"hidden troops and gods eye view" Topic

So what are your opinions on hidden troops? Is it none, markers only for troops in defence or everybody. Do yo use an umpire? How do you cope with God's eye view for instance do you roll die to spot and at what range for the various levels of hidden. If so how many units may may spot any one element.

Do you have any mechanism that generally allow failure to identify correctly spotted troops.

I have used hidden map movement, counters with both fake and real counters, and simple spotting rules given the distance, camouflage, movement, and weather.

Easier is better.

If they see it, they identify it correctly, and they can shoot at it.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
bunkermeister.blogspot.com

One of my good friends ran a one sided game set in WWII. Every time troops spotted a German vehicle he would put a Tiger tank on the board until they got close enough to make out what it really was.

In my TSATF FIW games, I sometimes scatter poker chips, spray painted an appropriate earth tone and numbered, across the table.
Native troops can move from chip to chip, until logic or the umpire rule they are spotted.
"European" troops are always on the table.

I'm good with either markers, whether it be just a marker to indicate "something" is there , or a "real" marker plus several "fake" markers. The markers can be either tied to a generic unit/unit type or keyed to specific units, etc.

OR

Just simply allowing your opponent to basically "ambush" and set up units wherever they see fit on their own terms (typically with the stipulation that the unit must be placed into cover/not in the open, and/or it must be more/less than x distance away from an opponent, and/or within a certain area of the board, etc. sometimes with a rule to allow your opponent to attempt to "spot" a unit, allowing you to place your opponents unit as you see fit instead if you succeed on the check, etc.).

Really, it depends on what is thematically appropriate for the game being played.

When I run a StarGrunt game, I act as umpire.

Hidden deployment is often part of a scenario. I have the players write down what unit is hidden where, either on a map or just a list of locations and unit (e.g., "Platoon HQ team -- Building 196"). The other side can try to spot hidden units per the rules.

Mines and booby traps are deployed via counters. I usually just give the players counters with letters, and the players write down what each counter is, like this:

counter A: anti-personnel mine field
counter B: dummy counter
etc.

The game rules govern spotting of counters.

Hidden movement is usually pretty limited, such as inside a building or within an underground system like storm drains or sewers. I typically let a unit that is hidden inside something like a building be wherever the player wants it to be until it's spotted. After that, its movement is no longer hidden, until it is able to become hidden again.

I play NUTS! and 5150 Star Marine from Two Hour Wargames, they use marker called "Potential Enemy Forces" which you place on the table based on the scenario (Patrol, Attack, etc.) These markers move based on a paper & pencil system, and can even split into more markers until you spot them. Then you check to see what it is --sometimes nothing, or an event, or an enemy force. Those can also be run using the paper & pencil "AI" so you can play challenging solo and co-op games as well as head to head.

I have truly hidden movement. Works excellentl. There are twotypes.

First the table top, unless noted is permeable. Troops can move off any edge and there are "hidden." This includes the baseline where they can be in reserve. Moving on or off to these near locations is by die roll.

On the table top the terrain is constructed to allow hidden movement. Forests and urban areas are created in the form of "boxes" so players can actually "hide" the units in them and they are invisible. You have to move a unit INTO the terrain to lift up the box lid and see what is there. Same with houses and towns. For hills, troops behind hills are hidden and can be taken off the table top. An off table marker can be used. As the battlefield is made of hexes big hexes, almost geo-hex size it's easy to identify where the troops are without corny chips or markers.

It works excellently. Not only are troops completely hidden from the enemy but often from their own commander. One general having a lot of woods hexes on his side cleverly deployed his troops in them and completely forgot about them. He was fighting a force of about his own size only for most of the game had only about 1/3 of his units engaged because he had forgotten he had hidden the other 2/3 of his forces in the woods… and promptly forgot about them. Almost at his last legs he complained the scenario was unfair. I flipped upon the tops of the forest boxes (they are in the shape of hexagons) and showed him the other two thirds of his forces.

Lots of things will work if only one side can conceal troops. If both sides can move concealed troops, it's very hard to avoid an umpire.

Hidden troops and movement completely alter the wargame experience. Some folks love it; some cannot deal with the uncertainty. I have had the privilege both running and participating in several events of this sort and loved every experience.

It is well worth the extra effort.

