Michael Dorosh Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Reminiscing once again about the old Squad Leader days in another thread got me to thinking. I always play with Extreme Fog of War as the default setting - I think most of us do, but perhaps that is gross presumption on my part. Does anyone play regularly with no fog of war at all? I can think of two reasons to do so a) Learning Tool - what better way to see the effects of firepower, morale, etc., then to see it all laid out Competitiveness/Gameyness/Nostalgia - call it what you want, but no FOW would make the game more dependent on knowledge of the game system, wouldn't it? I call this nostalgia because it was also the way the old manual games worked - you would see all your forces and all the enemy's forces (concealment and HIP excepted). I don't want to say this would require more or less skill than FOW, because luck would still play a factor and knowing what the enemy has doesn't ever automatically mean you know how to deal with that threat! Mikey Treeburst, Charlie Kibler, Uberfunbunny - I owe one of you guys a setup. Would one of you care to try a small one without any FOW - are there any scenarios out there that would be balanced for such play? I should think surprise and EFOW would be used as a balancing mechanism in most scenarios. Perhaps this is why most SL scenarios didn't translate well into CM?? Thoughts, opinions, experiences? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofthehill Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Im still learning but I never play with No fog of war, otherwise you give me a idea to a probable learning alternative metod.... Nicely KotH p.s. I 'll try and i'll post some considerations.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meach Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 It's just something I have never contemplated is playing without FOW. I use the full FOW and never extreme. I have been playing for a year now and still feel I have only scratched the surface of CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpwase Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Having your infantry decimated by 205mm on Turn 1 is not something I'd like to get involved in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by mrpwase: Having your infantry decimated by 205mm on Turn 1 is not something I'd like to get involved in. Some people just have no sense of fun! All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 mrpwase -- I would think you would have to have a gentleman's agreement on that issue -- something along the lines of prohibiting any artillery fire on turn one OR prohibiting any arty fire to an unobserved target on turn one. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 30, 2004 Author Share Posted March 30, 2004 Originally posted by MrSpkr: mrpwase -- I would think you would have to have a gentleman's agreement on that issue -- something along the lines of prohibiting any artillery fire on turn one OR prohibiting any arty fire to an unobserved target on turn one. Steve Or simply not setting up such that you could be decimated in that way on turn one. Like I said, it would be dependent on finding a scenario that allows for that style of play. Seems like there would be few balanced for that sort of thing. In SL, artillery was almost always something used during the course of a game, hopefully at a key moment. There's no reason it couldn't be such in CM. I think that fear of turn 1 artillery fests is silly, IMO, given a decently designed scenario. Having FOs enter on turn 1 would also eliminate the problem, if it was really seen to exist. I wonder if that was one of the sticking points for Hasbro back in the early days. I would see a strict SL-to-PC conversion as having no fog of war, but with the ability to set up hidden, and gain "concealment" during play. That obviously never happened (and I think CM got it "right" in that regard, frankly). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 Interesting thought about Hasbro, Mike. I prefer to think that they were just idiots, but that's me. As to the setups -- another thing to remember is that in SL, arty fire could not come down as quickly as it can in CM. For example, in SL, there is no way a player could call in an effective off-board artillery strike on a starting position, unless, of course, that position is part of a static defense. Frankly, I used arty strikes in SL as an area denial weapon far more than as an effective anti-infantry weapon for that very reason. It did okay against dug in defenders; otherwise, it was easy to avoid. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 30, 2004 Share Posted March 30, 2004 This thread reminds me of an old post of mine from a year or so ago discussing 'extreme' gameplay. Max size maps, max number of turns, max number of forces. I guess no FOW would fit in with that concept just fine. Imagine a couple fanatical battalions converging on eachother with no FOW. You'd have another Austerlitz on your hands! WooHoo! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yacinator Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 i always play with full fow. xtreme is too xtreme and none is just stupid. i mean think about it : u caan't have snipers becouse u can blow him up with a 81mm mortar before he can take a single shot, u can't have ambushes becouse if u know that there is an ambush there u'll just flank them or call in an artilery strike on them, and flanking won't work eitehr becouse then they'll redeploy their troops to answer that threat. and then it's just gonna turn into napoleonic wars with both sides charging at each other like retarded assholes, no strategy , no tactics just pointless and boring slaughter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I agree that EFOW is too extreme. I play full. There are things that I really like about partial. In full or extreme, once you ID a squad, you still only see one man icon representing the squad. You never see three, like you do in BO, until the squad is fully identified and you know everything about it anyway, so seeing the three men at that point is pointless. You could be facing a full-strength squad or one down to its last man, and still only see one man representing the squad. The thing I like best about partial, is being able to click on an opposing unit and seeing if it