Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FOW - reality and how it is implemented in games

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 5:55:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Hi,

When looking at the current crop of games it looks like fow is pretty
standardized with every developer settling for a scheme like "full info
on enemy units in adjacent zone/area/hex, partial info (location, type
info only, not strength) for enemy units a bit further away, no info on
enemy units too far away". It's pretty simple to implement and pretty
straightforward for the gamer to comprehend. So KISS right ?

Well, I think game developers have gotten a bit too complacent in this
department.

For starters : fow is only implemented for enemy units - you're always
perfectly aware where your own units are and what their
condition/strength/supply level is. In reality Urquhart jumped into a
jeep in Arnhem to go looking where the hell his battalions were and
Napoleon had no clue where Grouchy was during Waterloo.

So the question here is "own unit fow" - wanted ? - fun ? - how to
implement ?

Then there's another aspect : enemy unit fow is always implemented as
"when you see a unit, it's there" - some games mess with your mind by
giving you inclomplete or faulty data on the unit, but the fact remains
that on that particular location there's an enemy unit. No false
positives - no "ghost" unit appearing that in reality isn't there - no
recce scout car getting reported as "Tigers ! - hundred of 'em" - no
Patton led ghost army in Kent ready to invade the Pas de Calais area
....

So another question here : would "false positives" or "ghost units" be
considered wanted, fun etc.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 9:28:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Mike Moore wrote:

> I think the issue is that in games such as this you are assuming
multiple
> roles and the assumption is that while the overall commander may only
know
> divisional status, when you are moving companies, the regimental
commander
> probably has a decent view of the status of their battalions and at
least a
> limited view of the companies, etc....

The multiple-hat syndrome - it's not realistic that you're
(micro)managing individual units 2 or more levels down from what
command scale you're supposed to be simulating, but most gamers just
love it ...

>
> Best existing game "engine" that could be enhanced to include this
would be
> Highway to the Reich. It already includes command delay, etc and
shows
> information on enemy units "where they were last seen".... you could
reduce
> available information on your forces (size and position) etc....

This exact proposal is at the moment being made at the COTA forum -
Dave O'Connor indicated that processing limitations prohibited this in
the past, but as available clock-cycles go up it might be a good time
to seriously think about this.

> Increasing the FOW for enemy units could also be improved... although
I
> think this depends on the scale and objectives of the simulation...
there
> was a Vietnam strategic board game I once owned (might have been by
victory
> games but I can't recall) where the NVA player placed units upside
down on
> the map and moved them like this... key was a large % were fake and
resulted
> in essentially the loss of US turns while they assaulted
"non-existent"
> units... it played quite well and a strategic level simulation of the
War in
> Vietnam would absolutely require a solution similar to this.... I'm
less
> sure it would add to the simulation value for say a battle in Russia
during
> WWII...

Panzergruppe Guderian has something like this - it worked ok there :) 

Other boardgames have provisions where you're not allowed to "inspect"
an enemy stack and can only see the top unit or employ "ghost" units.

It's not that these and other ideas are new, but it's a much neglected
area in pc wargames.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 12:00:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Definitely think it's time for an element of this to be included...

I tend to enjoy hex based games the most (old board gamer) but I think even
these games can add an element of this relatively "easily"...example: I'm a
big fan of HPS Panzer Campaigns (No comments - I know some of you aren't
fans), but would like to see Tiller change the unit display so that while
the program keeps track of all your unit "details" down to individual men
and vehicles, the information you have to work with is more generic and not
always correct... Or perhaps only available accurately at the Divisional
level (reflect the scale of the game and level of information likely
available) - the lower in the organization you go the less accurate the
information... Also would want to tie level of accuracy to the command
ratings and communication distances - all elements included in the game
already...

I think the issue is that in games such as this you are assuming multiple
roles and the assumption is that while the overall commander may only know
divisional status, when you are moving companies, the regimental commander
probably has a decent view of the status of their battalions and at least a
limited view of the companies, etc....

Best existing game "engine" that could be enhanced to include this would be
Highway to the Reich. It already includes command delay, etc and shows
information on enemy units "where they were last seen".... you could reduce
available information on your forces (size and position) etc....

