coming in Canada, Australia, or the UK. That I can see as a very reasonable request/justification for the change.

Oh I much prefered the not being allowed to know if it was the 6-6 or 10-6. When Russia's getting an unknown armor unit next turn, Germany had to plan for a bigger assault. Now the bean counter can go, "Oh, Russia's only getting a 6-6 -- so the most I will need to assault at 2:1 is ______". That is a sort of bean counting.

And nothing was more fun than you opponent needing to defend the Tower Bridge and seeing his disappointment of the armor being Anzac.

Agreed! I can't remember and don't have the game nearby, but were all the Commonwealth counters the same shade of blue on the flip side, or did some not differ?

The game was played with the counters flipped down for maybe at least 2/3 of its lifespan. If they wanted to change it, they might as well have just completely changed the purchase system - if you want to choose where it comes from or see what it is, ya gotta pay more, if not, pay normal price and go with your luck.

It's a minor point, but still a bit of a shame to see them take that part out of it.