War Panda | 17 Jun 2014 11:56 a.m. PST |
I enjoy the idea of recreating the historical battle conditions and circumstances as best as possible. I'm obviously not alone. There are thousands of various rulesets made with this purpose in mind. Every now and then I'm awestruck by a particular mechanic that seems to make a remarkable effort at recreating a particular element of a battle situation. But when it comes to arguably one of the most significant elements of warfare; representing the Fog of War I'm not sure if I've seen a solution thats all together impressive. Has modern technology solved this problem and I don't know about it yet? Is there a computer program for example that could be easily used with hidden movement that's mapped between two android devices that would notify contact for instance? IMHO Crossfire's mechanic is one of the best methods that simulate the effects of hidden movement without the slowing down of the gameplay Any systems out there that has impressed you? |
Streitax | 17 Jun 2014 12:33 p.m. PST |
I've seen a couple of games where there are duplicate terrain tables with a sheet between them. Each side plays on one by themselves and the judge goes back and forth and puts out what can be seen. Don't know how it works in practice. Other than that, unit markers with dummies is the easiest approach to putting some mystery into the game. But you can't get around the fact that your opponent knows the state all your units in most games, unless you use a computer system like Carnage and Glory, in which case you might not know yourself. At a game in Little Wars, the Americans had driven the Canadians back and were threatening to finish them off when most of the American units broke and routed off the field. |
BulldogD | 17 Jun 2014 12:51 p.m. PST |
Too Fat Lardies' Chain of Command uses a patrol phase where you advance markers towards you opponent until they are "locked down". From the position of those markers "jump off" points are placed from which you can deploy your troops. The premise is that each force knows roughly where the enemy line is but not the exact position of the troops. It works very well and there are other mechanics that allow ambushes that genuinely catch you out. It's a WW2 skirmish level game but the mechanic is very adaptable to other periods. I recommend you check out the YouTube videos, the Lardies blog and the yahoo group. |
Bob in Edmonton | 17 Jun 2014 12:55 p.m. PST |
One AWI game I ran had both forces move (point to point) on a map to determine which units entered where on the board. Roads had limited carrying capacity, could only operate in one direction each turn, and there was a small risk of failure. You could get units on the boars quickly but they tended to arrive on your baseline. Or could send a unit on a longer march for a better position but there was delay and uncertainty. This resulted in units entering the board in a staggered manner, from different points and neither side knew the other sides true orbit until all of the unit arrived. The players played very differently when they had to worry about their flanks! |
OSchmidt | 17 Jun 2014 1:02 p.m. PST |
Have multiple players on each side. No more need be done. Otto |
Pictors Studio | 17 Jun 2014 1:28 p.m. PST |
I think the best system I've seen is that used in Warmaster and then Black Powder and all of the subsequent games. Certainly you know where your opponents are but you don't know if you are going to be able to get them or not. This is obviously the hardest thing to model on the table and in most cases most commanders would have had only a vague idea of where their own troops were, unless forces were very small and he was on a hill or it was a very static battle. You can put all kinds of chits down and make double blind tables and all of that but to me it seems too complicated and too much trouble to do on a regular basis. Computer modeling, like Carnage and Glory, does a lot of keeping the player in the dark, of course, probably the most accurate way to do it. But that complicates things by needing a computer to do the gaming. For simple and effective fog of war I like the system they use in the games mentioned above. |
etotheipi | 17 Jun 2014 1:29 p.m. PST |
