SC 2-Revised Fog of War

[Leopard]

I would like to offer for discussion a new Fog of War system.

Spotting as a whole could be based on a qualified basis incorporating a new tech category INTEL (Intelligence). This could be a combined rating, calculated with randomness, by turn per unit. Factors could include maximum vs. actual spotting range, entrenchment, experience, terrain type, recent activity, weather, and INTEL. A bonus for air units and their perspective should be given also in certain terrins types.

At maximum range, there is less time spent in/over the area to be surveyed and less chance of gathering information from virtually all sources. Experience and entrenchment improve observations.

Recent Activity would allow for better identification for units you have attacked the turn before, or units that remained engaged by attacking you during the last turn.

INTEL would be a combined tech including information gathering methods and devices, code breaking, human intelligence and analysis.

The basic premise would be that even in direct contact (at spotting range 1), spotting becomes random and qualified. At the beginning of each turn, spotting is recalculated. Exact identification-including unit strength- would only be known after an attack involving direct contact with the enemy unit. Until this probing attack a unit’s identification is based on the calculated ID at the beginning of the turn.

Unit ID could be calculated in 3 qualifying ways: Unit presence and basic type (ground, air, small ship, capital ship), exact unit type (HQ, army, tank, airfleet, carrier), and unit strength (Tank unit at 6 strength).

The same enemy tank group strength 6 might be unseen by 2 friendly units, seen as just a ground unit by 1 friendly, seen as a tank by 1, and seen as a medium strength (strength 4-7) tank group by an experienced friendly unit in direct contact.

At the beginning of each turn, each opposing unit’s ID is based on the combined spotting “snapshot” of all friendly units within range. Each units snapshot is affected by random factors, and are added together and averaged to form a base ID. If only one or two units can spot an enemy, the base ID is reduced. More independent observations, especially when coming from different perspectives (different hexes), are always superior to a single report.

The level of the tech INTEL could then analyze this base ID. The higher level the INTEL, the more weighting of the best ID gathered from the various sources. If there is poor or limited information, INTEL can only do so much to assist in getting a detailed ID. But even with no information from spotting, INTEL could at level 1 have a small chance (say 2% per INTEL level) of identifying enemy units from other methods such as spies, electronic surveillance, civilians, fishing boats, etc. So INTEL would add a small amount on its own to proper identification but its primary advantage would be in helping to prioritize the best reports from other units.

Whether to allow only levels of identification or to include misidentified units or incorrect strengths is another argument, but I believe this system would improve the already excellent concept of Fog of War. It would add to the strategic possibilities and realistically incorporate intelligence in combination with the factors mentioned above.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Ok... let me see if I understand this.

A Army/Corp has a spotting range of one (1). There are two (2) enemy units next to me. I MAY see one of them and I MAYNOT see the other. And the info I know about the one I see is limited.

My ability to see one would be based on a large number of variables including the INTEL Tech.

Is this the gist of it?

[ May 26, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Leopard]

As Axis, you are fighting your way West. Beginning the turn, you only occupy hexes along the Rhine. You destroy an Allied unit and move into the hex southeast of Brussels and north of the Ardennes. A corps is moved into the recently cleared hex that has opponents on 3 sides: in Brussels, in the open hex south of Brussels, and in the Ardennes most Eastern hex.

I believe that there would be a difference in that corps ability to determine what the opponents makeup and strength is. That for a perfect ID opportunity it would have an experienced corps, which has seen battle before and knows the difference between a few tanks or aircraft as being part of an army group or a tank division in itself, and could judge the strength of that force based on past experience. They would best observe units at the closest range, the 50-mile hexes in direct proximity. They would notice more if they had been on their own hex for 2 months than if they had just marched in, and they could see more in open terrain than they could inside cities or forests. Especially if they had been in recently engaged with these enemy positions. In poor weather there are obvious limitations on sound and vision.

