FOG OFF!!

by **Havatcha** on Wed Feb 18, 2009 8:32 pm

Hi CC World!

I'm kind of new here and I have to say I'm not a great fan of foggy games, after all, in the original game we could all see what the rest of the players were up to. I can understand the appeal, not knowing what's going on around the far side of the board from you; and it is nice to know that, say, only player X knows you've just got that continent, etc.

But on the whole I find it kind of irritating (especially when I get attacked and, although I know who attacked me, I don't know where from or what they conquered - surely I should know at least that!).

I know it's supposed to reflect the real-life situation of "information being the first casualty of war" and all that but I'm sure that at the very least you would know who the various territories belong to. I mean, there would be some information surely, even if it wasn't reliable.

So this leads me to a couple of suggestions: how about degrees of fog? (Again, I know I'm new so tell me if I'm off the mark; but I guess these forums are for this kind of stuff.) It might make things a bit more interesting and spruce up those foggy games.
Some things I had thought of, apart from the total-fog situation as it is now, were:

semi-fog

delayed-fog

At least if I knew who owned which territories I would be more immediately aware of the balance of power and I can aim my stratagies at attacking the upstart who stole my continent bonus!

Of course, some might say "well if you don't like foggy games don't play 'em!" but they'd be missing my point, I'm just sounding out a couple of ideas to develop the whole idea of fog in games.

Anyway, just a thought.... let me know what you think?

by **lancehoch** on Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:47 pm

Moved to Suggestions & Bug Reports from General Discussion.

by **Fipa** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:39 am

I disagree with the suggestions, but I agree with the fact that you should be able to see where someone attacked you. I mean, in real life situation, you don't know where your enemy is, but you do know where he hit you. Also, I think the reinforcements should be question marked. They reveal a lot, especially on feudal war for example.

by **lancehoch** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:49 am

Fipa wrote:Also, I think the reinforcements should be question marked. They reveal a lot, especially on feudal war for example.

If I remember when I am playing a fog game with unlimited reinforcements, I will move one troop at a time. It fills up the log, but no one can be certain of how many troops you actually have.

by **Fipa** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:35 am

lancehoch wrote:
Fipa wrote:Also, I think the reinforcements should be question marked. They reveal a lot, especially on feudal war for example.

If I remember when I am playing a fog game with unlimited reinforcements, I will move one troop at a time. It fills up the log, but no one can be certain of how many troops you actually have.

True, but what do we do about the adjacent and chained reinforcements

?

by **Havatcha** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:04 am

Fipa wrote:I disagree with the suggestions

totally

Fipa wrote:but I agree with the fact that you should be able to see where someone attacked you. I mean, in real life situation, you don't know where your enemy is, but you do know where he hit you. Also, I think the reinforcements should be question marked. They reveal a lot, especially on feudal war for example.

I definately agree with you here. Thanks Fipa.

by **Fipa** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:55 am

Havatcha wrote:
Fipa wrote:I disagree with the suggestions

[list]Any paticular reasons? I'm not totally against fog, I just think there could be room for more variations.[/list

Sure. Well, in both your cases, the fog would be pointless in some types of games, especially in assassin games. You would know where your target is, and even though you wouldn't know how many troops they have, it would make things a lot easier and would make assassin fog pointless.

by **iambligh** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:42 pm

Maybe you should change the title of this thread to "Partial Fog?"

by **Havatcha** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:54 pm

Fipa wrote:Sure. Well, in both your cases, the fog would be pointless in some types of games, especially in assassin games. You would know where your target is, and even though you wouldn't know how many troops they have, it would make things a lot easier and would make assassin fog pointless.

Aha, I see. I haven't actually played any assasin games - I see your point here. It could be interesting if the data was unreliable though.. having potentially wrong info instead of just no data.

Thanks again for your imput Fipa

by **Havatcha** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:58 pm

iambligh wrote:Maybe you should change the title of this thread to "Partial Fog?"

I thought "fog off!" would maybe grab peoples attention the most.....

by **The Neon Peon** on Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:41 pm

There has been a suggestion that has had little opposition to make fog more realistic. It was really detailed and received a lot of support, which means the only way to find it is through a search since no one is commenting on it because there is nothing more to add.

by **Havatcha** on Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:53 am

The Neon Peon wrote:There has been a suggestion that has had little opposition to make fog more realistic. It was really detailed and received a lot of support, which means the only way to find it is through a search since no one is commenting on it because there is nothing more to add.

Eh? What was the suggestion?

by **40kguy** on Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:50 am

you know u can join and start games without fog u do know that dont u

by **The Neon Peon** on Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:31 am

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=47584&p=1233164

Ditocoaf wrote:This has been broken off from the other Fog of War suggestion thread; I will describe the specifics using all the quotes from there.

Concise description:

Change a few aspects of Fog of War in order for it to be more fitting.
Specifics:
Thezzaruz wrote: I ... think it is stupid not to be told what territories you loose to other players. I understand that I can only see my own territories and those adjacent but that has to be checked when something happens and not when I view the log. As it is now you get situations when as soon as you loose a territory (that is isolated from the rest of your army) you "forget" that you ever held it and it comes up as you lost "?" to someone.

greenoaks wrote: i agree. i think it is stupid that my intelligence advisors (the log) know that player x conquered a territory from player y but they can not remember what the name of the territory i just lost was.

Ditocoaf wrote: This is something I have considered suggesting myself, actually. The following two things do not make sense:

1) You are player A. Player B owns territory 2, and you own neighboring territory 1. If player B attacks and conquers territory 1 from territory 2, why can not you see that battle in the feed ? You could easily find this information by watching the board all day, so if is s potential abusive info, then you could already get that info. But it would be much more convenient to me to be able to see which of my territories were attacked, in what order, when looking at the log the next day. As the commander of an army, how would I not know that I used to have a territory that was taken?

2) Player B attacks player C's territory and conquers it. Why can you see this? . I use this all the time to determine where my opponents are; and while it is certainly helpful, it is not really in keeping with the concept of Fog of War. As the commander of an army, how would I know that two distant enemy territories were having a battle (if I did not even know which they were)?
And finally, my favorite:
greenoaks wrote: in true FoW: -
i should not know two distant armies i can not see fought.
i should not know that player a is receiving a bonus if i can not see every territory required to get that bonus.
i should know the names of any territory i just lost.
i should know the names of territories that change hands if they border one of mine.
If too many people think that the current FoW is worth keeping, then perhaps this could be implemented as an option, but I have not seen anybody defending it yet.

This will improve the following aspects of the site:

Information that you now can only see by watching the map will be availible by watching the log.
Information that you can not see by watching the map, will no longer be available in the log.
A more logical Fog of War will improve enjoyment of the game for many.
Strategy will be improved, because while now you can deduce the locations of your opponents by the log, with this you would actually be forced to fight blind, preparing for any instance.