Have multiple players on each side. Wouldn't that be "friction of war" instead? ----- It depends on what type of "fog of war" you want. Different aspects would be implemented in different ways. For a basic "where's waldo" FOW (yeah, well I don't play that game and think this thing every time I see the acronym), start with units that are "out of view" of each other. Maneuver according to your regular rules. Allow units to make a ranged attack (with no damage) against a difficult target to spot. Also identify places that are "out in the open", auto spotting. The first time a spotted unit is attacked, draw a random card from {1h 2h 3h 1s 2s 3s 1d 2d 3d 1c 2c 3c j} and let its player move that unit. 1,2,3 = one "step" (for my games I use 6"). c,h,s,d, = n,s,e,w. Directions are within 90 degree arc; distance is from any unit to any unit. The joker means the opponent gets to move the unit 2 steps any direction. The attack is resolved based on the new positioning. Most times it helps to have a marker whether units are spotted or not. I've also used this technique to position ambushing units on a target, where the target is spotted at the start, but get the opportunity to position. --- I have many scenarios on WGV (Irrational Number Line Games) where various playing card mechanics are used to represent units before they are spotted. Unit size, composition, and even canards are kept hidden. This mechanic is used in the Psycho Killer module I just published. ---
I've also used cards (sometimes playing cards, other times custom cards) to hide things like ammo state (you have a number of bullets and blanks in your hand), special abilities, events, or other resource allocations. --- So, yeah. Playing cards. With stuff like this, its really easy to make your own custom ones nowadays as opposed to the 70's or so
|
Landorl | 17 Jun 2014 1:40 p.m. PST |
I got to play a double blind game before. Two identical tables in 2 different rooms, with runners to go back and forth updating the tables. Very cool indeed! |
oldgamer | 17 Jun 2014 1:58 p.m. PST |
I've run several land combat games over the years with the mechanism Landorl got to play. It can require several more referees than other methods, but the results are almost always good. As the lead referee, you get to see all of the action and it is a marvel when you consider how differenctly people will behave when they don't have perfect knowledge of the opponents deployment. As a side note, one of the items that we have thrown at folks are things like the Tiger Tank that isn't really well concealed, or bunkers on the ridge line that have been abandoned prior to the scenario start. I took that one much farther during a double blind of ASL when I elected to not use the pre built bunker and established MG positions that just covered the approaches. The russian player plowed that ground completely. Double blind games of Harpoon are a real chore to run, but they provide good payback for the effort. |
Doug MSC | 17 Jun 2014 2:34 p.m. PST |
We divide our table into thirds, the left flank, right flank and center. Before the game, both sides must decide where they want each of their regiments, brigades, or whatever, to arrive on their side of the table. They may have 6 units come in the center, 2 on the left flank and 4 on the right flank. Once they lock it in, they cannot change it for the entire game. So they are not aware of what will be across the table from them. The units are then activated by card draw, a certain amount of units to bring on per round of play, wherever you want but in the area you selected prior to the start of the game, which again gives another twist to it. |
coryfromMissoula | 17 Jun 2014 2:51 p.m. PST |
We played some monster ACW games with JRII in which players who had to work that day were selected as the overall wing and army commanders. Players needing reinforcements or permission to move beyond certain objectives had to send requests by crudely scrawled messages that were faxed. Game terms and phases were banned from the messages. |
Intrepide | 17 Jun 2014 2:53 p.m. PST |
Not for movement, but for unit actions, the inherent poker face and surprise of the concealed simultaneous actions in Johnny Reb and Final Argument of Kings has always been an incredible rush to me. Like Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo. I just love that throwdown. |
doc mcb | 17 Jun 2014 2:59 p.m. PST |
We used to play JOHNNY REB with dummy markers, then when a unit was revealed to be real we put down a regiment-sized block of wood painted blue or butternut. When it was close enough to be targeted by small arms (not artillery) we put the figures on the table. Even then you didn't know an enemy's BMP (Basic Morale Point -- the most important stat) until they rolled against it first time. And didn't know whether they were armed with smoothbores or rifled-muskets, etc until they fired. And didn't know quality of leader until they affected a combat. Plus of course JR uses inverted order chits and simultaneous movement. |
Intrepide | 17 Jun 2014 3:01 p.m. PST |
That's a simple, practical house rule doc mcb. Good one. |
Timbo W | 17 Jun 2014 3:24 p.m. PST |
I was very impressed with the play by email games shown on tmp a year or two ago. The players had a map and got sent digital photos of the view from their command post every move, really nicely done and a good read too, as for link, er
|
nsolomon99 | 17 Jun 2014 4:17 p.m. PST |
I think the Too Fat Lardies rules I've played for Napoleonics, ACW and WW1 provide the smoothest, simplest Fog-of-War I've used in a wargame. Very effective and actually speeds things up rather than slows them down. |
Sundance | 17 Jun 2014 4:30 p.m. PST |
We just play double blind. For a one-sided game or solo play, THW has a good system. The board is divided into 1' or 1-1/2' squares and each area has a base chance of containing an enemy unit or an unknown bit of terrain. You don't know for sure until you enter that area. Could be a nasty surprise, could be a bit of terrain to hide in while the nasty surprise is firing at you. |
peterx | 17 Jun 2014 5:25 p.m. PST |
We have used the Chinese food container method in our games to simulate the "fog of war", a method which we borrowed from Bob McDonald. The players get marked wooden chits with numbers on them with corresponding upside down numbered Chinese food containers with miniatures under them. Actually, each side has more numbered and corresponding Chinese food containers than groups of troops. The players move their numbered chits on the table and the opponent's can do a sight test to "see" who is under the Chinese food container when they have line of sight, or the unit starts to fire on them. If the opponents minis or chits "see" your chits, then put them the board. If you have line of sight to his chits then he or she will have line of sight to your chits as well. Also, firing on your opponent's troops puts you on the board immediately. We have used used both Two Hour Wargames "Chain Reaction" and Iron Ivan's "Disposable Heroes" rules, both at home and at conventions with good success. |
elsyrsyn | 17 Jun 2014 5:26 p.m. PST |
Any system that eliminates the typical rigid sequence of activities and predictable movement/length of turn gets points with me. As Pictor notes, Warmaster/BP/HC do the latter well, if not the former. The SoB&H system does both well, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the upcoming mass combat rules. Doug |
Ben Lacy | 17 Jun 2014 7:10 p.m. PST |
With a double blind game, players are much more cautious, and it totally eliminates "player knowledge." But, it requires duplicate terrain and miniatures. I ran one at an HMGS con several years ago in 54mm. It was massive, but great fun. |
Frederick | 17 Jun 2014 7:22 p.m. PST |
Have used the markers with some dummies until sighted in the past – but Black Powder seems to simulate the friction of battle pretty well, especially (in my case) when you really, really need your cavalry to advance – and they just won't! |
Florida Tory | 17 Jun 2014 9:06 p.m. PST |
After all the time and effort to acquire miniature forces, I want to see them on the table, not represented by cardboard markers, etc. With that constraint the best way to represent fog of war is simultaneous, map-marked movement, with (as Otto indicates) multiple players on each side. The ancillary benefit is that there is no need for command & control or activation rules. Rick |
Whatisitgood4atwork | 18 Jun 2014 2:57 a.m. PST |
Use of blinds, including some dummy ones, as used in a number of Too Fat Lardies games, is a simple and practical way to introduce some uncertainly into games. |
Timmo uk | 18 Jun 2014 6:37 a.m. PST |
I'm very happy with the way the TFL rules handle this. Simple, elegant and practical to use whilst injecting enough chaos to keep the game interesting. |
Dan 055 | 18 Jun 2014 7:21 a.m. PST |
I tried a compromise in my ACW rules to "mimic" hidden movement. link |
Fergal | 18 Jun 2014 8:06 a.m. PST |
An iPad app is the way to go. A double blind app where you take a picture of the board, then the stretch that picture over a grid, then tap the grid areas where your troops are. Both player have the app and it notifies you when you discover the other side. Very easily done by an app developer. I was working with one on this until he went and got married and moved 7 states away. |
Dynaman8789 | 18 Jun 2014 11:45 a.m. PST |
Spearhead and Modern Spearhead deserve mention – the enemy might be on the table but you can't change your orders willy nilly. |
War Panda | 18 Jun 2014 12:47 p.m. PST |
"An iPad app is the way to go." That's the kind of thing I had in mind
I'll have to look into that Crossover
any advice you can give me into what I should be looking at Dynaman8789 How does Spearhead manage that
preassigned written orders? |
etotheipi | 18 Jun 2014 2:22 p.m. PST |
I did that in Allenstein, but not to replicate FOW. The mechanic replicates the Germans' ability to intercept and interpret Russian orders. It's kind of the compliment of FOW. Mostly, the Russian player declares their move by placing markers on the board. This unit goes here; we attack there. Then the German player then takes their turn. After that, the Russian player executes their move. The Russian player is given some marginal latitude to be reactive in their move, but not much. |
olicana | 19 Jun 2014 3:36 a.m. PST |
I play a lot of Piquet and Command and Colours. Both are sequence card driven games. You, as player, can see everything but, if you don't have the right cards at the right time, you can't always respond to what you can see. In game terms, this amounts to an abstracted 'fog of war'. You can see, your little lead C-in-C can't. |
leidang | 19 Jun 2014 12:47 p.m. PST |
Double blind is obvoiusly the ultimate for this but for our non-blind games we have married the blind system from Le Feu Sacre with the command system from Hail Ceasar/Black Powder. The combination gives both uncertainty in the early phases of the game before blinds are revealed and in the later game due to the variable movement. It also plays fast and doesn't get in the way of the game. |
ratisbon | 22 Jun 2014 12:23 p.m. PST |
There are three problems which argue against rule to represent the fog of war. First, the prime directive of a game is entertainment and rules for hidden units argue against this. Second, in conjunction with and necessary for entertainment is playability which complex rules for hidden units prevents. Third, players did not spend hundreds of hours painting figures to not place them on the table. If, however, you just gots to have hidden units, I suggest NBs' "Liars' Reserves," which requires no record keeping or complex rules. Cheers, Bob Coggins |
Dexter Ward | 23 Jun 2014 3:29 a.m. PST |
Bob Coggins wrote: First, the prime directive of a game is entertainment and rules for hidden units argue against this. Second, in conjunction with and necessary for entertainment is playability which complex rules for hidden units prevents. ----------------- Some of the most entertaining and memorable wargames I've played have been so precisely because of hidden movement. I recall on 18th century British in India game where the British were trying to sneak through Mahratta siege lines at night and blundered into the elephant park. That could never have happened without hidden movement. Rules for hidden movement don't need to be complex at all. Players write down orders. Umpire tracks units on a map until contact is made; how much simpler do you want? |
Aldroud | 23 Jun 2014 12:20 p.m. PST |
An idea I had, but never have had the chance to try, was to have mini-FOW checks during the game. Player A has initiative. Player B has to make a check on each one of Player A's units that are in Line of Sight of at least one of Player B's units. The number of units Player B has with LOS modifies the check in his favor. For every failed check, Player A can reposition the unit a number of inches away from its initial point prior to begining it's actions. This can be modified or limited due to terrain. For any unit Player A has that is out of LOS of any of Player B's units, Player A can make a check (roll based on troop quality maybe) and, if successful, reposition up to 12 inches away, subject to the same above. A modification of the above could be based on terrain features (assuming a well detailed board), so that a unit can just be moved to another terrain feature or around one. |
ratisbon | 25 Jun 2014 3:28 a.m. PST |
Dext6er, I appreciate your thoughts. From my experience, written orders both slow and unnecessarily complicate a miniatures game and for good measure were rare in the event. Indeed, Montgomery said, "An officer who needs written orders is no good." Your proposed use of an umpire seems to be for before the miniatures game on the table, which is an entirely different proposition than playing a miniatures wargame on a table. Cheers, Bob Coggins |
Last Hussar | 25 Jun 2014 9:02 a.m. PST |
TFL blinds system – throw in a couple of dummies and you hav a fog of war. Additionally it makes the first few moves quick while you manoeuvre to where the battle really starts. |
TelesticWarrior | 26 Jun 2014 4:39 a.m. PST |
The players should be plied with enough cigars that the battlefield is wreathed in real smoke. |