Fog of War

[Visaoni]

it isn't fair

Of course it's fair... it applies to all players equally!

You got me there. Let me rephrase... I have no memory for this sort of thing. I might have to take screen shots of all my FoW turns for reference, and I really don't want to do that.

[Visaoni]

I too was surprised to see that I would not know which of my troops had lost communication. Ah, but that is the thing - they've lost communication. It's possible they were never actually conquered. Or maybe you never actually had them? Hmm ...

An upshot of this, should be more usage of the note to self field. You type in which terrs you have at the beginning of the game and at the end of every turn. You'll also want to note any big enemy listings nearby, as they could suddenly make that part of the map disappear.

I used the notes field and it helped a LOT. Oh wait, I just thought of that right now *doh*. I managed to win because everyone else was more lost than I was *shake head* *smile*.

Hm... that is actually a really good idea. I still think I'll be stuck with screen shots though, it's easier to compare visual to visual than text to visual.

[freezie]

it isn't fair

Of course it's fair... it applies to all players equally!

You got me there. Let me rephrase... I have no memory for this sort of thing. I might have to take screen shots of all my FoW turns for reference, and I really don't want to do that.

You are not alone, so it's fair to everyone.

But like I said, if you play around 50 games at once, not all of them will be FoW.

So it shouldn't be such a problem.

[asl80]

hahaha - could reak havoc on alliances.

But i'd find knowing at least which territory of yours taken, if not where from, to be displayed more reasonable. Especially for the turn based, i.e. five minutes a day, style play.

Maybe the game log could be programed to display everything that was known at the time of event (and not at the present, i.e. the last movement) - preety sure it doesn't do this but not quite sure, still making my way through a first game in the dark.

Good update anyway - cheers!

[edbeard]

I just don't like that if I'm watching someone take a turn, then I can know what happened, but if I'm not there then I don't know what happened.

whether it be him deploying to a territory that is adjacent to mine, but still shows a ? or conquering territories of mine and those showing up as ? as well.

I guess my question would be how much of a server issue or programming issue is this?

I'll probably avoid these games (except with rl friends) until something like that gets updated. It's still a very cool idea though.

[Visaoni]

I just don't like that if I'm watching someone take a turn, then I can know what happened, but if I'm not there then I don't know what happened.

whether it be him deploying to a territory that is adjacent to mine, but still shows a ? or conquering territories of mine and those showing up as ? as well.

I guess my question would be how much of a server issue or programming issue is this?

I'll probably avoid these games (except with rl friends) until something like that gets updated. It's still a very cool idea though.

Yeah, that is the the only thing I really have an issue with. Stuff you did see should be in the game logs, even if after your territory is overrun after their turn. If it really is that hard to program, then at least let us know what territories we lost.

[Piestar]

Slightly off the ongoing topic, but a point in favor the the overall topic, in my opinion.

With the fog of war, we will have to rely on each other for information, which should open up dialogue.

Of course not everyone can be trusted, but heck, that's part of the fun!

Myself, eager to die in one of my four games, so I can give it try...

Maybe on that cool Spaceness map?

Time will tell...

[Incandenza]

An upshot of this, should be more usage of the note to self field. You type in which terrs you have at the beginning of the game and at the end of every turn. You'll also want to note any big enemy listings nearby, as they could suddenly make that part of the map disappear.

That's not bad. Not bad at all...

[Aerial Attack]

What if you were conquered by a one way border?

FoW filters the logs and only shows you entries where you took the action. Its must simpler to program and is easier on the server than going through adjacencies.

Lack probably accomplishes this through code of this sort:

Code: Select all

IF <territory_attacker_owner> = <current_player>
THEN <territory_taken> & <territory_attacker>
ELSE  <territory_taken> = "?" & <territory_attacker> = "?"

I see edbeard's point about being able to see armies that are deployed on terrs adjacent to your own showing up as "?" - but the code to show to each player who is adjacent to that terr would be incredibly tough.

Code: Select all

For Each <bordering_territory> In BorderingTerritoryArray(<territory_deployed>)
// Have to make it visible to adjacent owner in the log file
For Each <bordering_territory_owner> LogFileEntryArray(<current_player>, <current_round>)
If <territory_deployed> = "?"
Then <territory_deployed> = <territory_deployed_nonFoW>
Next
Next

A similar style loop would need to be processed for successful attacks.

That is a LOT more processing time on the server !!!

[insomniacdude]

What if you were conquered by a one way border?

FoW filters the logs and only shows you entries where you took the action. Its must simpler to program and is easier on the server than going through adjacencies.

Lack probably accomplishes this through code of this sort:

Code: Select all

IF <territory_attacker_owner> = <current_player>
THEN <territory_taken> & <territory_attacker>
ELSE  <territory_taken> = "?" & <territory_attacker> = "?"

I see edbeard's point about being able to see armies that are deployed on terrs adjacent to your own showing up as "?" - but the code to show to each player who is adjacent to that terr would be incredibly tough.