Increasing the FOW for enemy units could also be improved... although I
think this depends on the scale and objectives of the simulation... there
was a Vietnam strategic board game I once owned (might have been by victory
games but I can't recall) where the NVA player placed units upside down on
the map and moved them like this... key was a large % were fake and resulted
in essentially the loss of US turns while they assaulted "non-existent"
units... it played quite well and a strategic level simulation of the War in
Vietnam would absolutely require a solution similar to this.... I'm less
sure it would add to the simulation value for say a battle in Russia during
WWII...

Mike
Related resources
March 25, 2005 1:02:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:

> Hi,
>
> When looking at the current crop of games it looks like fow is pretty
> standardized with every developer settling for a scheme like "full info
> on enemy units in adjacent zone/area/hex, partial info (location, type
> info only, not strength) for enemy units a bit further away, no info on
> enemy units too far away". It's pretty simple to implement and pretty
> straightforward for the gamer to comprehend. So KISS right ?
>
> Well, I think game developers have gotten a bit too complacent in this
> department.
>
> For starters : fow is only implemented for enemy units - you're always
> perfectly aware where your own units are and what their
> condition/strength/supply level is. In reality Urquhart jumped into a
> jeep in Arnhem to go looking where the hell his battalions were and
> Napoleon had no clue where Grouchy was during Waterloo.
>
> So the question here is "own unit fow" - wanted ? - fun ? - how to
> implement ?
>
> Then there's another aspect : enemy unit fow is always implemented as
> "when you see a unit, it's there" - some games mess with your mind by
> giving you inclomplete or faulty data on the unit, but the fact remains
> that on that particular location there's an enemy unit. No false
> positives - no "ghost" unit appearing that in reality isn't there - no
> recce scout car getting reported as "Tigers ! - hundred of 'em" - no
> Patton led ghost army in Kent ready to invade the Pas de Calais area
> ...
>
> So another question here : would "false positives" or "ghost units" be
> considered wanted, fun etc.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>

To play a game with FOW as described above plus - try HPS' Point of
Attack 2.

I know many here disparage that game (and rightly so - even the latest
beta patch has bugs) but it is as realistic a simulation of operational
level combat you can play on the PC today if you can ignore the many
annoyances.

That said:
Play is the wrong word to use when refering to POA2 because POA2 is
definitely NOT a game. It's a simulation - pure and simple that tries to
capture the feel of a modern battle at the operational level. It
captures that feel pretty well but those not into the military problem
solving thing will most likely not enjoy it. Hell some that are probably
won't enjoy it.

NOTE: The latest beta does fix many, many problems (but introduced some
new ones). It's getting there - slowly but surely. It will eventually
live up to it's potential.

ASIDE: Some folks have complained about the lack of custom scenarios. I
don't understand this. It's pretty easy to make your own. The options in
the editor are numerous so that many types of battles can be constructed
unfortunately the nature of the victory conditions is such that no
matter what you do you pretty much end up with an attacker go there and
defender stop 'em type situation. If victory conditions like Steel
Beasts has could be implemented the variety of scenarios that could be
made would be greatly enhanced.

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!
March 25, 2005 1:06:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:

> So another question here : would "false positives" or "ghost units" be
> considered wanted, fun etc.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>

Absolutely for the true grognard.

True FOW IMO would just frustrate casual gamers who would complain that
they had lost control of their units, don't know where they're at etc. etc.

Simple FOW is ok for the casual gamer but a realistic FOW and resulting
command and control problems coupled with the resulting command delays
and outright botched execution by friendly units would kill any
commercial wargame because the casual gamer will not like it.

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 1:43:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

>>The multiple-hat syndrome - it's not realistic that you're
>>(micro)managing individual units 2 or more levels down from what
>>command scale you're supposed to be simulating, but most gamers just
>>love it ...




I'm not sure if most gamers "love it" so much as don't have a realistic
alternative... As much as I like mega games for their detail while still
simulating large scale battles, I hate counter pushing... there is
definitely room for computers taking over more of the grunt work and leaving
the decision making to the player... Add a little workflow to games like
Victoria or War in the Pacific and I think they still appeal to the hardcore
gamers, and yet open up their play to a broader set of players... (Basically
make the detail user friendly)... I'd love it if I could give Panzer
Campaign orders at the division level and get reasonable results... (you can
do this in the game system, but the results are terrible...)... I have to
acknowledge though that there would always be a core set of users you could
never make happy unless they could position every piece...



