SC 2-Revised Fog of War

[Leopard]

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

Thanks for the kind words!

The problems associated with stacking are precisely why I favor seeing INTEL or RECON to be a tech, not a separate unit. In addition, the size of a unit of this type does not fit the scale used in SC. The tech INTEL would assist the spotting/ID ability for all units.

The factors I believe should be included in determining spotting could be broken down into major and minor factors:

Major: maximum vs. actual spotting range, terrain type, Air Unit vs. Ground Unit, weather and INTEL.

Minor: entrenchment, experience, recent activity

Jersey John, I agree with the basic premise that the primary (and best) source of spotting will continue to be the airfleets and bombers. This is behind my opposition to a recon unit, as opposed to using a tech INTEL. I also support adding another category of spotted unit-suspected. I originally suggested a vague unit category be added (Unit presence and basic type: ground, air, small ship, capital ship), but “suspected, but unidentified” would work for this also.

KDG mentioned the diminishing effectiveness of spotting at maximum range, which I proposed initially as maximum vs. actual spotting range and consider a very important aspect of spotting.

Edwin P. made an excellent suggestion in that spotting be reduced by enemy air within range. This reflects the tactic of defending airspace to deny reconnaissance. Good idea!

IMO, the three primary goals of this revision would be:

1. Eliminate the absolute certainty that now exists in spotting. Now, if the enemy is within spotting range, they are identified 100% of the time. A single airfleet can identify every enemy within 300 miles every time.

2. Consider factors in addition to range to determine spotting.

3. Add the tech INTEL to account for advancements in information gathering methods and devices, code breaking, human intelligence and analysis.

I like Bill Macon’s idea that spotting could be concentrated in an area. Though another can of worms entirely, I wish we could set an airfleets operational mode at the end of the turn to either combat air patrol, recon, or grounded. CAP would have medium spotting ability, while at maximum readiness for air combat or defending airspace against enemy recon. Recon would have maximum spotting ability, but medium air combat readiness. Grounded would mean the airfleet would only defend if attacked, and would not risk air combat to defend either resources, other units, or enemy recon attempts.

Revising Fog of War could have major implications upon battle planning. Not knowing the exact composition of the enemy force is a known component or war, and forces the aggressor and defender to plan for many contingencies. You cannot simply scout all known enemy positions within range and have 100 % knowledge of what units are present 250 miles past your borders, just because of a single airfleet.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed their thoughts to the subject.

[Edwin P.]

Leopard: I wish we could set an airfleets operational mode at the end of the turn to either combat air patrol, recon, or grounded.

A most excellent idea. Although the default setting should be combat air patrol, having the ability to select the other two modes would make for a more interesting game, while not increasing its complexity.

I would also have weather affect spotting, possibly by reducing the spotting range of aircraft or decreasing the chance of spotting a unit.

Sprig/Summer/Fall: 5%/turn Bad Weather -20% Spotting Chance

Winter: 33%/turn Bad Weather -50% Spotting Chance

[ June 18, 2003, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[jon_j_rambo]

This is a great subject!

Spotting in general is too "computerized" & deserves randomness, less accuracy, weather, uses a turn, requires actually flying the mission, etc. Long-range aircraft is out of control.

1) Force air units to commit their turn to spotting, a directional focus, & fly the mission.

2) Lets get some anti-aircraft batteries !!! Flak, flak, & more flak.

3) Allow the user to turn off the forced intercepts. It's lame.

Glad you guys are on this,

Rambo-Hollywood-Vegas

[Edwin P.]

A few observations on Spotting Naval Units

1. Ships in Port - Spot 100% except if enemy air in area flying CAP - as they would be tied up at the dock and thats where planes would look

2. Ships at Sea - Spot 80% as the ocean is big and cloud cover can limit view of the ocean surface.

3. Subs at Sea - Spot 40% as its much harder to spot a sub than a surface ship. Of course each plane covering the area would have a 40% of spotting subs - which is why i suggested a low cost ASW Air Fleet (about 150MPP, much cheaper than a bomber fleet) with Max strength of 5 that can not intercept. The allies could station such ASW fleets in Ireland and Canada to detect subs raiding the convoy routes and direct they Naval ships in for the kill.

Each tech level in subs would reduce the chance for air units spotting subs by 5%.

Of course during bad weather (5% during Spring-Summer-Fall) and 33% during winter months spotting chance would be reduced perhaps by 20%.

[ June 19, 2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Leopard]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

3. Subs at Sea - Spot 40% as its much harder to spot a sub than a surface ship. Of course each plane covering the area would have a 40% of spotting subs - which is why i suggested a low cost ASW Air Fleet (about 150MPP, much cheaper than a bomber fleet) with Max strength of 5 that can not intercept. The allies could station such ASW fleets in Ireland and Canada to detect subs raiding the convoy routes and direct they Naval ships in for the kill.