Additional friendly units observing the same enemy position from a different hex 50 or more miles away would contribute to the assessments of the enemy, as would good intelligence.

In the extreme, a rookie corps marching into a freshly conquered hex in heavy rain with no friendly hexes occupied, poor intelligence and no air recon, would not know the exact composition of the enemy entrenched in the forest 50 miles away.

However, a veteran army that has spent 3 months on a hex will know what the opposing army in the open plain that they have been fighting for 2 months in good weather with good intelligence reports, and friendly air surveillance, had for breakfast on the second Thursday of the month.

[ May 26, 2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Leopard ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

So the answer to my original question then, would be yes. Especially since your subsequent post appears to be an example justifying your original position.

I agree with you that there are a large number of variables that determine the range and accuracy of the reconnaissance information that is obtained.

Its not clear what effects you are suggesting that should be added or changed in SC.

[JerseyJohn]

Leopard

My impression is about the same as Shaka's.

I've read both your entries twice and couldn't quite understand the changes -- the main thing is I kept thinking even one nearby friendly Air Fleet would make ground unit recon all but unnecessary.

I gather it's to have all the info on enemy units that have been in line for a while beyond what we currently have by sitting beside them. In other words know their supply level and effectiveness percentage -- correct?

If so I think it's a pretty good idea. As you said, units that have opposed each other for a while probably know what the other side had for breakfast -- not that there would be that many options to guess from.

[ May 26, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Leopard]

I will try to clarify this. In Strategic Command, the FOW system has only one variable that determine how opposing forces can be identified-range to enemy unit. If opposing forces are one hex away, we can see the unit type and exact strength. If two or more hexes away, but within the spotting range of a friendly unit, we see the unit type with an – (representing unknown unit strength). If outside the spotting range, no unit ID or strength is known. These three absolute conditions determine FOW.

A single no-experience corps marching into a just conquered territory with no air support nearby has the exact same spotting ability for adjacent hexes as would an army which occupied the hex for the past three months with four airfleets in the immediate vicinity. I believe it would add to the replay-ability and intrigue of the game if these were calculated with consideration given to other factors including:

Maximum vs. actual spotting range, entrenchment, experience, terrain type, recent activity, weather and INTEL (a new Tech which needs to be funded and researched). A bonus for air units and their perspective should be given also in certain terrain types.

Fog of War is one of my favorite aspects of the game, but I could see it becoming better if it considered the above factors, and if it could be a more variable and less absolute quality. I would like to see FOW become a greater weapon/tool than it currently is. If Germany has five airfleets during the opening of Barbarossa in Northern Russia and the USSR has only one, five in-spotting-range airfleets should provide better spotting than a single airfleet. The lone inexperienced USSR airfleet could not identify all enemy units in the surrounding 900 square miles as well as five veteran German airfleets would.

My thoughts are that FOW should consider factors other than just range to enemy and spotting range. It would create more doubt and uncertainty in identifying the enemy, one of the most fundamental aspects of war.

I think this a solid idea that would add a lot to the game. But I'll let it go if it is unimportant to most people.

[ June 06, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Leopard ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

I understand exactly what you are after now.

For the system to work the way you propose, there has to be the possiblity of inaccurate information. In other words, when I see a unit, maybe its not a real unit. When I see the type of a unit, I may have the wrong info. When I see the strength or experience of a unit, it may be the wrong numbers. That way, the more the "favorable" conditions are in your favor, the more accurate your information could be.

Hence, that unit that I just tried to attack may "disappear" when I move my unit to perform an attack. Or when I attack that Armor unit, I may find out that its a Corp unit instead.

It would be an interesting feature.

[pzgndr]

Reality check time. Even with ULTRA, the Allies were surprised in December 1944 by the German attack in the Ardennes. In game terms, that's like having a Tank Group 2-3 hexes from the frontline ground units and not knowing it's there. It's interesting to propose nifty Intelligence research possibilities, but FOW was a reality on the ground up to the end and we should be careful not to ruin that effect.

