"Fog of war for naval games" Topic

I like the potential of naval games and there are some great new rules and editions of old ones out there, but every scenario I've actually played has ended up being pretty boring. The problem is that there is no uncertainly and few decision points of any importance.

I like the fact that some new rules sets have rules to create random scenarios with a lot of variability – but once the game gets underway, there's still not a lot of uncertainty about anything.

I'd like to see some fog-of-war rules – and maybe some metagaming using cards – to add some interest to the game as it's being played.

I had a few sets that have you roll several times for issues with ships, or weapons, since during the war performance stats of enemy vessels were not always known.

1D100 die rolls, so lots of chance for various things to crop up, e.g. bad fuel – reduce the top speed by 20 – 25%, dud bombs or torpedoes (probably appropriate for shells too) – various percentages there, greater or lesser weapons ranges, better or worse weapons accuracy, variability of hull or flotation points, radar serviceability issues, some weapons/turrets inoperable, etc.

Throw in the possibility of reinforcements, e.g. aircraft, ships, subs, and you can have a good game. Don't forget the possibility of "friendly fire" for reinforcements as well, especially subs and aircraft, or from surface ships during night battles.

Each side rolls secretly a prescribed number of times, agreed to before the scenario begins with a GM. If no GM, then roll the dice, and place under cups, bowls, etc., for review/verification later.

That should spice things up a bit.

Hmmmm. . . I like the idea of some fog of war rules. Shouldn't be too hard to write some. Shouldn't even be too hard to write some that don't require a GM.

This bears some thinking about. . .

I've tried several things to reduce certainty in naval games in the past. The most obvious is the use of markers or counters to represent ships until they are identified, and adding dummies into the mix to represent inaccurate sighting reports, "shadows", etc. These work well in games without an umpire, although having the "third man" to look after the foggy aspects allows for een more fun with the use of neutral and civilian shipping, submarine attacks etc (for those eras where subs are an issue). I've also had fun with variations in ship data. Things like machinery breakdowns and weapon system OPDEFs to vary ships about their design points, but also varying the designs of the ships and systems themselves, perhaps making some a bit faster, introducing structural weaknesses by reducing hit points etc. And these can be as much of a surprise to the player owning the ship as it is to the enemy; my expereience with contemporary naval vessels and systems shows that they can often spring a surprise or ten on their unsuspecting drivers!

I agree that FoW would be a good addition to naval wargaming. One of thebest things is to reduce player knowledge of the oposition. Use counters to mark contacts and only reveal the amount of information that would be detectable at a given range.

A referee and muliple players per side can also help a lot!

I remember the one time i actually got around to playing Flat Top by Avalon Hill, the scoting/recce system was outstanding. You literaly indicated the hexes you were going to search. I searched on 3 sides of the enemy fleet, and mised it! You used a main mapboard and each side had a paper mini map to chart the progress of their fleets. it works brilliantly, although as a whole the game is a bit large…

I ran a miniatures campaign using FlatTop, but that kind of game requires a lot of work – and dummy counters can be a nightmare too. I think cards are one of the best mechanisms.

Yes, i agreee cards are a good mechanism. Flat top was good, but too much work.

I use dummy markers and location categories of "detected", "tracked""and "targeted.
Until they are tracked surface groups and individual ships are represented by a counter on the hex map, or by a marker on the table. To add a frisson of realism to the game the counters and markers should use the NTDS designation system. Although the counters and markers indicate type: sub, surface or air; they do not indicate size or number of platforms that they represent. At the beginning of the game dummy counters and markers are provided at the following rate:

1 for the first four individual ships.
2 for five or more individual ships.
1 per group of up to five ships.
2 per group of 6 to 12 ships
3 per larger group of ships.

For example a side has 3 individual ships, one group of 5 ships and one of 6 ships. The individuals have 3 real counters plus 1 dummy, the group of 5 one real counter plus 1 dummy, the group of 6 one real counter plus two dummies.

Subs always get two dummies and a marker.

Aircraft get no dummies, (but you still have to track or target the marker to find out what is in it.)

Surface dummies are permanently removed when detected, (your tactical picture gets clearer.) Sub dummies are replaced in the next turn, (I use 20 minute turns so you can narrow the area of a sub contact but, unless you act quickly, never be quite sure of where it is to prosecute as the data quickly becomes outdated.)

I think the trick in ïntroducing "fog of war" is to work out the right level of uncertainty. For instance, giving every ship or group the same number of dummies doesn't seem to work: it just reduces the game to the old schoolroom guessing game of "battleships" that we used to play.

Throwing "historical" spanners in the works is also fun. For instance we have done the second day of the Falklands, (Lombardos Fork) giving the Argentinians all their Super Entendards and all five Exocets available, as well as enough wind to launch from 25 De Mayo and a bit of in-flight refueling. The Brits didn't know what they were up against. I'm also working on a "Preying Mantis" scenario where the Iranians get wind of the Faw offensive and go all out to bring as much of their fleet and airforce to readiness are possible, whereas the American SAGs are still focussed on a "proportional response" scenario aiming to take out two oil platforms and one frigate.

Cheers,

Peter

At the end of this article you can find a link to a "fog of war" campaign system I developed from an idea on the Aeronef website.
link

It worked well for pre-dreadnought, and would work equally well for anything up to the 1930s. Thereafter radar and aircraft would complicate things, but I think that you could work around that.
Cheers,
Peter

You could try having an umpire plot ship movements on a maneuvering board. Models are only placed on the table when they come within visual range or counters when detected by radar. Instructions and copies of the maneuvering board are found online at:

offsoundings.info/navl.htm

Some places you can find a pad of 50 for $7.95. Of course you have to learn the basics of plotting, but we are simply talking about maneuvering around a fixed point and measuring the distance between targets.

I have used it to run naval games before and thought it worked well.

Mark

I think it is more difficult to maintain 'Fog of War' for tactical scenarios. It is a little eaiser when you have an operational (or strategic) system where players create some variability themseleves.

For stand-alone tactical game, I usually prepare some pre-game options that players can choose that will change the initial setup, entry points, and/or order of battle (I try to make the options have a good and bad component, so that taking an option is a tough decision). Players can still have an idea of what they are up against, but they also know that the other side had options too. You can also introduce some uncertainty for each side in the pre-game briefing by providing inaccurate (or false) reports and guesses about the enemies intentions.

Once the battle begins, it is harder to maintain the fog. You can disguise which ships are in the battle by using markers (and add in dummy units with the same method), but in some ways this defeats the whole purpose of miniatures games (the visual aspect), at least until everything is revealed.

I do think that it is important to hide some ships damage from players on the other side (i.e they can see gun hit, fires, and how many enemy guns are shooting at them, but they don't need to know if a radar is knocked out or if the maximum speed has really been reduced).

Dave