B

Depends on the rules Robert. An game is always better with an umpire, but you can write "chearter rules" that is rules that allow what most people will do to cheat as legitimate rules. Cheaters hate the rules because they can do what they do when cheating legally which takes all the flavor of cheating away from them.

With an umpire, hidden movement can really work well, but often there aren't enough folks, or one willing to not playing.

We do much the same as Otto with allowing troops to move off the edge of the table and disappear.

The visual limits of the naked eye is about 1500 to 1800 yards [@2000 paces] with any recognition other than a mass or as Scharnhorst notes in his Field Manual the glitering of weapons.

As most tables with a scale of 75-100 yards to the inch, that means that anything outside of 26 down to 15 inches can't be seen as anything more than a 'presence'. Dust, dark masses moving might be seen, but that is it. At that distance one can't tell cavalry from artillery.
Telescopes can help as can elevation, but it only brings things closer by about 5-6 inches.

So having dummies for the entire table works well at those scales or smaller. Something is seen, but not sure what or how much. Of course, LOS plays a role, and taking dummies off the table at that point adds to the fun.

It encourages players to have 'their figures' find high points to observe the enemy --and skirmishers and scouts. The reverse slope tactics then really come into their own.

Some of this has to do with the rules… what they allow and don't in 'hiding' without complicated rules.

I'm the umpire in all my games McLaddie, I sometimes play as well. I've found that even when the umpire is one of the chiefly interested parties they almost always rise to the occasion and bend over backwards to avoid favoring themselves.

Of course… I don't invite people who would not do that sort of thing to a game.

We usually use obfuscated markers, canards or displacement markers.

Obfuscated – Before the start of the game you note (or mark on the bottom of the base) how many units/figures/etc are actually part of a unit. When the unit attacks or is "spotted", reveal the real unit size and type then swap in those figures.

Canard – Just an obfuscated marker with size zero.

Displacement markers – Before the start of the game, determine an offset (F'r'ex, 3" east and 1" south) for each unit. Move the units normally. Don't be a jerk when the real position crosses hindering terrain. When they attack or are "spotted" reveal the actual position and move the unit.

You can combine these techniques. It is important to think through and plan out things like how many total units, how much difference between appearance (three units on a stand) and real composition and size is allowed, and how big a displacement is acceptable.

We usually develop a set of force and unit limits. F'r'ex, your ten units can total thirty inches of displacements and no unit may have more than a total of five inches of displacement, or if the real composition includes armour units, there must be at least one armour unit in the obfuscated marker.

Depending on the type of scenario, the forces, objectives, etc., we may offer bonuses for levels of underutilization of fog of war.

Depends of the game. In my former club we used a system of "cards" that could be dummies or real troops. Problem was that we knew each other too well, and could call the bluff most of the time.

Once, however, it worked as it supposedly should. It was in a campaign game set in the invasion of the North by Robert E. Lee. Thing is that the Confederates caught the Yanks with their pants down and then move for the kill with their whole army against four isolated Federal corps. The only glitch was that the Confederates needed to cross a mountain gap, which in game terms meant that they should roll for each division in their corps… well, they only failed with 6s, which, naturally, it meant that they failed all die rolls but for two divisions and one cavalry brigade! A potential disaster for the Federals had been reversed into a potential disaster for the Confederates.

But the Confederate players didn't panic. By using clever agression with the visible troops and faking an impeding attack using dummies, they put the Federals into the defensive for so many turns that when the Federal players realized that they weren't outnumbered and it was the Confederates who were at disadvantage, it was too late in the game and they hadn't time to mount an attack. Technically, the Confederate players lost the battle, but the Federal players felt like they were the defeated side.

It is the only time that I have seen that dummies actually worked as supposed. Of course, the bluff worked because the Federals were convinced that with Lee the Confederates couldn't fail at concentrate, and that they were heavily outnumbered. But if the Confederates players wouldn't have played the game masterfully, it wouldn't have worked.

I'm the umpire in all my games McLaddie, I sometimes play as well. I've found that even when the umpire is one of the chiefly interested parties they almost always rise to the occasion and bend over backwards to avoid favoring themselves.

Of course… I don't invite people who would not do that sort of thing to a game.

Otto:
Wise move. All of the folks in our group have umpired at one time or another, they would just rather play given their druthers.

