"Fog of War in Miniatures Games" Topic

My biggest issue with every ww2 wargame I have played is the lack of fog of war. WW2 real life tactics don't work at all without it.

No tanker in his right mind would ever drive within range of a panzerfaust..

My solution is to use an app on my and my opponent's phone or tablet to track unit locations and line of sight. Obviously this requires using a hex grid but that is already a normal part of some miniatures games. The app shows me what I enemies I see without alerting my opponent that they are visible. As soon as I get my hex grid made I can finally carry out a real ambush from a concealed position.

The main downside is that until every unit is revealed..i have to move every unit in the app. I'm not sure how annoying this will be.

Is anyone else interested in this system?
I feel like it would bring a whole new level of realism and tactics to company level games. Scouting with light vehicles before assaulting would actually be a smart move. Armor can have observation penalties and be vulnerable without infantry support.

Thoughts?

Did it once, a very long time ago, with large sheets of cotton. Both sides got to look at the map board, and plan. Then attacker was sent out of the room, defender setup and large sheets of cotton put down over his setup. As the attacker moved forward, parts of the cotton was removed to reveal where that defender had set up.

Granted it was crude, and once revealed, everyone could see what was revealed, which was a bit unrealistic, but it was fun, and suspenseful. Although the attacker got into a "must see what is all hidden on the board mindset" and didn't focus on victory conditions. And yes I was the attacker. (Lost)

I thought about a similar kind of app. My idea was this: divide the table in to hexes or a grid. Assign each a heighth. It's a "play and pass" concept. You mark all your locations and moves. Then hit "done." Player 2 does so, then player 3 etc.

After all moves the app calculates LOS and then you gives a list of what units are where.

But in the end I find the use of hidden unit markers with dummies works every bit as well and is far less fiddly,

I entirely agree that fog of war is a sorely missed element in most games. The home brew rules I've been working on integrate hidden movement into the basic mechanics. The hidden movement part works by using a unit marker on the table that acts as the general center of gravity of a group of forces it represents. Actual figures and vehicles are placed on the table as they reveal themselves through shooting or moving in the open. They can also go back into hiding if they are in appropriate cover. The unit marker also acts as a proxy location for observing enemy units and artillery spotting. It turns out there are quite a lot of things that need to be considered such as what happens when two hidden units approach each other inside a forest! :)

I'd like to try having the defender pick different areas he wants to defend; a village, farmstead, wooded/rocky area, road intersection, hill, etc.

I'd have the defender put his troops into battle groups (ie. Inf co w/attached ATG ptn), assign each group a number and then put that number on a piece of paper. The defender would then place them on the area he wants them to defend (some numbers could be empty).

Once the attackers in range of an area I'd give the defender 30-90 seconds to put his force down (any not placed in time taken away and put in reserve).

Just my own personal thoughts on the subject. I think this would work best either solo or with everyone (but one) playing offense.

It has been my experience on multiple occasions that hidden movement and hidden positions COMPLETELY transform the gaming experience (for the better IMO). What surprised me the most was the psychological effect it had upon certain players. I watched as one individual, known for being an extremely aggressive player, became paralyzed by hesitancy and uncertainty when facing an opponent whose forces were occupying hidden tabletop positions.

One example which might provide some inspiration -

Double Blind Battle of the Bulge
This was, strictly speaking, a board game rather than a miniatures game, but the basic scheme may be applicable (I've seen some skirmish games done at HCon in a similar manner). Both sides were segregated in separate rooms,each with its own game board and counters. A two-man referee team occupied a third room with the master game board and counters. Both sides were provided with a generous supply of photocopies of each sub-section of the game board. Neither side had any idea of opponent unit locations unless they had a friendly unit in an adjacent hex. Each side would plot one turn's worth of movement and/or attacks upon a photocopy of the relevant game board section(s) andturn them over to the referees. The referees would retire to "master control", execute unit movement, resolve any attacks resulting from units moving into (or starting a turn in) a hex adjacent to an enemy. The photocopy sheets would be updated with results and returned to each side for them to update their respective boards.