>>This exact proposal is at the moment being made at the COTA forum -
>>Dave O'Connor indicated that processing limitations prohibited this in
>>the past, but as available clock-cycles go up it might be a good time
>>to seriously think about this.




Doesn't surprise me that they had processing limitations... good game, but
going to take a lot of juice to use that model for larger battle simulations
and expect reasonable results... glad it's still being worked on though...
and definitely a system I'd buy future titles in.... I liked the game system
just wasn't crazy about the battle being simulated so haven't played it as
much as it deserves...




>>Panzergruppe Guderian has something like this - it worked ok there :) 

Never actually played this one...
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 2:03:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1111748112.102106.73550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> Hi,
>
> When looking at the current crop of games it looks like fow is pretty
> standardized with every developer settling for a scheme like "full info
> on enemy units in adjacent zone/area/hex, partial info (location, type
> info only, not strength) for enemy units a bit further away, no info on
> enemy units too far away". It's pretty simple to implement and pretty
> straightforward for the gamer to comprehend. So KISS right ?
>
> Well, I think game developers have gotten a bit too complacent in this
> department.
>
> For starters : fow is only implemented for enemy units - you're always
> perfectly aware where your own units are and what their
> condition/strength/supply level is. In reality Urquhart jumped into a
> jeep in Arnhem to go looking where the hell his battalions were and
> Napoleon had no clue where Grouchy was during Waterloo.
>
> So the question here is "own unit fow" - wanted ? - fun ? - how to
> implement ?
>
> Then there's another aspect : enemy unit fow is always implemented as
> "when you see a unit, it's there" - some games mess with your mind by
> giving you inclomplete or faulty data on the unit, but the fact remains
> that on that particular location there's an enemy unit. No false
> positives - no "ghost" unit appearing that in reality isn't there - no
> recce scout car getting reported as "Tigers ! - hundred of 'em" - no
> Patton led ghost army in Kent ready to invade the Pas de Calais area
> ...
>
> So another question here : would "false positives" or "ghost units" be
> considered wanted, fun etc.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx

"Campaigns on the Danube" includes FOW for your own units. a really fun
game. I just wish there was more of it. Maybe "Campaigns in Europe."
--
Epi

We have the greatest system of government that
exists. There are 2.5 branches of government.
The Executive, the Legislative, 1 branch each,
and the Judiciary. The role of the Judiciary is
to rubber-stamp anything the other 2 do.
- conservative thinker (thinker?)
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 2:03:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Epi Watkins <epicat1212@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1cadb9f7b346155d9896e2@news.east.earthlink.net>...
> In article <1111748112.102106.73550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...
> > Hi,
> >
> > When looking at the current crop of games it looks like fow is pretty
> > standardized with every developer settling for a scheme like "full info
> > on enemy units in adjacent zone/area/hex, partial info (location, type
> > info only, not strength) for enemy units a bit further away, no info on
> > enemy units too far away". It's pretty simple to implement and pretty
> > straightforward for the gamer to comprehend. So KISS right ?
> >
> > Well, I think game developers have gotten a bit too complacent in this
> > department.
> >
> > For starters : fow is only implemented for enemy units - you're always
> > perfectly aware where your own units are and what their
> > condition/strength/supply level is. In reality Urquhart jumped into a
> > jeep in Arnhem to go looking where the hell his battalions were and
> > Napoleon had no clue where Grouchy was during Waterloo.
> >
> > So the question here is "own unit fow" - wanted ? - fun ? - how to
> > implement ?
> >
> > Then there's another aspect : enemy unit fow is always implemented as
> > "when you see a unit, it's there" - some games mess with your mind by
> > giving you inclomplete or faulty data on the unit, but the fact remains
> > that on that particular location there's an enemy unit. No false
> > positives - no "ghost" unit appearing that in reality isn't there - no
> > recce scout car getting reported as "Tigers ! - hundred of 'em" - no
> > Patton led ghost army in Kent ready to invade the Pas de Calais area
> > ...
> >
> > So another question here : would "false positives" or "ghost units" be
> > considered wanted, fun etc.
> >
> > Greetz,
> >
> > Eddy Sterckx
>
> "Campaigns on the Danube" includes FOW for your own units. a really fun
> game. I just wish there was more of it. Maybe "Campaigns in Europe."
> --
> Epi
>
> We have the greatest system of government that
> exists. There are 2.5 branches of government.
> The Executive, the Legislative, 1 branch each,
> and the Judiciary. The role of the Judiciary is
> to rubber-stamp anything the other 2 do.
> - conservative thinker (thinker?)

