Matrix Games Forums

A new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fog of War

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Fog of War Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fog of War - 12/16/2007 1:24:39 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
My friend who did not want to buy the game because it did not had TCP/IP bought it anyway, and tells me that the FoW is not implemented for fleets. He says me that you can see what ships are in enemy fleets.
Is this normal ? He tells me that the original game had FoW for the fleets as well as the corps.
Is there something he misses ?

PS : I'm waiting for TCP/IP to buy the game, as my friend confirmed what I though, in that the game is totaly suited to TCP/IP. PBEMing a game where you take 10 mn to move your corps, and then wait for the 6 others players to sit to their PC, read their mails, and perform their moves, when you could have finish the turn in 1 hour if TCP/IP was implemented is disappointing.
Post #: 1
RE: Fog of War - 12/16/2007 1:37:23 AM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
sorry, how will TCP/IP work this better then now? saw some refer too it at times, but dont understand it.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 2
RE: Fog of War - 12/16/2007 1:45:49 AM   
Suvorov928


Posts: 149
Joined: 10/1/2005
Status: offline
Actually, in th board game, there was no FoW for fleets.  Read the rules and you will see that all players know the desigantions and strengths of all fleets at all times.  Only Corps counters were hidden.

(in reply to DodgyDave)
Post #: 3
RE: Fog of War - 12/16/2007 1:53:04 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7899
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Suvorov928

Actually, in th board game, there was no FoW for fleets.  Read the rules and you will see that all players know the desigantions and strengths of all fleets at all times.  Only Corps counters were hidden.

OK, thanks. This may have been my friend and his group that did not play the game right.
Thanks !

(in reply to Suvorov928)
Post #: 4
RE: Fog of War - 12/16/2007 1:56:47 AM   
gazfun


Posts: 850
Joined: 7/1/2004
From: Brisbane, Australia
Status: offline
FOW isnt really peratinent this level, I would think that it would more apply to a tactical battlefield.
Anyway, most of the Generals of the time new approximatley where (that is in what Province) the opposing armies where its a bit imposible to hide 50,000 or more troops, in a column LOL everyone marching tip toe.
The French did surprise General Mack in 1805, but the French moved so quickly as to surprise him, but he did know that the French where marching towards Bavaria somewhere

_____________________________

Create your own history at www.thegeneralshq.org

(in reply to Suvorov928)
Post #: 5
RE: Fog of War - 12/16/2007 6:18:39 AM   
Thresh

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline
i'd suggest reading a few reports of battles. rarely did a commander have exact numbers, more often than not it was approximate numbers, and even then it could take a while to figure out who you were fighting and how many you were fighting against.

A prime example of this is the jena-auerstedt campaign in 1806.

As another point, england didn't know about the outcome of the battle of trafalgar and nelsons death until a few weeks after the conclusion.

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 6
RE: Fog of War - 12/17/2007 7:00:45 PM   
Jimmer

 

Posts: 1968
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

i'd suggest reading a few reports of battles. rarely did a commander have exact numbers, more often than not it was approximate numbers, and even then it could take a while to figure out who you were fighting and how many you were fighting against.

A prime example of this is the jena-auerstedt campaign in 1806.

As another point, england didn't know about the outcome of the battle of trafalgar and nelsons death until a few weeks after the conclusion.

Napoleon, in what can only be one measure of his genius, almost always knew the size of the opposing force. Not exactly, of course, but close. In the early days, he used to spend the whole night before a major battle personally scouting the placement of his opponent's forces. In his memoirs, he talks about the battle of Ulm and Austerlitz, and tells in some detail about his plans. He saw that the Austrians had gotten themselves stuck between a river on one side and a range of hills/mountains on the other, and they eventually converged on each other. If France could push her down into this sock-shaped area (Napoleon's term, not mine), and have a force waiting at the choke point, he foresaw that he could decimate the enemy's forces. He claims that he rode all the way around on both sides, checking out the terrain, and got back to his own camp at 4 AM. From there, he told his general staff the lay of the land, and gave his orders. In game terms, this was an outflank maneuver, I suspect. Anyhow, he destroyed over half of the Austrian army. All because he spent time personally finding out what he was up against.

But, this shows up in his high ratings, rather than in knowing strength of corps.

For fleets, it's totally different. Major fleets were always running across each other, criss-crossing the ocean trying to find each other. They would get glimpes from their outlying ships, but no chance to open battle "that time". If I'm not mistaken, this happened the day before Trafalgar, even. Anyhow, I think there's good reason for not having FoW for ships.

The other reason for not having it is because the naval combats are SOOOOO variable. I fought the same battle 5 times last night, just to see what would happen. Here are the losses (the phasing player is first, and that fleets was by far larger than the intercepting player):

2 & 4
4 & 9
4 & 14
9 & 9
6 & 12

They're all over the map (although, still confined to a rather small zone). I think this is a good game balance issue. If we had FOW for fleets, one would never really know what one was up against.

