Conquer Club

vrex wrote:on a completely off topic note: IN thread may be receiving a new post from cicero sometime tomorrow or the next day ditocoaf

yeah; I really hate that I missed the summit. Looking forward to the results, though.

You've got to remember Bob here though. You're (meaning yeti) goning to have to take out a lot of the hints it gives in FoW if you want this to really work. For example, knowing how many territories a person has is a great help

RobinJ wrote:You've got to remember Bob here though. You're (meaning yeti) goning to have to take out a lot of the hints it gives in FoW if you want this to really work. For example, knowing how many territories a person has is a great help

but then so is being able to see every territory and the size of the armies on them.

now i don't know how great it would be to play not knowing anything about an opponent except what you can see beside you but RL battles use to be like that. (maps could be made with raised terts such as mountains or hills that could see 2 terts away much like the cavalry in waterloo or castles in Feudal War can)

almost all games i now play are FoW so i do like that style, it is just the inconsistency in that format where i don't know the name of what i just lost but i do know the name of who i lost it to that bugs me.

RobinJ wrote:You've got to remember Bob here though. You're (meaning yeti) goning to have to take out a lot of the hints it gives in FoW if you want this to really work. For example, knowing how many territories a person has is a great help

It depends on whether we change the current FOW - or add a NEW FOW...

If the latter - then yes - some will need recoding/removing... (not really a problem though)

Depending on how the new log (if there is going to be such a thing) comes along - then it will depend on what BOB can determine.

C.

meaning what bob can figure out from downloading the log?

vrex wrote:meaning what bob can figure out from downloading the log?

Of course.

C.

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.

I'm jumping on the band wagon on this one

I'm going to have to bump this; I forgot it had been falling.

It's either bump, or make a new thread, so there's no need to complain.

Ditocoaf wrote:I'm going to have to bump this; I forgot it had been falling.

It's either bump, or make a new thread, so there's no need to complain.

there is need to complain because there already is a new thread...

then it should be merged onto the end of this one.

I really like this suggestion - I'm all for it

I am not sure I understand why you can show the countries for me only when I am attacking and not when I am the one being defeated?

Personally, the change I would most like to see is to NOT show which territories are on cashed cards. That can really give things away in some games (especially Fuedal and the Realms maps, where actually finding your opponent is half of the game).

alot of people complain that you are seeing to little information, but I would argue that we are seeing not to little, not to much, but the WRONG information. how would I know that yellow attacks and conquers a territory from blue on the other side of the map in feudal war? how would I know green has a bonus? or that red cashed a set or got a card? or that grey deployed his armies on 3 seperate territories this turn instead of one big drop?

On the other side ofthe coin, if I look back in the log, why can't I remeber WHICH territories were taken from me, and by whom? Or what territories I had, but have lost? So don't give us MORE information, give us DIFFRENT information...

I agree with Mr_Adams. I think the log should look something like:

If you cannot see the any of the territories involved:
Bonus armies should not appear in the game log
Reinforcements should not appear in the game log
Deployed armies should not appear in the game log
Attacking should not appear in the game log
Fortifications should not appear in the game log

If you can see all the territories involved:
DATE - PLAYER gets bonus of X armies added to Y
DATE - PLAYER deployed X armies on Y
DATE - PLAYER attacked X from Y and conquered it from PLAYER2

If you can only see the attacking territory:
DATE - PLAYER attacked ? from Y and conquered it from ?
If you can only see the attacked territory:
DATE - PLAYER attacked X from ? and conquered it from PLAYER2

For bombardment:
If neither territory is seen:
No game log entry
If bombarding territory is seen:
DATE - PLAYER attacked ? from Y and conquered it from ?
If bombarded territory is seen:
DATE - PLAYER bombarded X from ? and annihilated PLAYER2's armies

If you can see all the territories on a fortification route (this may be harder to code, but seems necessary otherwise you know which territories may be owned)
DATE - PLAYER fortified X with Y armies from Z

Cards should not be put into the game log, other than your own cards.

Mr_Adams wrote:alot of people complain that you are seeing to little information, but I would argue that we are seeing not to little, not to much, but the WRONG information.

We know, that point has been argued by myself and others (greenoaks felt strongly about this IIRC).


Could the mods merge this and the other FoW threads from the last months???