To add a bit of uncertainty on the Allied side, the Germans were secretly provided with six "Skorzeny commando teams" which could be secretly positioned anywhere on the Allied aide of the game board. Whenever a moving Allied unit attempted to enter a hex occupied by such a unit, it threw a D6: a score of 1-5 resulted in the immediate removal of the German team from play with Allied movement completed as per normal; a score of 6 caused Allied movement to end on the hex of encounter and the German team being removed from play. Only one German team had any effect upon play, but it did influence events.

The game played slower than a conventional face to face game. A fair amount of time was to be sure consumed with referee house-keeping; but a good deal of time was also spent in intense command conferences among the members of the opposing teams trying to gain insights into their opponent's intentions. All in all, we were able to get the game done in a single Saturday session.

FWIW.

B

Here is a system I've used but it's still a WIP. It uses markers to show where a unit is located. However, the unit is not where the marker is, it's offset a distance and direction from the marker. You can also have deception markers that do not refer to a unit. You don't need a marker for each vehicle but you can or just use one for a platoon or squad.

link

During movement, you can move the marker in a different direction than the unit is really moving by changing the offset distance or direction from the marker. A marker may be in the enemy LOS but not a LOS to the enemy.

Before the game, you can have a recon phase. The side with the better recon can get more deception markers. There are many ways you can bluff your opponent. You'll have to use recon units to sniff out the enemy and play some cat and mouse.

Wolfhag

Hello all, just got done with my 3 day wait period on the forum. Thank you for the responses, it seems there are a lot of innovative ways to do fog of war. But I think there are flaws with every version that does't use either referees or an software system.

Theron, that sounds very interesting but how do you know if you brushed up against the enemy when you both only know where the enemy's center is?

Catavar, I thought about using that system but I also want the attacking player to be able to do flank attacks outside of LoS.

Blutarski, your system sounds like it has the intended effect, and I would definitely enjoy a game like that but I don't have enough dedicated friends to be refs! haha.

My app will basically be handling the referees, the nice thing is that since each player will have it on their phone, they won't need to leave the room or pass a device back and forth. They can chat while playing the game but there is still the suspense that every time you round a bend, there could be a AT gun waiting for you.

The only cautionary I would add is that most scenarios don't give enough time for reconnaissance. Just as surprise was a big part of WWII tactics, so was constant patrolling and intelligence gathering, building up a picture of the enemy in front of you. Unless you specifically want to game where both sides are totally blind going into a situation, you either need to add to your system a method by which intelligence gathering is factored in, or you need to allow time for reconnaissance. The former could be where, once both sides have plotted their starting positions, certain information is given to both players (a recon plane saw tank tracks leading into this woods; we received machine gun from this village; there is the start of a minefield here etc. Not actual positions necessarily but what are called combat indicators). A portion can be wrong or out of date. Enough to build an initial plan

Mgk4167, I'm interested how necessary this would be for company level engagements. I would think there would be plenty of skirmishes over inconsequential villages and farmland where company level intelligence is limited to what the front platoon's scouts are seeing firsthand. Thoughts?

I was actually thinking of having a simple mechanic before set up where you draw a card that determines whether you set up deployed or not. If both players draw attack cards, it's a meeting engagement. There would only be one defend card. You would have to decide your own pace of advance not knowing if the enemy is also moving or they are waiting in ambush.

We have two levels of play, Blutarski is correct for some players dummy and real markers are more than sufficent and they can be unable to play with and empty battlefield the problem is too complex for them cope with.

When we the authors play and its a serious game we use a map for the defender (very easy and accurate with Hexon II) and he uses common sence to move if he is hidden. The attackers is almost always put out but generally he is easier to spot anyway and makes for a fast game. Recon then becomes essential.

Gauntley I wish you well with yor app but Its not for me. We have toyed with this uption but never reall found it worth the effort.

In some games we have forced tha attacket to define his path before the game stats and not allow him to deviate untill he has spotted somthing. It does work but to be honest its better for begginners who have no clue what path to take. Advanced players will have in their head where it is and how they will progress untill they spot somting. One foot on the ground is virtal.

Perhaps a bit mean to plug, but our own rules, with a much wider reange of movment styles makes recon faster, but again at the cost of a more thought required by the players.