The other thing is the interception rules. If a fleet is going to successfully intercept, it follows that it knows where the enemy is. This being the case, it's obvious that the interceptor knows approximately the size of the enemy fleet. This kind of thing happened a lot.

(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 7
RE: Fog of War - 12/17/2007 7:44:27 PM   
HanBarca


Posts: 486
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gazfun

FOW isnt really peratinent this level, I would think that it would more apply to a tactical battlefield.
Anyway, most of the Generals of the time new approximatley where (that is in what Province) the opposing armies where its a bit imposible to hide 50,000 or more troops, in a column LOL everyone marching tip toe.
The French did surprise General Mack in 1805, but the French moved so quickly as to surprise him, but he did know that the French where marching towards Bavaria somewhere


Uhm.....take a look at the following campaigns:

France '40:
Doh!! 600.000 germans just popped out from the Ardennes!
D-Day '44:
WHAT?? are you telling me that there are 6000 allied ships in front of NORMANDY ???
Pearl Harbor '41:
Naaah, those planes are ours....just relax.
Waterloo 1815:
Don't worry, the French are definitely NOT moving this way.

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to gazfun)
Post #: 8
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 2:13:05 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
Its not fair to compare 1940's with 1800's due to speed and distance motorized armies move at, and as an example, at the time for Pearl Harbour the US Command had the Intel but choose to ignore it, it wasnt beleivable, so no warning was sent to Pearl Harbour.

Scouting out armies was easier during the 1800's (they moved slower, in bigger formations and without any real effort to conceal or camoflage themselves, and usually even in very colorful outfits) and most countries used spies/agents (counting masts at harbours wasnt very complicated), pidgeons are said to have been used to carry at least the message of the victory at waterloo and I wouldnt rule out that pidgeons where used at other places during this era.    

(in reply to HanBarca)
Post #: 9
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 3:04:19 AM   
Thresh

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 12/25/2006
From: KCMO
Status: offline
that explains why napoleon thougth he was fighting the entire prussian army at jena while davout was driving it from the field at auerstedt....



(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 10
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 11:18:40 AM   
HanBarca


Posts: 486
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
quote:

that explains why napoleon thougth he was fighting the entire prussian army at jena while davout was driving it from the field at auerstedt


My same tought :)

Anyway, thinking that scouting / recon was easier in 1800 with horses and pigeons than in 1940 with jeeps, radio, planes and radars is really an interesting concept.

Even the concept during 1800 the formations were "bigger" than in 1940 is a good one, considering that an average army was 200.000 men compared to 1.500.000 + 2000 tanks + 10000 trucks + everything else in the 1940.
I presumed that 2 panzerdivisionen moving in attack formation toward a schwerkpunkt 1 km wide are easier to spot than 15000 men marching in column...What an idiot I am :)


_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to Thresh)
Post #: 11
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 2:48:03 PM   
nappy

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 7/17/2003
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

quote:

that explains why napoleon thougth he was fighting the entire prussian army at jena while davout was driving it from the field at auerstedt


My same tought :)

Anyway, thinking that scouting / recon was easier in 1800 with horses and pigeons than in 1940 with jeeps, radio, planes and radars is really an interesting concept.

Even the concept during 1800 the formations were "bigger" than in 1940 is a good one, considering that an average army was 200.000 men compared to 1.500.000 + 2000 tanks + 10000 trucks + everything else in the 1940.
I presumed that 2 panzerdivisionen moving in attack formation toward a schwerkpunkt 1 km wide are easier to spot than 15000 men marching in column...What an idiot I am :)



Actually in theory, that 1800 colum may be eaiser - the then smaller army units tended to march along loads with unit banners and usually in long colums and stay within some sort of contact. Heck remember the debacle of french communication Waterloo. You could literally count the soldiers marching by in many cases. Indeed, even the battlefields were smaller and thus you could guage a enemy's strenght a bit easier. But a large moden formation would actually be spread over a larger area (which modern communication could intergrate better) would bedevil an observer; who would have to take a lot more detail to be of intel any use as its doubtful you could tell 6o,000 from 600,000 over 500 sq. km.

Naps


< Message edited by nappy -- 12/18/2007 2:49:17 PM >

(in reply to HanBarca)
Post #: 12
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 3:01:28 PM   
HanBarca


Posts: 486
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
yes, sure.

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to nappy)
Post #: 13
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 3:27:51 PM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
First formation and army is not quite the same and to compare intel on army group level with divisions or even corps isnt really doable.

First of all radar wasnt really used in 1940 if you dont count some air warning radars and possibly some naval vessels, none of which is really useful for spotting enemy troops...