There are 2 kinds of FoW in Les Grognards..
Visibilty
a) opponent units (3 options): always seen, 'marker' if the unit isn't
seen, nothing if the unit isn't seen,
b) Friendly units (2 options): always seen, 'marker' at the last
knowed position if the unit isn't seen.
c) In a special case, it's possible to get a bad information about the
side of the unit (the player doesn't know the unit nationality, just
the type (INF-CAV-ART)

Informations * precise : each datas are precise (moral, strenght,
delay to execute an order...) or fuzzy : ie for the guns, the
information becomes either 'there are some cannons' or 'there are a
lot of cannons'.. or 'it's a Great battery'.

The players choose these options on the setup.
So it's possible to play like a green... or like a real Commander inn
Chief.

JMM
wwww.histwar.com
March 25, 2005 4:25:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When looking at the current crop of games it looks like fow is pretty
> standardized with every developer settling for a scheme like "full info
> on enemy units in adjacent zone/area/hex, partial info (location, type
> info only, not strength) for enemy units a bit further away, no info on
> enemy units too far away". It's pretty simple to implement and pretty
> straightforward for the gamer to comprehend. So KISS right ?
>
> Well, I think game developers have gotten a bit too complacent in this
> department.
>
> For starters : fow is only implemented for enemy units - you're always
> perfectly aware where your own units are and what their
> condition/strength/supply level is. In reality Urquhart jumped into a
> jeep in Arnhem to go looking where the hell his battalions were and
> Napoleon had no clue where Grouchy was during Waterloo.
>
> So the question here is "own unit fow" - wanted ? - fun ? - how to
> implement ?
>
> Then there's another aspect : enemy unit fow is always implemented as
> "when you see a unit, it's there" - some games mess with your mind by
> giving you inclomplete or faulty data on the unit, but the fact remains
> that on that particular location there's an enemy unit. No false
> positives - no "ghost" unit appearing that in reality isn't there - no
> recce scout car getting reported as "Tigers ! - hundred of 'em" - no
> Patton led ghost army in Kent ready to invade the Pas de Calais area
> ...
>
> So another question here : would "false positives" or "ghost units" be
> considered wanted, fun etc.
>
> Greetz,
>
> Eddy Sterckx
>

Don't know if you remember a game called Borodino on the Atari ST. You
cold only use a telescope to survey the battlefield and all orders were
issued to commanders in the form of things like attack redoubt at
10:20pm (IIRC). Very interesting game and I don't know of and wargame
that has used this system since.
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 5:51:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Werewolf,

A good point. Though what if we could provide the user with the option
to play with or without Friendly FOW.

Once we finnish Conquest of the Aegean ( COTA ) I plan to have a look
at this issue for implementing in our subsequent game Battles from the
Bulge ( BFTB ). While I can't be 100% sure at this stage I think it
should be possible to have our cake and eat it. If we get this right
then when we provide Team Play, we could even allow "novice" players on
a team to have "perfect" friendly FOW while their "veteran" colleagues
play with the full effects of friendly FOW.

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 6:32:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <ZFW0e.47240$3z.18296@okepread03>, nunya@no-way.net says...

> Absolutely for the true grognard.
>
> True FOW IMO would just frustrate casual gamers who would complain that
> they had lost control of their units, don't know where they're at etc. etc.

The real problem is that in the real world, a battalion that's "lost"
and "out of command" is still commanded and staffed by intelligent,
competent human beings who know what the situation and mission are - and
can be given any number of contingency plans to work from if cut off.

Does our AI-commanded "lost" battalion perform this well? Or at least
have a potential (based on "quality" of leadership or other factors) to
do well? Or does it go into digital-dumbshit mode and do either
nothing, or something ridiculous? That would be as frustrating to
grognards as it would be to the casual gamer.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So if you are a Democrat your value system works like this....

Unborn Child? Kill It.
Sick Woman? Kill it.
Convicted Murder on death row? Do every thing you can do to save it!"

- Wizbang Paul
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 6:36:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1111760907.188707.108110@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
eddysterckx@hotmail.com says...

> The multiple-hat syndrome - it's not realistic that you're
> (micro)managing individual units 2 or more levels down from what
> command scale you're supposed to be simulating, but most gamers just
> love it ...

