Um, changed my mind.
Change your mind all you want! A lively discussion is never a bad thing, Berto.
About a year ago, I read a book on the battle of Chancellorsville. A year later, do I remember anything about the reinforcements at, for instance, the (side) battle of Salem Church? No.
I have read maybe a hundred books on the ACW over the course of my lifetime. Yes, I know and retain details of the general arc of the major battles, but
I retain no detailed memory of individual side actions -- what in game terms would be scenarios -- within those major battles.
There are dozens of smaller battles -- Mill Springs, Williamsburg, just to name two -- I now have no detailed knowledge of, if I ever did. (I'd heard about Mill Springs & Williamsburg, but that's about it.)
Fair enough. And I'm probably in the same position as you with these smaller and early-war battles. But there are some people out there like that, and while BigDuke my have a point that they are in the minority, I'm not entirely sure they are in the single-digits as he suggests. Certainly not after you add in the players that have played a specific scenario so many times as to know it like the back of their hand, in addition to having the historical familiarity with a scenario as I suggested.
You're a PBEM player, I bet. You are speaking in terms of the PBEM player's hope for a "fair fight".
I play exclusively against the AI. I am not looking for advantages vs. the AI. On the contrary, if anything, I want to be handicapped. Yes, I suppose you could say, "Well Berto, just don't peek." Fair enough. But FOW is violated in so many places in so many ways in this game, I'll be playing the game with gaze constantly averted. But I shouldn't have to. (Like we had to pretend ignorance back in the board war game days.) Just handle FOW properly, at least as I see it (or don't see it ).
It just strikes me as the oddest thing. In any PC war game I've ever played, at least any game that purports to have FOW, I don't know of any that allows one side to see the other side's reinforcements -- at all, or in such exact detail -- like this one..
Actually, I am, like you, exclusively an AI player. That said, I also understand the difficulty in having to create two separate rule-sets, one for vs the AI, the other for PBEM. Now, I think we actually agree, that having this 'extreme' FOW system would be for the best, for everyone involved. Hell, I'd love it if it were available as a toggle system as well, like you suggest.
That said, I recognize that this game is primarily a PBEM game for a large segment of the player base. And that BaB is a game, first and foremost, and that there has to be a nominally level playing field for both players. Now, perhaps FOW does give too much information, but I'd like to think (and perhaps I am wrong) that they erred on the side of too much info if you have LoS on a target simply for balance's sake in PBEM than because they actually thought that having all this information was a good or realistic idea.
I think we're actually in agreement that, frankly, this is a pretty terrible and unrealistic FOW system that BAB has in place at the moment. It's just that, disappointed as I may be, I (think) I understand where the developers were coming from in their decisions since this is supposed to be a game.
Then they could provide the basis for those "estimations" and "educated guesses" in the scenario briefing. But that is not justification for providing -- in real time, to such exactitude -- details about the enemy's reinforcements (and so much else; see earlier posts). Again, consider Chancellorsville, where Hooker's Signal Corps failed miserably in communicating orders from one army wing to another. Hooker was blinded to the disposition and actions of his own forces. How much more so Lee (of the enemy dispositions and movements)?
I could devote hours to describing here many Real Life instances of ACW FOW, both own-side and other-side. But again, I won't.
Here I think we both agree - it'd be better to simply have estimates. Hell, I'd like that much better too, especially from a SP perspective.
It beats me. This is the strangest take on FOW I've ever seen in any PC game. Strangest, because apart from some questionable design decisions, in other aspects the game's FOW is ground breakingly innovative. It doesn't add up.
Agreed again, and if they had an extreme FOW option as you want, or modified the existing one to fit this model you suggest, I'd be all aboard with it. As I said, I'd even prefer it to what's already there. It is quite weird, but it is what it is...and I was just trying to maybe help get into the mind of the devs and give insight as to why they did what they did.