Of course during bad weather (5% during Spring-Summer-Fall) and 33% during winter months spotting chance would be reduced perhaps by 20%.

If we get to select the operational mode of units in SC2 (such as setting airfleets to CAP, recon, or grounded mode) perhaps the new SC2 will also allow subs to model their unique naval abilities. Especially the option to choose between surface, shadow, and submerged.

1. If submerged mode, the spotting could be reduced to around 5-10 % under perfect conditions and of course impose a penalty upon action points.

2. If surface mode, then spotting is increased by the sub and its enemies but with full action points.

3. If shadow mode, the sub would be considered to be "surfaced" for spotting and action points if it has not spotted any enemy units.

4. If in shadow mode (and the U-boat does spot the enemy) then the sub will follow the largest convoy or ship it has detected and stay in spotting range (but beyond detection range) without attacking. It will do this by moving during the enemies turn with the convoy or ship it has spotted and is shadowing. The u-boat is essentially functioning as a ramora, the parasitic fish that follow sharks and similar predatory fish around.

This would represent the wolfpack tactic of maintaining contact while alerting U-boat command of the target, allowing command to direct other U-boats to the target. Since this will require radio communications, spotting a convoy/ship in SHADOW mode should cause an increased chance of detection. This would be greatly affected by the proposed new tech INTEL (which reflects information gathering methods and devices, code breaking, human intelligence and analysis). At INTEL level 0, with no advancements in radio intercepts or triangulation developed by the Allies historically, these shadow mode U-boats would be able to report their findings without much concern for detection. If the Allies have improved their INTEL to reflect advances in information gathering methods and devices, code breaking, etc, then reporting contacts becomes a risky to suicidal proposition.

Outside of compromising positions through radio contact, or through aerial surveillance, U-boats were historically extremely difficult to locate. Ships rarely detected U-Boats with their lookouts-they usually knew U-boats were in their vicinity when their hull detected a torpedo impact.

[ June 19, 2003, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: Leopard ]

[Desert Dave]

Well gee, it was hidden in plain sight

For all to see...

Richardson 2B

Berra LF

Maris RF

Mantle CF

Moose Skowron 1B

Kubek SS

Howard C

Richardson 2B

Whitey Ford P

Yet, no-one solved the secret contest,

The time has expired,

So therefore

No-one! wins... the all expense paid! trip

To Robinson Jeffers stone home

By the Big Sur, California Sea!

There you would have been able to commune

With the shells & the stones.

And as added benefit,

Would have been serenaded!

By a water-nymph sasahaying from shore

To where you sitzen... cooly meditating! :cool:

Too Bad.

I figured JJ would get it, but no,

(... and as we know, going by his

comments of late, he sure could have used

this West Coast trip!)

***And to insure that anyone would have a chance

I even reminded, towards the end...

... BTW, I am quite sure some other fantasy Managers here on the forum...

WHAT the deuce you say? :eek:

See, Bobby RICHARDSON was stuck in the line-up... TWICE!

So, unless he's got a twin brother name of Efram...

It should be... Clete Boyer at 3B for them 1960 Bronx Bombers!

And don't give me that... who cares! about Baseball routine, since, as we know, it is MORE than America's past-time, it is... devotional Myth. Or, anyway, it used to be.

And so, no-body wins, hooray!

I ain't gotta pay!

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Richardson 2B

Berra LF

Maris RF

Mantle CF

Moose Skowron 1B

Kubek SS

Howard C

Richardson 2B

Whitey Ford P

You call that a line-up?

How about this:

1B-F. Chance

2B-J. Evers

SS-J. Tinker

3B-H. Schulte

LF-D. Taylor

CF-J. Sheckard

RF-S. Hoffman

C--O. Schreck

SP-M. Brown

SP-E. Ruelbach

SP-J. Pfiester

The Team ERA was 1.76

When baseball was still just a game.

Go Cubs!

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

I thought the second Richardson in your batting order was the little known "Rex" Richardson who played short center for the 1959-1967 Softball Yankees! Presumably you listed him as 2b because it was the closest harball equivalent.

Actually, I'm sorry to say the "secret contest" part of this eluded me. When I looked at your batting order I read the second Richardson as Boyer at 3b in his normal #8 position. As I didn't know there was a contest and wasn't looking for mistakes I wouldn't have pointed it out if I'd noticed it, which, unfortunately I didn't. Oh well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Just as well, if I'd have gone to the West Coast all the volcanic fault lines would have begun moving at once.

Getting back to Clete boyer, he did his every day job as a standout thirdbaseman (Brooks Robinson said he was the best defensively he'd every seen!) with a good back line-up bat. That all changed abruptly when he was traded to Atlanta in 1967 and he "suddenly" emerged as a legitimate power hitter. Same with Dave Johnson, who went to Atlanta in '73 and somehow jumped from the 18 homer category to 43! Wonder if those short fences had anything to with those transformations?

Stumbling along in baseball trivia land, there was a game where Stengal really did shake up the yankee lineup. He figured they were becoming complacent and wanted to shake them up a bit. So, unannounced and unprepared for, he sent his infield off to play the first inning with everyone out of position. The only one who wasnn't affected was Clete Boyer's 3b predecessor, Gil McDougald, who played all the positions at golden glove calibre! His point made, Stengal had them all back at their regular places for the second inning.

There a zillion Casey Stengal stories but the one I like best involves his dread of telling players that they'd been traded. Usually these deals were to the Kansas City Athletics as that ball club always accepted cash as a preferance to even up talent swapping.

In this instance most of the team was shagging fly balls and taking batting practice before a game while outfielder Bob Cerv lagged behind, sitting on the bench, tying his laces -- he was by himself. Stengal shuffled over and sat beside him, "Nice sunny day, ain't it?" -- "Sure, Case'" --"Somebody sitting on this bench has been traded to Kansas City and it ain't me!" With that Stengal got up and hurried onto the field. Cerv, looked up, looked to the left, looked to the right, and that's how the news was broken to him.

At Kansas City he went on to some great seasons, in one he batted .330 with 38 homeruns and a bunch of RBI's. His seasons were so good the Yankees bought him back as their reserve outfielder in 1961.

JB

Yeah, the 1908 Cubs were a tremendous bunch. Speaking of their 1.76 team ERA, I think their cross town White Sox WS rivals probably had a team batting average of .176! The thing that gets me about those ancient teams is the way they only had five pitchers on the roster. It was the day of starters pacing themselves even if they had to go twenty innings! Reilievers were fellow starters so receiving the task was not appreciated. To cut corners, a few guys like the Giant's Iron Man Joe McGinnity, used to pitch both ends of double headers!

Spare pitchers were generally position players and nobody thought this was strange at all. These days a complete game is almost the exception rather than the rule. The first pitcher I remember seeing who really relied on getting out after seven innings was the late career Whitey Ford. In Ford's waning years the Yankees had a relief pitcher named Louis Arroyo whose main purpose was to pitch the last two innings of Whitey's starts.

Actually, I don't think there's any way to compare performance between different ERAs of the game. Prior to 1900 the pitcher generally threw underhand. Prior to 1910, for example, the ball was noticably looser and a little mushy; which was why so many players of the time made getting hit by the pitch one of their tactics -- if they tried that today they'd spend a lot of time on the disabled list. Each decade brought in some sort of significant change, each one making the game mechanics less similar to what they were before.

Till we get to today, with a juiced up ball and fences that have been brought in between fifty and a hundred feet from where they once were, and homerun hitters who look like King Kong. I'd like to see these same titans playing not too far back, say 1960 conditions, and see how many of them put the ball out in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, the Polo Grounds or the old Yankee Stadium, with center field and power alley dimensions that went back for ever.

In the famous footage of Willie Mays making his over the shoulder catch on Al Rosen in the 1954 World Series (at the Polo Grounds) he's well short of the fifty foot wall and over 460 feet away from home plate! The second part of that story is the pitcher was taken out after the catch, a lefty brought in only to face Rosen (who plastered the ball for a tapemeasure out). Waiting on the mound for the next pitcher, a forgotten tradition, his parting words were, "Well, I got my guy!"

That same ball would still have been in the ball park in Old Yankee Stadium and the Old Pittsburgh Stadium as well!

Which is why I get a laugh when I see Left Center and Right Center at 375 feet with Center at 405 feet (good honest dimensions but not the old 425-450-425 of most of the extinct parks) and hear people babble about these guys routinely hitting 50 and 60 homeruns. The Babe would have hit over a hundred, and so would Greenberg, Kiner, Foxx and Gehrig!

Back on topic, those fences were so far back they were usually shrouded in a mist very similar to the Fog of War we're discussing.

[ June 21, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Leopard

If we get to select the operational mode of units in SC2 (such as setting airfleets to CAP, recon, or grounded mode) perhaps the new SC2 will also allow subs to model their unique naval abilities. Especially the option to choose between surface, shadow, and submerged.

1. If submerged mode, the spotting could be reduced to around 5-10 % under perfect conditions and of course impose a penalty upon action points.

2. If surface mode, then spotting is increased by the sub and its enemies but with full action points.

Excellent idea, it really adds a degree of tactical control to this game of strategic warfare and would also give the Germans a chance to move their subs without being seen by Allied air/carrier fleets. It would also make the hunt for the German subs more exciting.

Perhaps Hubert will consider adding a simplified version of your FOW ideas into 1.07 before its official release .

Example

Air Fleets % to Spot Surface Naval Ships and Transports in an ocean hex (not a port hex)

Air Fleets % to Spot Subs in an ocean hex.

[ June 21, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Leopard]

Yea, I keep hoping Hubert will comment on it and say something like, "Those sound like feasable ideas-more detailed FOW, airfleet and sub operational mode-no promises, but I will take a look at those for SC2".