Code: Select all

For Each <bordering_territory> In BorderingTerritoryArray(<territory_deployed>)
// Have to make it visible to adjacent owner in the log file
For Each <bordering_territory_owner> LogFileEntryArray(<current_player>, <current_round>)
If <territory_deployed> = "?"
Then <territory_deployed> = <territory_deployed_nonFoW>
Next
Next

A similar style loop would need to be processed for successful attacks.

That is a LOT more processing time on the server !!!

I've paid $20 (and in spite of this minor issue, will continue to do so regardless ) to keep those serves running! If that means adding more processes to them to actually make the damn game function properly, then I guess my $20 is doing it's job. I'm not paying money for a broken game.

[Visaoni]

With that line of thought you could easily come to the conclusion lack needs to charge more, so he is able to spend time and processing power on these longer/more advanced features. I think your happy with $20/year right?

[firstholliday]

fog of war? naah not for me thanks. I like to play risk.


But you guys have fun.

[lackattack]

insomniacdude, it's not just the $$ for the server, it's the time it would take to program the complex logic.

An "intelligent" Fog of War Game Log would have to be prioritized with all the other things on my to-do list, and I thing there are other items we could use first.

Oh, and Aerial, your pseudo-code looks a lot like the real thing

[Ridexer]

I think that you need to hide the incomes, as it makes it almoust pointless, when in classic map your holding OZ and see that player 2 got 2 from holding?
player 3 got 3 for holding ? and player 4 got 5 for holding? and you have one group at north america =/

[eigenvector]

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to visually differentiate between the gray neutrals and the gray unknown enemies? It's very difficult to take in a map at a glance this way. Maybe it's possible to colour the unknown enemy circles in their proper colours instead of gray?

Otherwise, cool feature. Way to go.

[Dancingmustard1]

I agree with the guy, Fog of war is kinda stupid, it just ruins ur whole strategy. For maps like pearl harbor where you can do long range attacks, ? attacked V2 and conquered it, that doesnt make sense because you dont know who or what is attacking you

[ThalidomideGirl]

The only thing I'd like is to be able to see the game state after the end. As though ending the game "lifts" the fog of war as it were.

[RobinJ]

IMO if you don't realise that you've lost a country then it wasn't that important

[Aerial Attack]

IMO if you don't realize that you've lost a country then it wasn't that important

I agree with this. Except for the first round - unless you go first or second, you'll probably have a terr taken and never know in what region it was.

I'm not sure what it would take - but maybe when the game initializes, The log spits out a player dependent "intelligence report" or "roll call." This has your list of territories.

This would be much easier and less time consuming than going whole hog and listing adjacent terrs (which, you the player should really be doing that work anyways).

[richardgarr]

Hey guys, look at it this way: FoG of war is simply another option of play, It gives the players a new game to learn , as well as new ways of strategizing and looking at the board. If the game always stayed the same it wouldn't be a game anymore, it would turn into a repetitive pattern of play. That in my opinion would be pointless. Embrace the variety and adjust your thinking of the strategies involved . This new game style has many good points and promises variety, as well as forcing you to actually pay attention. ENJOY it, don't try to pick it apart.

[owenshooter]

Fog is not for me, but neither is escalating or 6 player standard games. i tend to stick with what i like, and i am not a fog fan... yet...-0

p.s.-of course there were maps i used to hate that i now love beyond
belief... yes, i am going to marry one.

[EmperorOfDaNorth]

p.s.-of course there were maps i used to hate that i now love beyond
belief... yes, i am going to marry one.

Yup, if it wasn't for fog-mode I would never have married.

It's like CC's cosy little dark-room.

[psymann]

The fog of war option is great in theory, but poor in implementation.

It is a nice option you can use if you want a change. If you don't want a change, don't use it.

I think it's also nicer in six-player games to start with, since you don't know who is doing best, and that person who is doing the best doesn't get beaten up by everyone just for doing well at the start. I think that could be quite good.

It's also a great option for an online game, as it's impossible to do with the board game, so is an interesting niche option.

=====

However, the implementation is a little poor.

1) If you lose a territory, it doesn't say which one.
2) It tells you what bonuses people have got, which on many maps gives away what they have. It would be better IMO not to say how many armies they get at all.
3) However, you should be able to know how many territories they have in total, since you all start with the same number, and it tells you when they are won/lost - so this bit is fine - just that it shouldn't then add in the bonuses to the info.
4) It doesn't tell you info that you should know. For example, I hold Argentina, and I see that blue has 1 army on Peru. After green has his turn, I see that the 1 blue army is now 2 green armies. It should be obvious in the log that green has conquered "PERU from ?", not "? from ?".
5) Similarly, if green then fortifies 2 armies on Peru, I should know in the log that he fortifies Peru, even if I don't know from where.
6) And again, if green then deploys on Peru the next turn, I should be told how many he has deployed there.

Too many of the bits of information are missing from the log, and too many other bits of information are included that shouldn't be. This is a shame, since the actual idea of it, I quite like. Brings a new dimension to it.

psymann