Fog of war

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Imp

The other thing is where do you stop if you really want to open the flood gates for the pen & paper brigade & have fog of war.
Dont show enemy suppressed status is it pinned or in good order, did it rally?
Redo tiles & icons so units become very hard to see in woods smoke (TI hum) even when spotted, then remove P&N buttons for targeting & ID tags etc.

Sorry a bit long winded & thinking about it when I stumble into squads armed with them flame rockets do wish I had looked first.

Hi Imp,

Could FoW cause players to resort to pen & paper notes? I think it's possible but unlikely. There's already a 'danger' that you may be playing against a detail oriented (anal) opponent who is writing down every AVF he damages and keeping track of every unit spotted or KO, in an attempt to get complete intel on your force make up, disposition and condition.

As for opening the flood gates to other FoW issues like obscure icons or pinned status, those are separate issues that someone could propose for discussion on their own merit; but they really don't have much to do with a disable unit info button.
The game has become brilliant, because of careful and intelligent incremental improvements over many years.

However, I think their could possibly be something in your concerns but I honestly won't know how this FoW suggestion would play until I'd tested it. I think I'll try it by disciplining myself not to use the unit info screen in my next battle, and I'll see how it plays.

cheers,
Cross

[Imp]

Cross
yes was taking to extremes & more than a bit anal but someone would be.
Agree in pricipal as an option turning info so its blank for infantry makes sense & vehicle guns should not list crews on first screen.
This will have a slight impact on gameplay if it was ever actioned I suppose, as do often look at other side first so know the sort of range they might be dangerous to armour its never realy occured to me.
If its a big game quite often set the range to engage infantry in the op filter I use for tanks & save it so in the instances I want it its already set.
As you say the temptation is there if one squad in the platoon has a longer ranged AT weapon to look.
It does mean I would need to pay more attention to replays as at the moment thats when I use it, see a squad fire something nasty I remember its one of by that terrain feature & look which rather than remembering its specific hex. Sieve like brain like mine might have to watch replay twice if things got a bit exiting.

[Marek_Tucan]

Just my .02 CZK...
1) Fog of War - I like it. I would like "FoW" unit names - as for ID, it'snot that easy as many people make it to be. Not all vehicles are so cut and dried as Abrams (and even then, distinguishing M1 from M1A1 from M1A2SEP at 3 km is a bit hard I would say), the same for various BMPs. Enter the domain of T-64-72-80-84-90 family and you're lost. I guess in the heat of battle no crew would stop to count the roadwheels and measure their diameters. Let alone getting info on ammo used and so on.
However I think not everyone would like it, so it is clearly a question for individual OOB mods. Come one, if someone wants to do this, I'm game, rename units and show correct names in encyclopaedia texts. So, say, no more T-55, T-55A, T-55AM1, T-55AM2, T-55AM2B, T-55MV, but just "T-55", "T-55 ERA", "T-55 BDD". Same for infantry - no more "FO", "Scouts", "Mech section", "Militia section", just say "Infantry", "Light Infantry", "RPG Infantry", "Machinegun"... However I won't like say renaming PzII to Tiger or vice versa. Though it is true that for many Allied soldiers every German tank was "Tiger", "Panther" and every SPG "Ferdinand"
As for editing ency texts, I have found out how to make it en masse and posted it in the TOE section some time ago.
One of the "benefits" of FoW is

2) "forbiddning use" - why? Why not just have a gentleman's agreement about say "no right-clicking", "no unit info screen"... I personally do not use right-click at the enemy too often, I like fighting partially blind

[Cross]

Yes, the crew number can be a bit gamey. I have often right clicked on enemy tanks to get an indication of how badly it's damaged. I also want to know if it's the same tank I damaged earlier, and then I can better decide if I want to approach it.

That said, it can be realistic to know if a specific tank is damaged. I've read quite a few accounts of tank battles where hit tanks has visible signs of damage, like trailing smoke.

You may be right about the replay becoming more important. That may even be the wrinkle that torpedoes this idea. If it makes the game frustrating, regardless of realism, then who'd want to use it...