The other recent thread about air units brought up spotting as an issue that we can relook for SC2. Adjacent enemy units should be fully identified by type and strength. Enemy units within 2 hexes of ground combat units (Corps, Army, Tank Groups) should be identified by type. Beyond 100 miles, air spotting could be limited to nondescript unit types (ground, air, naval, sub), and spotting range further limited due to weather effects.

ULTRA was particularly useful against the German U-boats, so air spotting of subs could have long ranges. Other air spotting ranges need to be reconsidered. Perhaps a fixed spotting range of 2 for identifying units by type and 5-6 for generic unit spotting, reduced to 3-4 during bad weather? This would certainly make playing with FOW more challenging and more interesting. HQ's and counter-attack forces in the rear would be harder to identify and target with airstrikes. Fleets at sea would also be harder to identify.

Comments?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

Perhaps a fixed spotting range of 2 for identifying units by type and 5-6 for generic unit spotting, reduced to 3-4 during bad weather? This would certainly make playing with FOW more challenging and more interesting

It surely would, and it is an idea that would greatly enhance the game.

Leopard has many interesting variations of this to consider, and should be congratulated for introducing this topic.

In general, I would agree with the notion that it is better to have LESS spotting ability in both land and sea areas, since this would make the so called "standard attacks" VERY problematical.

No longer could you safely sit back and... somehow just KNOW all the Hated Foes military dispositions. Given our game scale, this seems rather implausible, and makes for somewhat PREDICTABLE tactics.

***Now, I would propose adding our long cherished (... well, by me anyway) RECON unit, which would in actuality be a combination of... armored cars, smaller and obsolete tanks, and various other recon assets, such as small planes and commando type raiders.

This New! Recon Unit would be very vulnerable, since it would have to probe into treacherous areas, and so I would not only give it a VERY low profile (... like a sub will have with the new "run silent" feature), but would allow it to completely absorb a first attack (... no damage, other than to readiness), either by land or air. :cool:

[pzgndr]

Unfortunately, a recon unit doesn't fit in well at this scale. We should assume recon elements are already out snooping around, hence the 2-hex spotting range for ground units. And with the no stacking issue, where would they go?

Air recon is another issue. Should we have a new air unit, or somehow provide a very specific recon capability for existing units? Assuming we somehow reduce or restrict the spotting ranges as proposed, what if each air unit could target a single hex out to max strike range and be able to see a unit and its type? That could provide some intel, but not too much. Several air units could work together over a couple of turns to get a good picture of a limited area. Think about Midway and the problems with tactical search patterns, and then expand that to the operational level.

My previous suggestion about nondescript naval units should be revised. Whereas ground units may be nondescript from the air, any naval unit spotted should be able to be identified by type.

[KDG]

I hate spotting as it is now. I'm in the PBEM tournament, and two German bombers are able to spot every unit in the Med(is this feasable?).

Here's two options I'd like to see.

I'd like to see pct. chances for planes to see. The farther out, the less pct chance to see a unit. Thus 100% chance 3 hexes out, 80% 4 hexes, 60% 5 hexes out, 40% 6 hexes out, 20% 7 hexes out. Each tech increase would increase pct. chance up 10%, as well as the overall distance by 1(would start at 20%). Weather effects for Fall/Winter would also be nice(drop of 30%).

If programming for the game makes this impossible, then start all planes with 1 hex less in viewing range. Weather effects for fall/winter would also be nice, reducing range by 2 hexes.

[ June 10, 2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[disorder]

like all the ideas here. we agree something needs done, and anything would be an improvement.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

Unfortunately, a recon unit doesn't fit in well at this scale. We should assume recon elements are already out snooping around, hence the 2-hex spotting range for ground units. And with the no stacking issue, where would they go?

A recon unit doesn't fit? Sure it does Mr Bill!