So much of pre-19th century battle was 'hidden movement' with all the implications of that for unknowns, surprises, bluffs and the need for recon that many of the historical decisions made don't make sense when the players can see everything.

Personally, I enjoy hidden movement for all those reasons.
We have a 'campaign-light' game where in about 30 minutes we can generate a tabletop battle with those elements. We take a historical campaign, get a snapshot of it about a day out from the historical battle and then play it from that point to contact. Our favorites are 2nd Manassas and the Jena campaign… played with ACW and 1859 troops.

The hidden movement is no more than a modification of "Battleship" on a grid over the terrain.

Mc Laddie

One point. Hidden movement in a game without weapons that can fire into areas that are hidden is much easier than a game (say 20th century) where artillery can fire over screening terrain into terrain where troops may be hidden.

One point. Hidden movement in a game without weapons that can fire into areas that are hidden is much easier than a game (say 20th century) where artillery can fire over screening terrain into terrain where troops may be hidden.

True. I wasn't talking about 20th Century warfare.

This is always the biggest failing of any game. Only the Kriegspiel map game avoids this and few players have the resources to run 3 dupicate tables in separate rooms.

Or the patience to slow their games down.

Some kind of half and half system with cards, dummies or umpired games with the umpire controlling one side and only revealing what the players could see is the best most can manage.

I've done the 'umpire on one side' with small skirmish games and it works pretty well. Some players just don't like it though. Maybe they don't trust me?

You have to have players who do not mind if they win or lose as long as the game is a challenge and they learn something.

Mostly the "god's eye view" is handled by line of sight restrictions, and initiative rolling to establish who moves and who reacts. All players have "god's eye view", so the playing field is equal in that regard. Unrealistic? Of course it is. But it is a glorified board game.

Our most recent game had defenders, some mounted, inside a village, with attackers coming into the village from any side, not quite simultaneously. The defending players moved toward the nearest threats a la their "god's eye view", and the attackers responded accordingly. One player observed midway into the maneuver, counter-maneuver, "They couldn't see that coming". And I counter-responded, "And neither could they, and your point is?" A smug silent grin on faces pro and con, for and against, either pov. So you either play and enjoy, or you walk away from the hobby.

A GM (which I was in the above game, running the attackers) can institute elaborate "fixes" for this element of abstraction, such as maps indicating hidden troops' movement, and only placing them when they come into view, etc. Lots of work! I make use often of hidden placement, but movement not so much………..

Hidden movement unless you can do it as I have, is like trying to get around IGOYUGO; It's not worth the trouble.

Hidden movement in wargames is like most efforts at capturing reality, it isn't either seen or not seen. It was a continuum of what could be seen and couldn't.

I often see rules, umpires and others treat it this way, or say "you can see the glitter of bayonets." That is great and atmospheric, but that 'partial' view can be accomplished without an umpire to a good degree.

Umpires, depending on how they handle it, are a great way to go and certainly the simplest for the players, but even the use of umpires have weaknesses that other methods don't.

Interesting we all seen to be about the same.

We run mainly:-

Counters and dummies

The things we have learded are:-

For beginners the markers for deployed troops, dummy or otherwise need to be of a representative size so that the begginer can more easily place them cerdibly. For us that's easy about the size of a team/frontage of a tank. More than 50% dummies is not really useful. By then dummies can be assumed as the ones in daft places are either dummies or in daft places so not a significant threat.

Despite several attemps, moving dummies has not realy shown up as an advantage; it all to soon becomes obvious which are dummies and so contributes little to the confusion.

Entiely map for defenders:-

We do map our ground accurately but that is easy for us CADDS and either Hexon II or our own modulat terrain so maps are 100% accurate and being known defined shapes its easy to know when stuff has left LOS and can be taken off. We do have to mark the destination, route and when the troops arrive at their destination. This means that if requirents change later the position when thew orders change can be determined quickly.

Even for serious games all the hidden stuff is done on the static side by marking on a map. Moving side is normaly on table but that does not help the defender that much as he does not want to reveal himself early so is stuck anyway.
As you get better you play to the terrain anyway so it becomes more obvious which terrain is non threatening so no need to check it (never disturb a general when he is deploying badly).

