Matrix Games Forums

I mean, along with the default game fog of war option, there should be a true fog of war option in which you don't see enemy units deployed deep into enemy territory. All strategic wargames have this option.

I agree.

I will take it into consideration.

If considered, don't make a total blanket. In many games you can't see anything beyond a couple of hexes, which is just as unrealistic as the opposite. But some more security would be nice. Maybe only 50 % of units beyond paratrooper range, randomly chosen, will show up. After double that range only 10 %. Could be interesting if the game could also show a "ghost unit" now and then. But not a complete darkness.

I've no issues with the game as it is, but then again I come from tabletop gaming where you can see all the pieces - in most games even you know precisely which pieces are and their combat factors.

Would endorse having some more FOW, as suggested above would need to be balanced and well thought through.

For the first few times you play the game it is fine with things as they are. Playing the AI it is fine.
However once you get to know how HvH games go you want to look at doing something a bit more subtle or try to take the opponent by surprise. In my latest games it feels like a lot of it is down to taking advantage of any little mistakes the opponent makes rather than being creative. The only surprises are against neutrals.

History was different, lots of major offensives launched that came as a total shock.

Deep fog of war combined with uncertainty factor.
The further from the front, the more hard information decreases (recon, interrogation, electronic etc) and speculation (“analysis”) enters.

ORIGINAL: tyronec

Would endorse having some more FOW, as suggested above would need to be balanced and well thought through.

For the first few times you play the game it is fine with things as they are. Playing the AI it is fine.
However once you get to know how HvH games go you want to look at doing something a bit more subtle or try to take the opponent by surprise. In my latest games it feels like a lot of it is down to taking advantage of any little mistakes the opponent makes rather than being creative. The only surprises are against neutrals.

History was different, lots of major offensives launched that came as a total shock.

Yeah, like the Ardennes offensive in 1944. Total surprise for the Allies. It should be possible to amass troops for a major offensive without it being obvious to the opponent right away. So perhaps starting from a two hex range FOW should be greater than it is now.

Or maybe introduce limited number of ghost armies for a player to act as a diversion. Like the Allies did before D-Day. They created fake armies (operation Fortitude) and the Germans fell for it.

Last idea: cloaking armies. Give player limited number of cloaking units. Placed on top of a real unit. That unit is then much harder to detect. This way a buildup like the Germans did for the Ardennes offensive with utmost secrecy could be simulated.

Like the idea of ghost corps/armies. The Russian were very good at applying it too. Maskirovka, anyone?

Definitely think FOW would be beneficial playing against the AI or H2H.

Given the 1 week turns and size of units detection would be possible but the percentage should be tied to other things;
- Air recon either by not using/reserving units (auto use planes without missions or dedicate a percentage) or manually target locations to recon (new attack type with High detection and lower damage/risk to planes)
- Air activity in an area (increases % chance, Low as this was not the focus of the mission)
- Partisan activity in an area (increases % chance, Med/High)

Concealment could also be a new attribute to invest in pr unit. German's used enemy vehicles/uniforms/etc..

Before making any major changes like this that are not optional/configurable, I would suggest Alvaro maybe host a few polls to gauge the actual interest of at least the people that read there forums. Personally, I think FOW is fine as it is. I also think the game complexity level is right in the sweet spot.

A CEAW or Stretegic Command War in Europe fog of war type would be enough IMO. And always as an option keeping the current fog of war system as default.

+1 on RandomAttack.
If you change the current FOW then you would need to include more techs and/or units to counter it. For example, 100% FOW in the Atlantic, you would never find a sub in the Atlantic. (hex game system not zone - you need a possible location of where the subs are hunting). Do you then include them in the abstract supply (escorts sinking them) system or create a cheap unit(ASWs group) to patrol and protect the convoy lanes to counter subs.

Ghost Armies or Fleets may be interesting unit though in HvH play. Very cool idea. Used to disguise your intentions, just for looks, cheap to build, but useless otherwise. (Don't think I have ever seen that in a game?)

Some things for everyone to consider on why the FoW is the way it is.

All the other games.
No detection levels at sea
Little ability to create a decoy naval mission
Not a real board game feel with missing counters and an empty feel.
Surprise your fleet ran into mine, now you are dead because you had to stop
A ton of clicks to find the Bismark by actually scanning a map

WarPlan
Detection levels at sea
Easy to create a decoy naval mission
Feels like a real board game full of colors and counters
Realistic naval movement and no cheese speed bump units
Finding the Bismarck is based on recon levels and more accurately reflects what happened

In truth both sides knew generally where everything was. They just didn't know amounts and values. Only educated guesses. High altitude recon aircraft would pass each other in the sky even in 1944.

I like the current system at sea except no symbols should be seen in open ocean hexes unless adjacent to an enemy unit. I definitely like the obscurity of attack initiation where "no fleet is found".

It would be realistic to have air units reveal naval units in a passive recon role when they are deployed in the proximity of the coast. Say 90% on a coastal hex to a 5% chance at the max range of the air unit, varying in percent depending on tech enhancement and effectiveness/experience.

The AI would have to roll for every possible spotting implication. The same could be done on land although I recognize that the turn may have a longer resolution time in between players. The AI is pretty fast in the current iteration, I could stand a little less efficiency in that department.

Perhaps a unit could have recon value affixed to its other attributes depending upon its strength which is subject to its health, experience and effectiveness to apply to the recon algorithm.

There are many ways to improve this feature and I for one think it is a most, if not THE most, compelling feature of any wargame.

Sorry Al, we'll have to disagree about this statement and you know there are many examples in the Pacific that puts this on the path of being not realistic.
[/quote]
[quote]In truth both sides knew generally where everything was. They just didn't know amounts and values. Only educated guesses.

Close Combat games with the strat layer showed all Battle-groups in contact and then used a percentage per side for detecting/showing BG's behind the front line setup per game. So that is only 2 variables.

Prefer War in the East as it shows BG's in contact and then based on air missions (either automated or manually ordered) shows units behind the front line.

IMHO what's lacking is voluntary deception. Fortitude in the West, Maskirovka in the East should be represented.Ultra should be present too. Daunting task, even without considering AI. But yet...it should.

Yes, there was plenty of deception-- there were also plenty of cases where the intel guys knew EXACTLY what was where and why but the "leadership" didn't want to hear it for whatever reason. Cherry-picking intel-- a military/political tradition since armies have been around. [:'(] IMO, unless you have an entire separate intel model it's too much a slippery slope to get into. Even then, it will spur endless debates about the results.

ORIGINAL: James Taylor


Sorry Al, we'll have to disagree about this statement and you know there are many examples in the Pacific that puts this on the path of being not realistic.

In truth both sides knew generally where everything was. They just didn't know amounts and values. Only educated guesses.

Not exact numbers but they had an idea of what was out there. Codebreaking is assumed in FOW here