I certainly appreciate the scale of SC... 50 miles across a hex, corner to corner, BUT... the recon unit would be only one of our smaller sized units... such as Airborne.

The idea being that this unit would be composed of MORE than merely a few armored cars and a couple of old and obsolete tanks and the like.

There are clerks and cooks and a rudimentary HQ and supply and security garrison and intel, etc.

There are even! some intrepid WWI fighter aces hanging about ogling the young ladies and ready to resume! The Flying Circus in their old bailing wired bi-planes!

And so, this would be a stand alone unit that would help to push back the veil of UNKNOWING... since we agree that there might be a lower spotting ability for all units, then the NEW! Recon Detachment (... as with tank detachments, or rocket detachments, not all units are FULL sized Corps) would serve the purpose of being fairly inexpensive, and highly effective at its assigned mission... find out what the Devil is going on ! out there in no man's land! :eek:

Stacking would NOT be a problem, because these new Recon Detachments would have a higher movement allowance, and could absorb a first attack... no strength losses remember, ONLY to readiness.

Thus, you could lurk them behind the lines - dash out! to survey the lay of the land, and even take a hit or two before returning triumphant! to report to HQ.

This could work I'm telling you and am VERY much in favor of seeing the Recon unit in our potential new SC2! :cool:

[Shaka of Carthage]

Recon Unit

You're talking Armored Cavalry. Only the US had something along these lines. And even there, its at best a Brigade sized unit.

Ground Recon was the Battalion attached to the Division. The spotting range, while perhaps too long, works fine for the scale.

The Commandos/Partisans are not really represented in SC, but I've always thought of the "accurate" spotting covering this. It would be nice if every now and then they blew something up, but maybe one day.

Air recon, which was the primary purpose of Aircraft units in WWII, is represented by the spotting range. The method could be argued, but the effect is there.

Even if the often argued Paratrooper unit becomes a reality, I still don't believe it justifies a Recon unit.

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Leopard:

[QB] I will try to clarify this. In Strategic Command, the FOW system has only one variable that determine how opposing forces can be identified-range to enemy unit.

That's not true i can think of 4 off hand.

1. Spotting distance of unit type

2. Tech level for A.C. spotting

3. type of unit being spotted (I.E. Subs)

4. all of which are modified by range to unit.

A single no-experience corps marching into a just conquered territory with no air support nearby has the exact same spotting ability for adjacent hexes as would an army which occupied the hex for the past three months with four airfleets in the immediate vicinity.

True but don't forget the SCALE of this game these units being spotted are soo large they cannot be hidden. maybe some minor details could be worked into the system like a small variance of unit strength with more accuracy as length in spotting range/units spotting could effect that value but otherwise the current system does a fine job.

I believe it would add to the replay-ability and intrigue of the game if these were calculated with consideration given to other factors including:

This game currently has great replayability. As a matter of fact it has the best replayability of any game I know of that (mostly) uses the same map. I still want a random map generator to kick butt on the map learners I think of them as Pacman strategists

Maximum vs. actual spotting range, entrenchment, experience, terrain type, recent activity, weather and INTEL (a new Tech which needs to be funded and researched). A bonus for air units and their perspective should be given also in certain terrain types.

Would all be well and good but is not nessesary.

Fog of War is one of my favorite aspects of the game

Mine too nothing like a good "shell game" in the med. That's why i love Civ2 MPG soo much random maps change exploring and expanding. An old game empire was like that and is was a great diversion.

I would like to see FOW become a greater weapon/tool than it currently is.

Hmm maybe your playing the wrong opponents.

[Hueristic]

What i would like to see is a "last known position" Marker that counts the turns unit since last spot. I would like to see that marker sit there unit another unit was spotted in that position or the same unit was respotted. then i wouldn't have to remenmber what hex a unit was in 3 turns ago when i trying to figure out where it could be now. Even though i know it's one hex outta my spotting range

[Hueristic]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

This could work I'm telling you and am VERY much in favor of seeing the Recon unit in our potential new SC2! :cool:

I hope this whole post was a joke.