But it may just make the game better, like not knowing where unspotted units are. What you don't know can enhance the game, rather than making it frustrating.

It just has to be tested to see how it plays and 'feels'.

[Marek_Tucan]

Originally Posted by Cross

That said, it can be realistic to know if a specific tank is damaged. I've read quite a few accounts of tank battles where hit tanks has visible signs of damage, like trailing smoke.

OTOH I daresay I have read a number of accounts where the tank showed no visible signs of damage yet the crew was killed or knocked out. And the basic rule of ground combat is "shoot till it changes shape and stops moving". Just have a look at the famous Cajone Eh. Burned after a freak SPG-82 hit, then subsequently burned some more by crew, then attacked by Paveways and directly hit by a Maverick... Yet from 3-km it would still look to you like one Abrams keeping guard over the road crossing.
EDIT: And to counter "Yeah, from 3 km maybe, but if I get scouts close..." - would you try to close in to few hundred (max) meters to Abrams? And anyway, you would at the very least stop till the scouts make sure the tank is dead.


Same situation, a tank is reported. You take a look through binocs and if you're lucky, you identify the typical egg-shaped turret. Now what is it? T-54? T-55? Type 59? Type 69? With night sights? With modern ammo? With LRF? Damaged by previous airstrike, suppressed by arty, with green crew not seeing you, with experienced crew playing dead, with experienced crew having a brewski time?

[Wdll]

I will keep it simple. I don't like the idea Cross mentioned.
It will just force people to waste time checking the encyclopedia all the time and/or only play against forces they know really well.

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Wdll

I will keep it simple. I don't like the idea Cross mentioned.
It will just force people to waste time checking the encyclopedia all the time and/or only play against forces they know really well.

It won't force anyone to do anything. It would be an optional realism button, that people could choose to use, especially if they are playing against forces they know really well.

Marek,

I absolutely agree that AFVs may never show damage/losses they have sustained. Which is one of the reasons I support - the testing of - a 'disable unit info' button.

I was merely being 'Devil's advocate' showing that there can be times where visible damage is realistic.

cheers,
Cross

[Imp]

This is draging on but shows the way people think diffrently.
I have never used it to check for vehicle damage nor had the thought even occured to me.
Use it to find info on a vehicle gun ATGM I am unsure about or as said to check thats the squad I saw fire in the replay or know is there if a couple of days between turns, which one was he?
For a vehicle I see how fast its going & make a guestimate on how buttoned it is shots left & range for an approach, who says men cant multitask
I would think its you who are in the minority & using the exploit rather than most of us.
Its a computer game & hence treat like most games of that type quick play with odd reference to what is a player aid.
A board game or something with a complex rule system then game pace slows down & charts & tables come out is my mentality.
-------------------------------------------------------
Okay I admit it if the films any good I can either watch it or talk to you not both

[Cross]

Hi Imp,

Are you saying that you think most people don't use the unit info screen on enemy units to see the number of men/crew and the type of weapons?

And you seem to be saying that it IS an exploit

Both of these claims could support the introduction of a unit info disable button.

I'm with you regarding gamey practices. I always use a set of preferences/agreements prior to PBEM; which helps ward off gamey sharks.

I also keep my game playing on the light side. I rarely consult the encyclopedia; occasionally the unit info screen when the situation requires prudence.

Currently, I don't see the use of the unit info screen as unethical; but I'd agree to not use it if my opponent thought it was unethical.

Similarly, I often think unit names are too discriptive. But I don't ignore them. This is just how the game is currently played.

However, I do currently have an opponent who renames his Company Commanders! This gives away which units are coy leaders! I've told him not to do that, as it gives me too much info.


cheers,
Cross

[Wdll]

I know I don't use the info screen to check the crew of anything. I use it if I haven't seen it before or to check the armour and weapons of the unit, but in no way to check the damage to it. I never even thought about it till you mentioned it. Still, I won't do it from now on, it just feels meh and I prefer to play my turn in less than half an hour.