Gods eye view does not help that much, if its on table somebody has seen it anyway and it does simplify some issues.

Just because its on table does not meean it can be shot at. This is where a spotting role and or direction of sight are the limiting factors.

For stuff that is hidden in deployment, it is effectively hidden untill bumped into. However if it gets that close the defender gets hit first. This encourages troops to shoot ar a credible ditance and prevents mass spotting of markers beloved of some folk.

Umpired games are gerat but it can be slow and needs a good umpire for it to work well.

One of the issues that helps is if there are more tham 1 route, to allow the players to keep reserves off table on a pre, defined start position. The defender than is uncertain which is the real main effort untill much later. Again it assumes you have a game that lets you bring in reseves in a useable time scale.

Despite several attemps, moving dummies has not realy shown up as an advantage; it all to soon becomes obvious which are dummies and so contributes little to the confusion.

You need to play against different players or play different scenarios where hidden information is relevant. OPDEC is a standard military consideration and tactic.

The classic OPDEC maneuver is the apparent three pronged attack. Is it really a three pronged attack, or a pincher, or a full force (up the middle or one flank)? Defense against the five basic options is different in every case. When you add in a combined arms capability, the significant potential postures explodes.

I use OPDEC as a critical element to make my Battle of Puebla games a challenge. Because we know the scenario, we know that the rurales are capable of savaging the infantry ranks if they get the chance. Something the French commander discounted. But we can't discount it because we know the history and we know the capabilities of those units in the specific game we're playing. So if I can't add tactical challenge with the surprise of the rurales being competent, willing, and just plain bad-ass I can add the challenge back in by not limiting them to coming in from the north side of the hill during the third assault. It's too easy for the French, knowing about the rurales to set a trap for them. It's hard if you don't know where or when they will enter.

I do agree that at much higher levels it can be critical but such games are not where my interest lies at the moment.

The three pronged attack is a tactical maneuver. Puebla is a single day tactical engagement in three (well, the way it actually happened; in games, we look for something different) waves.

There certainly are operational and strategic level OPDEC (and other force obfuscation) approaches, but these are pretty much as low level tactics as you can get. OPDEC is also critical to urban warfare tactics.

FWIW this is what I've been working on.
link

Having the deception counters on the board represents a visual threat to your opponent. When moving your "hidden" unit you can move the counter or just increase the distance from the center of your deception marker on your tracking sheet without moving the marker. You could also move the deception counter three inches but change the distance from the center of the counter to three inches less. Your opponent saw you move the deception counter but in reality, the unit stayed in place.

You could have a pre-game recon segment that would limit or allow only a certain amount of fake deception markers.

You still need to let your opponent know when he is close enough to spot a unit in his LOS. On page 3 and 4 are the spotting rules. Page 3 is a nomograph to determine the maximum spotting range. Align a straight edge with the "Spotting Status" lines and the "Target Height" (some modifiers may apply) line and the maximum spotting range is on the right ruler.

It's a WIP I have not playtested. It does give a chess-like feel allowing players to move deception markers and bluff their opponents. The downside is you need some manual tracking and it is only good for one side unless using an umpire.

What I normally use in 1:1 games is a piece of paper with a number under a terrain piece to reflect the hidden unit.

Wolfhag

Everything is a compromise. We did something like this but it does mean the defender has to have markers. In our sort of game we prefer the defender to be marked only on the map. In bigger games this adds uncertainty. Moving markers help but at the expence of the defender. You pays your money and takes your choice.

UshCha:

What do you mean "this adds uncertainty. Moving markers help but at the expense of the defender. You pays your money and takes your choice"?

If you have defenders marked you already have already defined where the defender is not. You know he is only in the position of some of the markers so the level of uncertainty is already reduced for the defender. For instance if there are two choke points you would have to have at least 4 makers for each unit so that he would be uncertain about where units were and which choke point was defended. We found this level of markers slowed the game too much. Again its personal preference.

I perhaps should add although we often play at the size of a company it's often a probe type of game as they tell a really good story. So for instance a company may be told to clear a road in say 10 bounds (about say 1 1/2 hrs) of game time. The road would be round most of an 8 by 6 ft table at 1/72 scale with a divider across to stop too many short cuts. Typicaly there may be two obvious choke points and a couple of lesser points that may be use able.