I would argue it's not so much a matter of "loving it," as, "being
poisonously suspicious of the alternative," which, in most cases, is a
woodenheaded TacAI routine that isn't smart enough to command the
opposition, let alone a player's own subunits. HTTR is the first game
I've ever seen get this right. Until COTA appears, it's likely to be
the *only* game that gets this right.


--
Giftzwerg
***
"So if you are a Democrat your value system works like this....

Unborn Child? Kill It.
Sick Woman? Kill it.
Convicted Murder on death row? Do every thing you can do to save it!"

- Wizbang Paul
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 7:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Mike Moore" <mmoore327@rogers.com> wrote in
news:RJOdnfgkkOlerNnfRVn-gA@rogers.com:

> I'm not sure if most gamers "love it" so much as don't have a
> realistic alternative...

I've thought this through a bit more and another reason might be that if
you restrict the gamer to only letting him make the decisions at his
command level it would be a boring game. Simulate Eisenhower at D-Day :
push the "go" button and hope for the best. I think the Borodino game
mentioned in another part of this thread suffered from the same problem
: it was realistic, yet wasn't so much a game as a simulation.

> As much as I like mega games for their detail
> while still simulating large scale battles, I hate counter pushing...
> there is definitely room for computers taking over more of the grunt
> work and leaving the decision making to the player... Add a little
> workflow to games like Victoria or War in the Pacific and I think they
> still appeal to the hardcore gamers, and yet open up their play to a
> broader set of players... (Basically make the detail user friendly)...

It would take a mighty AI to be able to pull that off - if there's one
thing most gamers hate is your own units doing bone-stupid stuff while
you're powerless to do anything about it. The only game where I trust my
subordinate commanders to make correct decisions is the aforementioned
HTTR, but here the unit density is relatively low compared to monster
games like WitP. AI's simply can't handle this at the moment.

> Doesn't surprise me that they had processing limitations... good game,
> but going to take a lot of juice to use that model for larger battle
> simulations and expect reasonable results... glad it's still being
> worked on though... and definitely a system I'd buy future titles
> in.... I liked the game system just wasn't crazy about the battle
> being simulated so haven't played it as much as it deserves...

Would you fancy a Med setting (Greece, Crete, Malta - 1941) + a
seriously enhanced engine ? Conquest of the Aegean coming up :) 

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 9:04:24 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"eddysterckx@hotmail.com" <eddysterckx@hotmail.com> writes:
> Panzergruppe Guderian has something like this - it
> worked ok there :) 
>
> Other boardgames have provisions where you're not allowed
> to "inspect" an enemy stack and can only see the top unit
> or employ "ghost" units.
>
> It's not that these and other ideas are new, but it's a much
> neglected area in pc wargames.

Indeed, the second wargame I ever bought, SPI's 1972
"Franco-Prussian War", keeps unit values hidden from
the opponent except during combat; it also has dummy
units, IIRC.

What PGG added is that not even you know what your
unit values will be until their first combat (but then
they're always exposed, aren't they?).

--
Jeff
Anonymous
March 25, 2005 9:04:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <m34qezeh45.fsf@localhost.localdomain>, stalky@prodigy.net
says...

> > It's not that these and other ideas are new, but it's a much
> > neglected area in pc wargames.
>
> Indeed, the second wargame I ever bought, SPI's 1972
> "Franco-Prussian War", keeps unit values hidden from
> the opponent except during combat; it also has dummy
> units, IIRC.
>
> What PGG added is that not even you know what your
> unit values will be until their first combat (but then
> they're always exposed, aren't they?).

LENINGRAD did this with the Soviet units. Inverted and generic until
combat, and then their value was revealed.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"So if you are a Democrat your value system works like this....

Unborn Child? Kill It.
Sick Woman? Kill it.
Convicted Murder on death row? Do every thing you can do to save it!"

- Wizbang Paul
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:08:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:06:25 -0600, Werewolf <nunya@no-way.net> wrote:

>eddysterckx@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> So another question here : would "false positives" or "ghost units" be
>> considered wanted, fun etc.
>>
>> Greetz,
>>
>> Eddy Sterckx
>>
>Absolutely for the true grognard.

My favorite TOAW scenario designer, Daniel McBride, did
something similar in one of my favorite TOAW scenarios of all times -
Tobruk 41. Guy did wonders even with somewhat limited tools of
"generic" system like TOAW.