:confused:

I'll fight anything that tries to change this great game from Strategic to tactical. You want tactics go play one of 500 other games. Leave this one alone.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Shaka Of Carthage:

Recon Unit

You're talking Armored Cavalry. Only the US had something along these lines. And even there, its at best a Brigade sized unit.

Well, no I'm not.

I am talking about a DETACHMENT of... armored cars, Pz IIIs (or equivalent) and half-tracks loaded with engineers and otherwise specially trained troops such as forward observers and commandos.

Not to mention the security and support personnel and small scout planes that make up this... special detachment.

Like any detachment, which depends on the controlling country's doctrine... it can be larger than a brigade, and smaller than a corps.

Ground Recon was the Battalion attached to the Division. The spotting range, while perhaps too long, works fine for the scale.

In this case, the recon is a separate, stand alone unit. It is not part of any other unit.

See, the thing is... WHY NOT?

Why not have another unit, or two or four?

The more CHOICES a player has to make in order to set up and deploy his tactical forces, then! there are many more DIFFERENT KINDS of encounters that are possible.

The more CHOICES involved, the greater the permutations and... this means... the greater the VARIABILITY of the game.

In chess you are limited to what? 6 different pieces? Well, that can get to be pretty predictable, yes? There are limited kinds of ways that these pieces can be deployed or employed.

I am surely inclined to add MORE units in order to provide MORE... flat-out fun!! :cool:

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Heuristic:

I hope this whole post was a joke.

Nope.

See any of my posts, above.

This new! Recon unit is NOT a tactical unit. It is, IMHO, a Grand Strategic unit... obviously we have a different approach to what SC2 COULD be... given the simple fact that the game designer makes... all the final calls.

That's cool. I'd hate to be stuck anyplace where everybody! has the SAME slant and opinion on... anything at all.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Immer Etwas

First,

SC is suppossed to be a representation of WWII. There was no such special detachment for any nation on the scale you want. For good reason. But I can be open minded, so lets play "what if".

What if

Mission: push back the veil of UNKNOWING. fairly inexpensive, and highly effective at its assigned mission. find out what the Devil is going on ! out there in no man's land!

TO&E: armored cars, Pz IIIs (or equivalent), and various other recon assets, such as small planes and commando type raiders.

half-tracks loaded with engineers and otherwise specially trained troops such as forward observers and commandos.

There are clerks and cooks and a rudimentary HQ and supply and security garrison and intel, etc.

Not to mention the security and support personnel

Intrepid WWI fighter aces

Like any detachment, which depends on the controlling country's doctrine... it can be larger than a brigade, and smaller than a corps.

Commandos won't happen. No one is gonna give you commando trained troops for this. They are too valulable for commando missions. WWI Aces I assume you mean aviation assets.

We'll ignore the size of the unit for the moment. As you say, its somewhat based on the doctrine of how the unit is to be employed.

Result: You've just described the Mission and TO&E for Armored Cavalry.

Important part

See, the thing is... WHY NOT?

Why not have another unit, or two or four?

The more CHOICES a player has to make in order to set up and deploy his tactical forces, then! there are many more DIFFERENT KINDS of encounters that are possible.

Short Answer

The unit you are proposing, would never survive the modern battlefield, hence it was never formed.

Long Answer

Assuming we have the ability to raise and sustain this new unit (which has eliminated everyone historically except for the US), understand a problem this unit has. There are two (2) basic recon doctrines... see without being seen or fight what you see until something stronger comes along. If you go with the "see without being seen" doctrine, you are back to the Recon battalion assigned to the division. If you want the "fight" doctrine, you are talking Armored Cavalry.

Armored Cavalry can fight, but it is not organized to fight a sustained operation. Thats why its called armed reconnasiance. If you organize it to fight a sustained operation, you now have a combat manuever unit, be it brigade, division, corp or something in between.

