japinard Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Just curious. So far I've only played with it on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 On -- one of the best computer features over board games. Ever try a board game with fog of war where you count on mutual honesty? It's enough to destroy one's faith in his fellow man; and oneself as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 I'd never play SC with FOW off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norse Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 FOW is always on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streetmans Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 The first few times I played I played with fog of war off. After getting the hang of the game I've played with fog of war on -- always. I think it's the best feature of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gman Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Always with FOW on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RicKhan Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Only played FoW off 1st time, after that, I can only play with FoW ON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.No Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 always FoW on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 THere needs to be a middle FoW option. I always play with it on, but you should be able to get nominal strength info on enemy fleet units, and on enemy strategic air. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daystrom Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 On... it is a great feature. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82ndReady Posted October 23, 2002 Share Posted October 23, 2002 Fog of War "On" Without it surprise attacks would never be able to happen and you would always know your opponents next possible move, where's the fun in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EB. Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 For realism, you should always play with fog of war ON. This is not a board game. One of the best features of computer wargames is the ability to have accurate fog of war experiences very simply and easily. Why not take advantage of this feature of computers? Plus, again, it adds more realism. You know what else (this just occurred to me)--chess would be a much better game if the enemy's pieces were hidden unless you have a unit adjacent to them. very interesting possibilities there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted October 24, 2002 Share Posted October 24, 2002 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: THere needs to be a middle FoW option. I always play with it on, but you should be able to get nominal strength info on enemy fleet units, and on enemy strategic air. Jeff HeidmanMaybe the REPORTS section can give you what you are looking for here. Even with FoW, you won't have an idea where the physical units are but you do get the relative strength levels etc. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 EB -- Interesting chess idea but it's a peculuiar situation. The best players (expert or master on up; which would start at the upper 5% of all tournament players, generally visualize the situation anyway, in effect, playing blindfold. On that level the board and pieces help but aren't really needed; good players see the board and all the pieces clearly even while walking around the room -- in tournaments most players spend a lot of time wandering around, away from their own game, glancing at other games; upon returning a sort of instant recall kicks in to update everying incorporating the opponents latest move. I have yet to understand the "walking around the room syndrome" beyong the fact that sitting at a table looking at your own game becomes fatigueing when done for hours at a time. Not everyone has the same blindfold ability; some terrible players are very good at it and some very good players are below average at visualization, but generally the better the player the better they are at visualizing. Anyway, in the piece and board aspect of things, chess is much simpler than this sort of game, there being only 32 pieces for both sides with just 64 squares for them to wander across. No dice, no element of chance, nothing, just a simple game with nearly infinite calculations and volumes of prepared lines, all of which seem to be known by the adversary. -- "The winner makes the next to last mistake." Old proverb (Savilly Tartakover) -- [ October 25, 2002, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yohan Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 ON, no debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck_para Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 When I play it is always on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Avalon Hill put out a "Battle of Midway" board game a long time ago (all right, a very, very long time ago!) in which the players were supposed to be seperated by a cardboard barrier (it's the truth) dividing two identical grids representing Midway Island and zillions of miles of the northern Pacific in all directions. At the start of each player's move he'd ask the other player if such and such a square on his side of the barrier contained anything, simulating long range search aircraft. Another fourteen year old and myself were attempting this exercise in honesty. After an hour or so of scanty results I decided I was being too truthful and the other guy was holding out, so I started doing the same. Next thing you know neither of us were locating anything -- every search was the same, "Anything there?" -- "No."; "Anything there?" -- "No." Till we both had the same idea at the same time and yanked the barrier away. Naturally both fleets were right in the middle of our search patterns! We each let out a shocked squel of that old standard, "You cheater!" and switched to another game where the "fog" wasn't as essential. In nothing else it was reassuring to find my best friend was as much a scoundrel as his best friend. An odd thing about the