Planes are good for spotting things, but also gave a good reason why you dont want to be seen, the concept of concealment didnt really exist during the napoleonic age.

Also in the age of blitzkrieg its not so much where the division is today that is a problem but where it is tomorrow and when you hear about 15000 men in column marching towards whatever, you might still be able to do something about it, when you see 2 panzerdivisions in attack formation its already to late.

And about pigeons as being an inferior technology to the 1940´s radio...

Pigeons has been used at least since 2090 BC, egypt, persians, greeks and romans all used pigeons, the french king Charlemagne outlawed pigeons use for all but the nobility and they where concidered a symbol of power and nobility until the revolution. It is documented that pigeons was used by Rotschild to report the outcome of the battle of Waterloo, Rotschild set up a pidgeon network in the early 1800's it is alledged he used this to make a fortune. Reuters set up a network of 46 pigeons for there news service during the 1850's. Between 1860 and 1890 pigeons was incorporated in most modern regular military services. 

Pigeons was used extensivly during both world wars, over 500 000 pidgeons is estimated to have served in military services during world war one, at least 20000 was killed. The Germans had 50,000 birds ready for use when WWII broke out, United States Pigeon Service used 54.000 military pigeons and the British about 250,000 messenger pigeons during WW II. To be caught with a pigeon without a permit in occupied france was a sure death sentence and 32 British pigeons where awarded the dickens medal (highest posible animal decoration for bravery). In the 1940´s pigeons still outperformed the radio in many areas, like range, reliability, being harder to intercept and impossible to triangulate, and pigeons are sometimes still used today. Trials was even made with pigeon guided missiles during the 40´ies.

(in reply to HanBarca)
Post #: 14
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 3:29:04 PM   
DodgyDave

 

Posts: 223
Joined: 9/30/2002
Status: offline
actually back then, you dont have to count men as such, you looked at banners.
if a regiment back then was 900 men and you saw 12 of those banners, then you could assume that there is max 10800 men.

moving along in columns, will still leave scouts on horses with advantage, because a full numbered regiment, would be a certain lenght and if its only half of the usual, possible cut down to 400 to 600, then they might report 43th Regiment, half strength, possible 450 only.

so not too many troops back then to keep track off.

(in reply to HanBarca)
Post #: 15
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 3:57:33 PM   
HanBarca


Posts: 486
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
Zaquex, you should write the pentagon asking them to go back to pigeons communications. I'm sure they'll understand the error they made during all these years and throw their radio and GPS systems into the sea.

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 16
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 4:09:20 PM   
HanBarca


Posts: 486
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
Nappy, you seem to assume that a 1940 scout should search a large area to find enemy, while a 1815 one would only look right at the spot where the enemy column is.
Actually, the austrian scouts in 1805 had to recon the whole border, from Italy to Strasbourg, to find out where the bulk of the french army was. Exactly as they would have to do in 1940 or today.

Another thing you seem to assume is that modern armies are spreaded along a vast area, while the napoleonic ones were concentrated. Actually, modern armies travel most of time in long columns along roads, except for the head elements that are dispersed for tactical reasons.

Regarding roads, in 1815 columns moved along roads (even small ones actually), and in 1940 panzers and trucks moved along the roads exactly in the same way.

In short, reconaissance was not easier in 1815. it was HARDER.



_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to nappy)
Post #: 17
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 4:13:42 PM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
I'm sure that pentagon and us survailance organisations are concerned with how to intercept or stop certain "terrorist" organisations use of pigeons and know alot more of the benefits and limitations of pigeons than you or me.

(in reply to HanBarca)
Post #: 18
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 7:14:20 PM   
Murat


Posts: 803
Joined: 9/17/2003
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
Anyone who thinks the information of this era is absolute and there was no FoW feel free to look up the War College (USA, sorry but they like playing the war games) rules and look at how little information THEY allow you to get from the board and their modified VP structure.

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 19
RE: Fog of War - 12/18/2007 7:47:31 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
Murat, I would be very interested in looking at the War College rules you refer to. Would it be possible for you to share their location?

I for one prefer more FoW in a game, but I happen to get pleasure from hearing the results of events around the board....part of the fun, but not "true" in real war....

AresMars


(in reply to Murat)
Post #: 20
RE: Fog of War - 1/22/2008 5:46:47 PM   
John Neal

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 8/29/2005
Status: offline
I'm more familiar with the War between the States.
Googled: The Secret War for the Union

(McClellan estimated enemy strength at 170,000 when it was actually 40,000 to 45,000)

The confederates marched troops around with the specific intent of making their numbers appear larger.

A slightly different case would be, for example, a corps in Gibraltar, is it 1,000, or 15,000? The Spanish would probably have a better idea as to its actual strength than that.