Umm... bump? I still think this makes total sense.

This Thread needs implementing.

C.

You heard the yeti! Get on it!

It's quite simple:

greenoaks wrote: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.

Four small changes to the log, and we have a much foggier yet sensible game. I don't care whether it's a change, or an additional option, but it would be enough to get me to return to this site!

Ditocoaf wrote:You heard the yeti! Get on it!

It's quite simple:

greenoaks wrote: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.

Four small changes to the log, and we have a much foggier yet sensible game. I don't care whether it's a change, or an additional option, but it would be enough to get me to return to this site!

That seems like it would take a lot to code, just saying. I do agree that it makes more sense though. What about spoils?

I agree that this might make for a more realistic fog, but at the same time, fog is tough as it is....and you better call this extreme fog or something, because if you dont know that people are attacking or getting bonuses...many of these games will end very, very quickly.... or never because no one will have any clue of whats going on.

You cant make all the fog games like this...maybe call it extreme fog...or even, realistic fog or something...but I see potential for disaster with this....it almost forces you to just attack blindly to counter the fact that someone else may be attacking blindly...

AAFitz wrote:I agree that this might make for a more realistic fog, but at the same time, fog is tough as it is....and you better call this extreme fog or something, because if you dont know that people are attacking or getting bonuses...many of these games will end very, very quickly.... or never because no one will have any clue of whats going on.

You cant make all the fog games like this...maybe call it extreme fog...or even, realistic fog or something...but I see potential for disaster with this....it almost forces you to just attack blindly to counter the fact that someone else may be attacking blindly...

Well, you would know when someone attacks you, and you can see any battle that borders one of your countries. So you could see, from the beginning when most people are scattered about, who's taking an early lead.

Also, game chat could potentially become more strategic, for those who like to play that way. I can imagine green trying to subtly convince me that they're battling blue in Asia, when they're actually sneaking up on me through yellow in NA...

Yeah. It definitely would work better as an option, but I think it would be very fun, and an even better representation of the idea behind "fog of war."

I'm sure we've all been annoyed by this at one time or another. Currently I'm playing a foggy game on The Hive (Game 6397150) and it's impossible to keep track of my territories over the course of many moves. But in the game chat, all I can see is stuff like

2010-02-08 08:53:18 - Nosaj Sivad assaulted ? from ? and conquered it from SultanOfSurreal

I should always be able to know who took my territories, where they were coming from, and what I lost. I would be able to know if I watched the game in real-time and wrote it down so I don't see the problem with putting it in the game log. It would be really helpful, especially on big maps.

I agree, when the battle involves your territories in a FoW game, you should be able to know what happened... And with the territories adjacent to you as well!
The whole concept of 'FoW' is to say that in a 'real life war' you wouldn't know the location of enemy troops unless you were bordering them, am i correct?
In that case, in a 'real life war', you would know if your territory got taken over, and where your territory was, etc...

iamkoolerthanu wrote:I agree, when the battle involves your territories in a FoW game, you should be able to know what happened... And with the territories adjacent to you as well!
The whole concept of 'FoW' is to say that in a 'real life war' you wouldn't know the location of enemy troops unless you were bordering them, am i correct?
In that case, in a 'real life war', you would know if your territory got taken over, and where your territory was, etc...

You wouldn't know by being there, you would only know by memory, or by writing down where you are at a given time, which is still an option (I know ppl who keep notes, and I still do sometimes). There's also snapshots. I disagree with the suggestion.

stahrgazer wrote:

iamkoolerthanu wrote:I agree, when the battle involves your territories in a FoW game, you should be able to know what happened... And with the territories adjacent to you as well!
The whole concept of 'FoW' is to say that in a 'real life war' you wouldn't know the location of enemy troops unless you were bordering them, am i correct?
In that case, in a 'real life war', you would know if your territory got taken over, and where your territory was, etc...

You wouldn't know by being there, you would only know by memory, or by writing down where you are at a given time, which is still an option (I know ppl who keep notes, and I still do sometimes). There's also snapshots. I disagree with the suggestion.

If you take this logic to its natural conclusion then there is no need for a game log at all. As it stands, there IS a game log and not logging moves involving you is ridiculous. Either have a game log for fog of war or don't.