game itself was the Japanese really had no need for subleties, all he had to do was send his fleet to Midway and take it -- the Americans were too weak to defend the place and there was no way for the historical "Miracle at Midway" attack on the Japanese carriers actually come about. Also, the landbased B-17s Nagumo was so worried about didn't perform well in the game. Anyhow, after all those years of being forced to either trust my opponent (and equally bad, expect him to trust me!) or see every unit in plain sight, I was overjoyed to play a computer war game and have wonderful nothingness beyond my own borders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martinov Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Amusing. Maybe I'm too trusting but I enjoy blind board games. Axis & Allies with two sets is surprisingly good. We just announce the hits made, this compensates for variations in luck. Below average rolling can give your opponent a false impression of the size of your army and lure him into continuing battle. In my nerdy university days we used to play chess without pieces. Just stare at the board and announce our moves. Great fun (even though people stare at YOU!) and its amazing how quickly and easily you memorise the location of every piece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 I always play with FOW on. I would like an option with an even stricter FOW: At Kursk the Germans were not aware of the entreched armies that lied 50 miles behind the front line waiting for them. In the Low Countries, during operation Market Garden, the allies did not now there were panzer units fifty miles behind the frontlines. In Midway the Japanese air scouts missed the American Fleet, and when they finally spoted, their radio failed. Before the Battle of the Buldge, and before Fall Blue. The Germans managed to bring the attacking units just behind the lines without being detected by the enemy air scouts. My point: there should be a random posibility that air scouts miss to see something. During WWII, in ordert to avoid detection, armies travled at night, to preset locations where they could hide from air rec. This was difficult, and sometimes it failed. But many other times it worked. A few other items It should be easier to detect an army that just moved last turn, than a static army. From a programers point of view, units with 0 entrechement are those units that just moved last turn. Any unit with an entrechement of 1 or more should be much harder to spot. Air rec should be particularly unreliable in forest, swamps, and cities. Right now Russian partisans cannot hide from German Air Rec in the Prippet Marshes. This makes it very easy to hunt down the partisans. Infantry should be easier to hide from air rec, while tanks should be harder to hide from air rec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 ev -- great points about the fog. In Korea, MacArthur didn't believe tens of thousands of Chinese infantry had infiltrated past the U.N. positions and were hiding in the hilly, wooded countryside behind his units on the Manchurian border -- exactly what you were saying. Terrific stuff to incorporate. Glad you brought up the Japanese searchplane's defective radio at Midway. Did anything go right for those guys in the entire campaign? Shows how even the right move can turn out wrong. Then there's always the odd Admiral (the late Admiral Lutgens), who masterfully evades a host of cruisers, convinces the enemy he's heading north when he's really going south but, when all seems safe, fatalistally throws everything away with a longwinded transmission to Der Fuhrer, sealing his fate and that of those under his command. I wonder if things like that can ever be incorporated in a war game. [ October 26, 2002, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esquire Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 The first few games I played with it off. Now I play with it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 I would like an option with an even stricter FOW ev, this would be good. Reduced air spotting for stationary units, and units in swamp/forest/city terrain would be more realistic. I'd also like to see a chance (10% ?) for some wrong intel occassionally, not for adjacent units but for air recon and other non-adjacent spottings. Tanks could be mistaken for armies, HQs mistaken for corps, etc. THAT would be FOW. Something to put on the SC2 to-do list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ecthelion Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Always fow on. I will like to see less spotting for the airfleets.A bit random for the spottings, at least with the units not in contact with the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Ecthelion: Always fow on. I will like to see less spotting for the airfleets.A bit random for the spottings, at least with the units not in contact with the enemy.That should be even more true for spotting U-boats at sea-to have the perfect spotting ability that they currently have, air units/bombers would have to have hundreds of long-range recon planes constantly at sea, without any bad weather (or night!) which would hinder visibility. Yes I know about airborne centrimetric radar, but I also know about Type XXI subs which generally stayed underwater for most of their patrol. Until sonobuoys are invented, planes would have little chance of spotting one, even with radar (unless the sub was snorkeling). I'd peg it at a 25% chance of spotting a sub, adjusting for radar tech as well as sub tech. Sonar tech should only benefit surface ships. John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Patrick Posted October 26, 2002 Share Posted October 26, 2002 I played with FOW off once or twice after my first few games. I don't much care for the 'fairness' of not knowing all intelligence at all times. I just hate that it opens up YOUR information to the computer as well!! If I'm trying to sneak some subs around, I don't want the royal navy chasing me down before I've done anything to key them off!! Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts