"GMing: Fog of War or just being a jerk?" Topic

I plan on running a scenario this year where side "A" gets reinforcements. The battle is a historical battle but not as well known as Gettysburg or Antietam. When side "A" gets it's reinforcements, I know that side "B" is going to immediately ask if they get reinforcements.

To simulate Fog of War….I don't plan on telling them. Now, is that FoW or just being a jerk?

I was playing a space game sometime back and I refused to give the other side realtime data on the damage my ships were taking. My opponent said that was asinine because space ships have sensors. I believe those same space ships would also have electronic warfare assets such jammers. Why should the enemy know EXACTLY how much shields you have left?

So, Fog of War…..or being an ass?

I appreciate maximum Fog of War however a lot of people don't. They just want to play a game and roll some dice.

So I would say FOW but I know plenty of people that would say the opposite.

FOW 100%. You are the GM.

As for your space ship game, unless you both agreed to that before the game and your opponent was doing the same thing, that would be kind of a .

Sounds like you may have some control freaks to deal with. Now try to take them out of a UGO/IGO rule system and show them something like Piquet and watch their brains melt.

Go with the fog of war. Uncertainty adds spice to a game, unless you are someone who want to drop buckets of dice rather than simulating war.

Knock knock

Who's there?

Control freak…now you say "control freak who."

Historically, was side B expecting reinforcements, but they never came? If so, tell side B reinforcements are on the way.

IMHO, these kinds of "campaign considerations" keep table-top battles from becoming tiresome head butting.

Arguing about authenticity in a space game is asinine … I can't help you with that …

But Fog of War in a scenario for historical battle is generally desirable – but it depends who you play with and whether you are just running the game or a player in it as well (which it sounds like you were in the space game) …

But it ought always to be clear to all players in all games which mechanisms are open, which are closed, which are player controlled and which are scenario driven. Just so players don't feel they're getting picked on or misused …

Phil

If side B did not receive reinforcements in the battle, then they don't get them. I would tell the name of the battle right as you start to play. That way when player B complains, then you just state that there were no reinforcements available during the battle, and again state the battle you are playing.

Matthew

Agreed with Phil. State up front how things work regarding reinforcements being known about or not.

As for the Space game, what did the rules say? If they said nothing than I would say you were being a jerk ESPECIALLY if your oppo let you track his damage and THEN you didn't let him track yours. Other way around would simply be a disagreement among friends.

HAVE B roll for reinforcements echo turn.

What Saber6 said. Are you trying to be "completely historical" or could you going for "historically plausible" where there might be, or have been the possibility for reinforcements coming in? If you are going for the latter, allow Player B to roll for two events: 1) If he even can get reinforcements then 2) how long it will take for them to get there. Also use a die roll to determine when Side A's reinforcements show up. It SHOULD NOT BE after "x" many turns. He may get them early, or later, or not at all depending upon the progress of the battle. Make 'em both sweat it out. Now THATS Fog of War!

If Side B complains after the game give him a participation ribbon and a juice box to help his self esteem.

I would assume both commanders would have some idea where their support was and how long it would take, roughly, for them to get there. If thee is nobody else around you get no reinforcements. Pretty simple math problem really.

I'm with Saber6 -- if B is going to complain, then let them roll every turn. Keep saying "not high enough" until the turn you have already determined the reinforcements will arrive.

Lot's of good feed back.

1. On Space Game, yes, it appears I was being a jerk. HOWEVER, as some have stated, had we agreed before that we would conceal damage than it would have been cool. Although, I did not enquire as to how much damage my opponent was taking (but then again, I was not dealing as much as I was taking!) YesthatPHil….you are probably right about arguing about space combat in any case.

2. It appears that the general consensus is that FoW is fine, but give every one a heads up that it will be a factor in play.

3. I like what everyone is saying about historical plausible by varying the arrival time, etc. The players probably SHOULDN'T count on Smith's Division arriving on turn X.

I like the idea of A.P. Hill arriving just in the nick of time at Antietam…or perhaps not at all.

I would like to take players a little further away from being helicopter generals. It's easy to call this general or that general a nit wit but can the player do better if THEY aren't quite sure where the enemy is or how many of them they are. Or what if THEIR support takes the wrong fork in the road.

I once played in a game run by ACW Bill where all communications with neighboring and superior commands was by courier. The courier was a figure that had to travel to the other player's command stand.

Messages were written down on a piece of paper, so, if you wrote like a doctor, you might not get the help you wanted! Even more, the GM did the actually note passing. Some arrived late, some went to the wrong commander and he even surreptitiously discarded a few!

I like how this made you feel like a Civil War commander. "Why isn't Hill covering down on my flank???"

I would definitely go with fog but you should let the particpants know before the game starts that you will be using a tight interpretation of this. If someone still wants to complain then we know who is being a jerk.

If you are the GM then it is your game and you decide. If people enjoy the experience you provide they will want you to GM again – if they don't then …

Think about how much fun the players will get from playing your game. The answer will depend on the players most likely.

At our club Fog of War would be appreciated.

I would just make sure the scenario is designed so that Side B can still win even if they don't receive reinforcements. Side A's reinforcements shouldn't tip the scales in favor of their victory irrevocably.

My experience has been that some people can deal with uncertainty or lies told for the sake of enhanced scenario drama, but it can be very unsettling for others – especially those who need to know beforehand every single little thing in complete detail in order to function. The best advice I can give in such a case is to provide plenty of advance warning to all that what they read in their scenario sheet may not all necessarily be true or come to pass.

Another technique to take the game master "off the hook", so to speak, is the fake die roll. The player is told that he will have reinforcements arriving, which you in fact have no intention of providing. You then periodically throw dice, ceremoniously scribble something on a pad to "track progress" and let the player believe it is just bad luck that his Jeb and his cavalry have failed to arrive.

Happy New Year to all.

B

I want to run a game where you do not remove figure s or stands until the unit is gone. record sheet Need a GM that way both sides are only given the info they need.

I am going to do a Naval game WW1 see how it works out

My first choice is always FoW with an umpire.

Head-to-head lead lost it's appeal 35 years ago.

(Assuming with Umpire) Tell them re-inforcements are on their way and what to 'expect.' But drip feed them on the basis they are strung out on the line of march and don't let all of them arrive.

People are control freaks are usually the ones that game the mechanics and not the battle. If Wadsworth is coming up with the 1st at 11:00am, then maybe they are counting on it and it is in there plan. Reynolds probably did not know what time exactly that the 1st would be on the battlefield. he probably did know the division was in the area. So what you are doing is not unreasonable.

You should always state up front that reinforcements may or may not arrive at the predesignated time that history tells us. You should also caution your payers to perform more like generals than gamers and they will do well. The latter logic can be applied to any science fiction or fantasy game as well. The order of arrival can not obviously.

I would also tell the federal commander, in his pre-game briefing, that there is a reasonably strong force of CS cavalry operating off to his flank. Then, at some point prior to his reinforcements arriving, let him know that there's a large cloud of dust to his rear……. let him sweat as to whether it's his reinforcements or their cavalry.

As to the CS commander, tell him that he can expect reinforcements at some point. Let him roll from time to time and, as stated in comments above, scribble a few notes down. Then, at some point mid-game or so, tell him that there's a large cloud of dust in the distance to his rear. A couple turns or so later, have him recieve a note by a sweat-flocked courier stating that the reinforcements have been delayed by federal cavalry.

What all this does is make the commanders act like commanders and deal with things that happen in real life. It makes them save some troops in reserve, and act as if there really IS a tomorrow.

V/R

You could say that they are a long ways away and may not make it so don't plan on reinforcements. In regards to the space battle thing, you didn't say if you were playing a friend or not. If you were at a convention and you refused to reveal your damage, I would suspect you of cheating. I don't know about you folks but I have run across cheaters several times in the course of convention game play and it makes me so angry that I can't see straight. It makes playing the game a complete waste of my time and deprives me of any pleasure in the play.

Cloudy –
Re cheaters, could not agree more. Really set me off. My friend had to restrain me on one occasion from openly confronting one particular down in Lancaster.

B

TKindred, I like your idea a lot.

Cloudy, I concede that it was 'jerkish' but I didn't consider it 'cheating.' We were playing at my friends house (who I have known for about a decade).

I just thought, "why should I have to tell him how much damage I take with every salvo??? Even the captain of the stricken ship is probably not getting damage reports with that much accuracy and timeliness!"

If I wrote naval or space rules….I might even write that kind of fog of war into the rules themselves! I am not sure how computer games handle fog of war because I don't play them very often (not a critique, I just prefer miniature games. )

Again, as I progress in my wargaming 'career' I am beginning to appreciate games that you put you in the commander's saddle, so to speak.

In answer to the original post: So long as both players are told something along the lines of "you expect, and may receive, reinforcements, but the time of their arrival is unknown to you." This being the US Civil War I would add "Remember some units did not arrive at Gettysburg until more than a day after the battle had begun." Further, (and again using the example of Gettysburg) I would inform the players, "The battle will end at, or shortly after dusk unless one player is forced to withdraw prior to that time. Presuming neither side is put to route, each side will have the option of continuing the battle the next day or withdrawing under cover of darkness" (modification of the rules may be necessary for that, but it is reasonable to allow for such unlikely situations). I would also find out when, if at all the expected reinforcements would have arrived and possibly modify the game as a result (i.e. if the player expecting reinforcements lasts longer than his historic prototype perhaps he will receive the reinforcements that never made it to the historic battle).

However I believe the elephant in the room is the broader issue of trust & truth and the conflict between those ideas and self-interest.

If playing a game against a stranger (and some acquaintances) most of us would not believe them to be honest when allocating damage unless there were some means of after game verification. This is all the more so when playing in a competition/tournament.

Although a system of verification could be created using a card draw system where the cards are placed face-down in plain sight, the verification process might be quite tedious. A computer moderated system might work to allow secret damage allocation and could replace trust in the other player, but software can be tedious as well.

The issue is entirely different in a game with an umpire/referee/GM/&tc. One would hope that anyone refereeing a game would be unbiased enough to apply the Fog of War rules in an evenhanded manner. Even then I have known individuals who so favor a particular army/side/etc that they might be unfair without realizing their behavior for what it was (examples of such palyers abound, but the historic player who believes the French army of year VII could never lose to a contemporary Russian army, or the fantasy player who believes "good elves" will aways triumph over "evil orcs" should be familiar to nearly all of us).

Regardless of what system is used though, I think we can all agree the one thing we all require is knowing there will be such a system before the game begins. Most rules, and most gamers, assume players will have much more information than historic (or contemporary) commanders did (or do) and any deviation from that should be stated up front.

I umpire/manage a fair bit. My ambition is to reduce both senior commanders to tears of utter frustration and despair….and then listen to them explain the situation to their (unimpressed) subordinate. If you've made both of the commanders have a difficult day then you're doing something right.
Also, if you ever get into a fair fight then you know you've done something wrong.

"However I believe the elephant in the room is the broader issue of trust & truth and the conflict between those ideas and self-interest."

Ahhh….that is what I am missing. I didn't consider that someone my have the desire to cheat. If someone is welling to cheat in a GAME, what are they willing to do if they are in a real life crisis??

It's a game, I haven't bet this month's mortgage on it. My sense of self worth is not tied to breaking 3rd Corps in 15mm. If winning was that important to me, why would I ever play the Texans at the Alamo? I was playing BAB with a friend a few year ago and I ran my regiment headlong into point blank fire of my opponent? Why? Because even though I could see that he had positioned a regiment in the cornfield I was entering, there was no way that CPT 28mm could know that. Don't we want to recreate incidents like that on our tables?

Besides, the way I roll, if games were tied to my ego, I would have had to give up this hobby a long, long, time ago.

I guess I was looking at it solely from the FoW viewpoint and not from the cheating angle which is why I was a little taken aback by Cloudy's comments.

Point well taken on GMs who favor one side or the other subconsciously or not.

But, back to your point Optional, it seems to say that if I can translate to my players that were are trying to simulate fighting a battle with it's confusion and uncertainty, then I can get them on board.

Here's something to consider as well:

I don't often play refights of actual battles. If I am umpiring a game, I prefer to design the scenario so as to help teach some specific thing, like defense in depth, or rear guard actions, etc. So, I like to take an actual battle from another era, and use it with the era of the game I plan to run.

For example, I've used Antietam, only replacing the ACW forces with Romans and Celts. I've also used Antietam, but with the sides reversed.

If you want an interesting "Gettysburg" game, find a copy of Meade's "Pipe Creek Circular" and use that as the basis for federal deployments, with the CS troops coming on as Lee expected them to.

Another good one that works well for the ACW with only some slight mods is Caesar's battle on the Sambre river against the Nervii. It was a near run thing, and having the federals play the part of the Romans works quite well. Here's an excerpt:

After securing the town of Noviodunum and territory of the Suessiones, Caesar learned that the fearsome Nervii, with the Atrebates, Veromandui and Aduatuci, were forming against him on the opposite side of the Sambre River. The main part of the Roman army were in the midst of making camp along the river, while the two newest legions were bringing up the rear with the slow moving baggage train. Caesar sent out his cavalry to scout the situation, apparently unaware of the massing enemy preparing for ambush in the surrounding forests. The gathering Belgae, seeing Titus Labienus leading the Roman cavalry away, launched a complete surprise attack, storming the shallow river and pouncing on the unsuspecting Romans. The fighting was immediately desperate and the legions were hard pressed to maintain their ground. The Nervii and their allied tribes nearly surrounded the Romans, threatening the camp and the utter destruction of Caesar's army. Caesar's timely intervention, however, personally standing and fighting with his men, helped Roman discipline maintain itself.

More here: link

If both players know what battle they're playing (ie, you're refighting Antietam in a Civil War game), then I don't see why the side that wasn't reinforced in history would get bent out of shape when they don't get reinforcements in the game.

If you're transposing the scenario, then I'd be in favor of some information control on the part of the GM. Both sides have cavalry (somewhere), and both sides have other forces in the area marching to the sound of the guns. Whether their reinforcements arrive or get caught by the opposing cavalry is a different question.