We have tried moving a marker not an actual model for the attacker. While this works for players lacking understanding of real tactics, to a good player the distribution makes it obvious roughly what is coming. Addopting the wrong formation to fool the enemy is almoast always a disaster as the wrong formation is bad news.

Group markings dont work as it makes is very difficult as formations change for instance passing a gap. how close will a tank come to a hiden infantry element?

We have tried Wolfhag type offsett system but for us it makes calculation of LOS way to hard, and to us gave us insufficent advantge.

Like with dummy markers there are only so many places it is sensible to place a unit, begginers don't understand this. Therfore you rule out in your head those markers that are no threat. This is usefull as unlimited dummy markers, which hinder the game if you are not carefull, really don't "earn their keep" in tems of best simulation vs time taken. If one you ignored is real its no matter by definition its in the wrong place and hence can be dealt with summarly at minimal cost.

Even with total hidden units its easy to work out, like the real world, which is the threatening terrain and only scout that.

Guantlet, I wish you well but for me I personally consider it to be too much of a time overhead for the gain but I am willing to be proved wrong.

An afterthought that may also apoply to you Gauntlet.

While we have not made the Dummy Markers any bigger in the Covid 19 delayed issue 2 for artistic reasons and they are not too bad. The size of the markers is important again for beginners. They tend to place the marker with a view to its size and not the size of the element(s) its dipicting. When it comes to replacing the marker with the real element it can prove to be an issue that forces unrealistic deployments which can result in a less enjoyable game.

This would be equally so for any virtual placement in a software system like Guantlets.

Interesting topic this thankyou.

UshCha,

Thank you for your thoughts. If it wasn't clear, my table is completely covered in 2" hexagons, much like hexon, the placement of spotted troops will be exact. I think it will be a lot less overhead than dummy markers because you don't need to move dummy markers around or even think about where they should be. My table is about 35 x 50 hexes. Good luck scouting every inch of forest in an Ardennes map for example, attackers will probably be mainly be sending infantry along the attack routes of armor to prevent AT ambushes.

"Theron, that sounds very interesting but how do you know if you brushed up against the enemy when you both only know where the enemy's center is?"

I had to come up with a special ambush rule that allows the non-active player to interrupt the active player when they get too close to a unit marker. otherwise they're sitting ducks for overrun when hidden :)

Regarding your app I wonder if using fewer, bigger hexes might be a good idea? It might reduce the amount of maneuvering while hidden thus keeping app time to a smaller part of the game as well as allowing more space for deployment. My theory is that hidden movement brings so much to the game that you can afford to simplify other aspects yet still have a satisfying experience.

Theron,

I completely agree that adding fog of war adds enough tactics to the game that I can simplify some other areas. However I don't want to go larger than 2" hexes because I don't really want multiple tanks sharing hexes and I want a few different "lanes" available through whatever terrain the map consists of.

Instead, I'm leaving out command and control and morale. I feel like command and control is slightly less necessary because the player doesn't have full information. I've also made the combat fairly simple rolls.

When I started putting the rules together there were 2 core components that I want to work well (hidden movement & suppressive fire). I feel like this is enough to encourage realistic tactics in a company level game.

Using some form or "random events" cards or charts, etc. also adds to the Fog of War effect …

Legion 4, any suggestions?

I will do some kind of force customization so you don't actually know what you are facing until you see them.

Well have some way to "activate" the event(s). E.g.:

Based on the points of forces on each side you may get a number of random events cards. E.g. 2000 pts. = 2 cards. That each player may use. When he sees fit. The Cards could effect one of the forces or both.

Or both sides roll 2d6 at the beginning of each turn, and consult a chart. Sometimes you get No Effect … sometimes you get an event that again may effect your forces.

Another way is to have random mission generator. Each side is assigned a list of missions. One for the defender, one for the Attacker.

Missions are randomly selected in secret, neither side know the other's mission and Victory Conditions. This randomly chosen mission is put aside and keel it secret.

The random mission may increase or decrease your total battle force levels or keep it the same. Give you additional deployment/set up instructions. Again this is all kept in secret. As the game progresses each side must keep in mind the Victory Conditions.

To claim victory you must obtain those Vic Conditions and show your opponent your randomly selected mission.

Even throw in Random Events Cards or Charts … you will have the Fog of War …