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 21
RE: Fog of War - 1/22/2008 6:19:57 PM   
Soapy Frog

 

Posts: 282
Joined: 7/16/2005
Status: offline
Fog of war is quite appropriate for EiA.

Although detecting troops did become easier with technology, so too did deception operations; however that is neither here nor there, it is quite plain that cavalry scouts would not be as reliable as aerial reconaissance, for example.

There are many examples of cavalry scouts completely missing or wildly under/overestimating their opposition.

(in reply to John Neal)
Post #: 22
RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 1:32:06 AM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3615
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
McClellan used the figure of 200k for the ANV because:

1. He used a private detective agency (Pinkertons) for information gathering, not purely military channels.
2. The Pinkertons tended to use full strength to&e not effective strength in their calculations.
3. It gave him a valid reason to continue ask for reinforcements.
4. It made him seem like he accomplishing something against great odds.
5. It gave him an excuse in case he had to retreat.
6. He was an idiot.
7. All of the above.

I personally believe in 7.

IMO the difficulties involved in reconnaissance have not changed much from then (EIA era) to now, only the pace of information gathering and distribution.

(in reply to Soapy Frog)
Post #: 23
RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 1:37:33 AM   
HanBarca


Posts: 486
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Italy
Status: offline
He was using pinkerton to gather military intelligence ? That surely confirm point 6 :)

Interesting piece of information anyway!

_____________________________

H. Barca,
Surplus Consuls Dispatcher

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 24
RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 3:54:37 AM   
John Neal

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 8/29/2005
Status: offline
From the same book i linked, Pinkerton estimated 94,800, twice the actual, but much closer than McClellan.

"Such was the obscurity with which he surrounded his estimating of enemy numbers that we are led to assume that some of his figures were inventions, made by guessing..."

(in reply to HanBarca)
Post #: 25
RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 4:01:59 AM   
John Neal

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 8/29/2005
Status: offline
If the programmer(s) want to deal with it, there are other possibilities for a FOW rule than complete ignorance.
For example, a commander could designate his force as trying to increase its visibility, or decrease his visibility, resulting in a estimate presented to other forces that is erroneous, either greater than its actual size in the former, and less in the later.

Maybe the 1,000 troops in Gibraltar from my previous example could be mistaken for 5,000, at an extreme, but not 15,000.

I'd put this very low on the priority list, if at all.
Currently, i'd still vote to use the FOW rule as it stands.

(in reply to John Neal)
Post #: 26
RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 4:10:44 AM   
zaquex


Posts: 368
Joined: 11/30/2007
From: Vastervik, Sweden
Status: offline
I think intel of corp strenghts often was quoted in regiments, squadrons and guns rather than men, the number of regiments was probably alot easier to figure out and could be reported as full-strenght half-strenght etc. The commander could also make an assessment and estimate at which strenght these regiments where based on different factors. Also take in to account that which regiments belong to a certain corp often was known as was there commanders etc.

Its not likely to ever be totaly accurate but i have no doubt that this way to make an assessment was both easier and more accurate than counting men and also alot easier to add together especially as each regiment usually had a banner and sometimes even different uniforms that was clearly identifiable.

(in reply to John Neal)
Post #: 27
RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 8:29:38 PM   
yammahoper@yahoo.com

 

Posts: 225
Joined: 4/23/2004
Status: offline
Wow.  I played my first session of EiA in 86, and this debate is STILL going on.

Thanks for making me feel old.



yamma

_____________________________

...nothing is more chaotic than a battle won...

(in reply to zaquex)
Post #: 28
RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 8:37:37 PM   
AresMars

 

Posts: 234
Joined: 12/13/2007
Status: offline
Yamma,

You are not old!.....Gamers just NEVER change! 

And the time has passed for all of us..... 

(in reply to yammahoper@yahoo.com)
Post #: 29
RE: Fog of War - 1/23/2008 9:38:15 PM   
isandlwana


Posts: 30
Joined: 1/16/2008
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
Two arguments for and against FOW with Fleets---One in Napoleons time the english would scout blockaded harbors and generally knew disposition of forces and their preparedness well in advance--limiting the issue of FOW for blockaded fleets--on the other side of the coin fleets that escaped blockade were often reinforced by additional ships limiting the enemy intelligence and thus not allowing for a knowledge of ship disposition, numbers and strengths until fleets were sited.  On the whole I would agree that FOW for fleets is not an important issue.  In realistic terms in the Napoleonic era you can be sure that GB at least knew the relative strengths and dispositions of enemy or potential enemys prior to the advent of war.  Based on historical realism I suggest FOW is irrelevent and the game plays well without FOW employed in naval engagements--there is enough chance with wind guage  determinations etc to make it as realsitic as possible.

(in reply to AresMars)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Napoleonics] >> Empire in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Fog of War Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109