Operation Crusader, desert scenario, lots of uncertainty on both
sides, famous Rommels dash to the wire etc.

To simulate all this, he provided both sides with "ghost units",
small armored, mechanized, and infantry units comprising of only 1 Pz
III or Crusader tank, or 1 x SdKfz (German halftrack), with no
official designation. These units were not supposed to be used in real
combat, but to fool your enemy into believing you're where you
actually aren't. In most cases all you'd see of those "ghosts" is just
an armor symbol, nothing more (unless you dedicated lots of effort in
finding out what really is behind that symbol). Sort of desert
Maskirovka, Rommel historically excelled at. Great stuff, lots of fun.

O.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 5:13:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On 25 Mar 2005 02:55:12 -0800, "eddysterckx@hotmail.com"
<eddysterckx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>positives - no "ghost" unit appearing that in reality isn't there - no
>recce scout car getting reported as "Tigers ! - hundred of 'em" - no
>Patton led ghost army in Kent ready to invade the Pas de Calais area

WITP simulates the possibility of having two rusty freighters
mis-identified as major surface TF, and drawing 200+ aircraft strike
on them poor beggars (while unspotted enemy CVs sail unmolested couple
hexes away).

Players constantly complain about this feature... Obviously they
never heard of Japanese mega strike that sunk Neosho and Sims
(misidentified earlier as CV group), or many other similar cases in
Pacific War. Or more probably they did hear of that, but don't think
it's funny when it happens to THEM :o )

O.
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 8:34:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Oleg Mastruko wrote:
>>
> My favorite TOAW scenario designer, Daniel McBride, did
> something similar in one of my favorite TOAW scenarios of all times -
> Tobruk 41. Guy did wonders even with somewhat limited tools of
> "generic" system like TOAW.
>
> Operation Crusader, desert scenario, lots of uncertainty on both
> sides, famous Rommels dash to the wire etc.
>
> To simulate all this, he provided both sides with "ghost units",
> small armored, mechanized, and infantry units comprising of only 1 Pz
> III or Crusader tank, or 1 x SdKfz (German halftrack), with no
> official designation. These units were not supposed to be used in
real
> combat, but to fool your enemy into believing you're where you
> actually aren't. In most cases all you'd see of those "ghosts" is
just
> an armor symbol, nothing more (unless you dedicated lots of effort in
> finding out what really is behind that symbol). Sort of desert
> Maskirovka, Rommel historically excelled at. Great stuff, lots of
fun.
>
> O.


Sounds like a clever use of the TOAW system!

I wonder if the designer took a look at the original 'Operation
Crusader' game (by Atomic games), which also had dummy counters; just a
symbol with no combat value.
Such a shame that the AI and persistent bugs killed of logterm
enjoyment of the World at War series.

von Schmidt
Anonymous
March 26, 2005 10:52:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

>>I've thought this through a bit more and another reason might be that if
>>you restrict the gamer to only letting him make the decisions at his
>>command level it would be a boring game. Simulate Eisenhower at D-Day :
>>push the "go" button and hope for the best. I think the Borodino game
>>mentioned in another part of this thread suffered from the same problem
>>: it was realistic, yet wasn't so much a game as a simulation.
Depends on the scale of the game... generally I agree that you need a lot of
interaction to make it interesting... but I'm picturing games like HPS Kursk
with thousands of units so working at the division level but seeing the
impact at battalion/regiment level should still result in a good
experience...

>>Would you fancy a Med setting (Greece, Crete, Malta - 1941) + a
>>seriously enhanced engine ? Conquest of the Aegean coming up :) 

Sounds like a perfect "next step" for the engine... where do I sign up???
Need any pre-beta testers :) 

Mike
Anonymous
March 27, 2005 5:16:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Mike Moore" <mmoore327@rogers.com> wrote in
news:lZKdnXXn9vdlx9jfRVn-iA@rogers.com:

>>>Would you fancy a Med setting (Greece, Crete, Malta - 1941) + a
>>>seriously enhanced engine ? Conquest of the Aegean coming up :) 
>
> Sounds like a perfect "next step" for the engine... where do I sign
> up??? Need any pre-beta testers :) 

sign-up : impress (or bribe) Arjuna :) 

.... and it's not exactly a pre-beta, it's pretty solid right now and
almost feature complete.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
!