is taking cover. When playing full or extreme, you've got to click on each unit, go down to a camera angle that allows you to see if it is talking cover, then go back to an overhead view of the map. In larger scenarios, this can be very tedious. With partial, you just click away from view six or seven and you know who is going to ground and who is not. I think BO actually did the best job of FOW concerning identifying infantry and infantry-type units. In BB (I don't have AK), I've seen infantry squads in totally open ground still not fully-identified and showing only one man icon at distances under one hundred meters, with numerous units able to spot it. For me, if BFC would do a better job of showing the three men icons when you spot a squad, and make it easier to tell if a unit is going to ground without needing to go down to their level for every unit, I'd be a much happier CMer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted March 31, 2004 Author Share Posted March 31, 2004 MikeyD and yacinator - I have no earthly idea what you are on about, frankly. Without FOW, who says you have to run everything out over open ground? I don't think you've thought through your responses at all. I should rather think that without FOW, you would be more inclined to use cover, and in fact, you would be less likely to run things out into open ground because you would have the ability to plan out your battles better. I'm eager to try it, in any event, I just thought maybe some others would have actual insight or experience rather than knee-jerk hysterics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 ISTR that way back in the early days of BO I turned off FOW in one scenario because I wanted to see what was going on in it. I had played through once with FOW on and it didn't seem to make much sense, so I wanted to be able to look into it more deeply as it unfolded. That's the only instance I can recall of doing that. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKibler Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 OK, MD. I guess I'll try almost anything once (at least if it's not life threatening! Send me a setup that's not too involved (not sure how long I'm gonna wanna play a no-FOW game, tho). BTW, just for the record, I'm an "EFOW" kind'a guy. I'm surprized to see so many that prefer FFOW over EFOW. Oh well, "to each his own" they say. I'll probably prefer NFOW after this next game ...not! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I never play less than extreme...its just seesm that the more confusing, chaotic, less detailed and easy to miss things the situation is, the more realistic it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbertles Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 No Fog of War is the most valuable tool available to a scenario designer working on a vs. AI game. In gameplay, never less than extreme. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_no_one Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I agree with extreme only.Also make sure to discuss with any new opponents what level of FOW you will be playing on.Sucks to expect extreme and find out its only on full. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 NFOW is a designer's tool. I wouldn't enjoy a battle like that. I do like some of the arguments put forward for PFOW and FFOW. I've never even TRIED anything but EFOW since CMBB came out. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CKibler Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Originally posted by Treeburst155: ...I've never even TRIED anything but EFOW since CMBB came out. Well, me either -- but I reckon that's soon to change! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 FOW is very useful as a debugging tool. It would be good to have a one way FOW, keeping the AI under EFOW while the human player has clear picture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Additional comment, if you ever have the time make a simple small scenario and watch the AI set up a defense, change the map and watch how the AI adapts. Excellent way (perhaps gamey) to learn how to anticipate and defeat the AI "game playing process". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofthehill Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 This tread, it comes to me in mind a pool; How many man use extreme and many use a full fog of war? I use extreme but i think sometimes is very frustrating, for example when a regular HQ's(has binoculars) dont see a rifle squad in flat open ground craters 40mt away that firing on him platoon... But for manual and for pure of the simulation extreme FOW is the best....What you thinkin about? Regards KotH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 " MikeyD... I have no earthly idea what you are on about... I don't think you've thought through your responses at all." What I was talking about was HAVING FUN! Contrary to the opinion of some folks, apparently, I view CM as 'entertainment'. After all, I'm not REALLY sending anyone off to die horrible deaths when I start up a Quickbattle. Trying a few games at the edges of the game's capabilities (including the ever-popular SturmTigers vs conscripts in CMBB) is all part of wringing a little extra enjoyment out of the game. Big battles with no FOW would simply be goofy fun to pass the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkiviadis Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 I'm an old grog, this to me is so yesterday. For me the computer is a godsend. EFOG as far as I'm concerned is the only way to go....love that rush of surprise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanok Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 Originally posted by kingofthehill: This tread, it comes to me in mind a pool; How many man use extreme and many use a full fog of war? I use extreme but i think sometimes is very frustrating, for example when a regular HQ's(has binoculars) dont see a rifle squad in flat open ground craters 40mt away that firing on him platoon... But for manual and for pure of the simulation extreme FOW is the best....What you thinkin about? Regards KotH This is one of the things I mentioned when talking about the benefits of partial FOW. I know full and extreme are ultimately better, but partial has some good things about it as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.