Only the rich have the luxury of forming such a specialized unit.

[JerseyJohn]

Why not continue with aerial, especially LR bomber zone, as the main source of recon with an option to intensify it with either extra MPP investment or overlapping of air zones. Enemy units that show up can be two categories, confirmed and suspected.

Enemy units that are sighted at the same location over a course of time would show up in greater detail. Suspected units would either vanish from view or become confirmed as well, and subsequent sightings of those units at the same hex would also yield further info. It would be the flip side of entrenchment.

[Desert Dave]

Just home on a lunch break from my part-time job of land-scaping, and... what do I realize...

Holy Smokes, MoJo Man! :eek:

What a formidable!!

Line-up, arrayed against me!

It's as if I were a kid pitcher name of Rex Becker who was just summoned up at the tag end of the 1960 season, yep, 'e was... by the beloved! :cool: Cleveland Indians, and... what a heroic ordeal!

The best!! team that money could buy, now, OR then, the Bronx Bombers themselves! :eek:

--------------------------

Richardson 2B

Berra LF

Maris RF

Mantle CF

Moose Skowron 1B

Kubek SS

Howard C

Richardson 2B

Whitey Ford P

-----------------------------

Now, in this our actual reality, there is this imposing line-up: Macon and Shaka of Big LA, and Heuristic and maybe JJ. (... although who is the outrageous raking-stick?... The Mick!)

ALL!

Opposing that dimple-cheeked teen PHENOM, Rex the Wonder Boy Becker ...

NOW! pitching for the Cleveland club in the bottom of the 9th and holding... TRYING HIS youthful HEART OUT... to hold a fragile one run lead...

O Joltin' Joe, and like I say,

Against one hell of a bash-'em-up lineup!

--------------------------

Ah... so, I shall persist... one Recon Detachment... Mr Game Designer, if you please!

Or, in another way.... STRIKE THREE!

***BTW, I am quite sure some other fantasy Managers here on the forum would re-align that pinstripers line-up card, but, I myself prefer it as is.

[SeaMonkey]

You are right on it JJ. And the disclosure of enemy units would also be tied to your intelligence tech level and of course the more units exercising spotting the more detail revealed in the specified hex. Sorry Immer "strike 3", but there are still two outs left in the inning.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

Thanks and pleased we agree, it seems like the simplest solution and gives bombers a real purpose.

Immer

Overjoyed in being associated in any way with that great batting order.

I've always felt Moose Skowron playing for the Red Sox or Cubs at his height would have hit a steady 45 homers a year instead of his normal 26 or 27; his left center field flyouts (450 feet away in old Yankee Stadium = "Death Valley!") were notorious. Same with Elston Howard, those two had more tape measure outs than any other players I'd ever seen, yet they always posted the big numbers.

This kid pitching for Cleveland, Rex Becker , he reminds me a lot of the 125 mph fast baller Sid Finch. I'll have to give George Plimpton a call to see if he recognizes him.

[Edwin P.]

Leopard and all others

I really like the concept of updating the FOW rules in SC. Currently the system assumes a 100% to spot anything in range.

In my mind I would include Intel (as per Leopard), reduce chance of spotting at extreme ranges for Air units and account for the presence of enemy air units in the area being spotted.

Example:Air Units Spotting

Base chance to spot of 90%

Extreme range: -20% (ie 70%)

Presence of enemy air units in interception range gives -20% per enemy air unit. (Thus 70% chance when 1 enemy air unit in area, and when 3 enemy air units in range this drops to 30%)

Intel gives +10% per level, thus At Intel Level 3, base chance to spot at less than extreme range is 120%.

Bad Weather -60% (ie assume a 10% per turn for bad weather that limits visibility and flights)

Subs -30% to spot submarines.

Just a few ideas.

[ June 15, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]