"Can simulated fog of war replace dice?" Topic

Looking forward to seeing your rules.

You showed two studies, of many. Where are the studies from the ancients era you are gaming? Your statement is an inditement of a generation, contrary to my observations of the soldiers I work with.

I would suggest that the exact influences you are averaging out are the most critical of the battle…these are the 1d6 results. Moving my light infantry through the broken ground to flank the enemy heavy infantry: Roll a 1, did not find a good path, ineffective attack. Roll a 6, path took us to their flank for a successful attack.

Tanker11:

Looking forward to seeing your rules.

I put up a summary of them soon. Ta for the interest. :-)

You showed two studies, of many. Where are the studies from the ancients era you are gaming? Your statement is an inditement of a generation, contrary to my observations of the soldiers I work with.

I'm not going to point a finger at any individuals. All I know, and it's a sure fact, is that mental stability has been decreasing over the past few decades. Pretty much every study shows that. That doesn't mean everybody out there is turning into a looney tune, just that things like depression are on the rise. If they are on the rise then they were less in the past. And I'll leave it at that. Certainly, the nature of modern warfare is a far more potent factor in driving a soldier over the edge. A 152mm howitzer shell has a kill radius of 50m against anyone in the open and trenches offer only partial protection. The Russians fire several tens of thousands of them each day. Living under that, waiting to die from one moment to the next, is something I don't want to contemplate. It is certainly something no soldier in Antiquity had any experience of.

I would suggest that the exact influences you are averaging out are the most critical of the battle…these are the 1d6 results. Moving my light infantry through the broken ground to flank the enemy heavy infantry: Roll a 1, did not find a good path, ineffective attack. Roll a 6, path took us to their flank for a successful attack.

OK, taking your example, your LI are advancing in open order across a fairly broad front but are not so spaced out they can't find a path if one is there. So in non-diceland the terrain piece has a path or it doesn't. This is concealed from the player, e.g. one side of the terrain piece shows broken ground. When the player's LI moves onto it the piece is flipped over, showing a path if it has one. So fog of war rather than random chance.

With the path example (fog of air)….if it is concealed from the player (players?) how is it determined? Does the game use an umpire?

I don't object to this concept of determining the terrain at the time a unit encounters it. Actually makes scouting/recon important.

With the path example (fog of air)….if it is concealed from the player (players?) how is it determined? Does the game use an umpire?

Assemble a collection of broken ground terrain pieces, say 3 or 4. One of them has a path on the reverse side. Shuffle them together and randomly choose one. Put that terrain piece on the table. When a unit moves adjacent to the piece turn aforesaid piece over. And there you are. :-)

Not having read through all things written here (ahem) – the idea (especially) like in Stratego I believe is the basis for the rules "Arcane Warfare Excel 10" by Jerboa. Did someone here mention them?

@Decebalus:

There is the boardgame Stratego, that only uses Fog of war, but absolutely no chance to have a battle. It surely is no simulation, but it would be possible to use some of its mechanisms for a miniature wargame. Maybe that is, what Bolingar has in mind.

I had a look at Stratego. Clever game. The combat mechanism in my own system is somewhat different though. I'll be posting on it.

@Olivero:

Not having read through all things written here (ahem) – the idea (especially) like in Stratego I believe is the basis for the rules "Arcane Warfare Excel 10" by Jerboa. Did someone here mention them?

From what I've seen this system uses dice. See here

I completely disagree with Bolingar's casual comment about gamers being masochists as a way of explaining the attachment to dice. I think the better explanation is that gamers appreciate the multifaceted complexity of warfare and the inability of commanding generals to account for all the facts necessary to make good decisions. The dice produce this level uncertainty at a minimal game cost. At its get close to heart of comments by Caesar and Napoleon that better a lucky general than a skillful one. At the same time, both of the above I believe would have also agreed that the skillful general is the one who creates the right conditions for luck.

Perhaps I'm mathematically challenged, but surely there is literally no difference at all between:

"shuffling 4 terrain pieces, one of which has a path marked on the back, and put one of the 4 down at random, flipping it when a unit moves i to it"

And

"Have one terrain piece, roll a d4 when a unit enters it, on a roll of 4 there's a path…"

(Apart from if you are a terrain maker by trade, in which case the first option is vastly presentable 🤣🤣)

That is great question madaxeman. What is the difference in Bolinger's understanding between the two scenarios you presented because like you I don't see any.

I finally got round to posting an overview of Optio here. Comments welcome. Comments like "you need to add more dice" tolerated.

Perhaps I'm mathematically challenged, but surely there is literally no difference at all between:

"shuffling 4 terrain pieces, one of which has a path marked on the back, and put one of the 4 down at random, flipping it when a unit moves i to it"

And

"Have one terrain piece, roll a d4 when a unit enters it, on a roll of 4 there's a path…"

Yes, yes, I know. I thought the same myself. Here's an idea for not making it six of one and half a dozen of the other: draw up two terrain battlemaps (or a collection of two battlemaps as part of a campaign). The first has only the easily visible terrain features, like hills, forest, the existence of a river, etc. The second adds all those terrain features you only discover by moving onto them, like fords, a path through forest (or dense forest), hidden ditches, etc. At deployment each player sees only the first map and puts down the terrain for that. When moving onto a piece of terrain a player consults the second map and see what surprise he is in for. In some cases allow one player (e.g. defending player on his home ground) to see both maps and deploy accordingly.

More fun than just throwing dice for it, no?

Edit: if you have a good friend get him to draw up the second map for you, like a dungeon master, so you and your opponent are both initially in the dark. Not difficult: he just adds the goodies or the nasties to a copy of the first map which is already drawn up. Don't forget to bribe your friend.

I completely disagree with Bolingar's casual comment about gamers being masochists as a way of explaining the attachment to dice.

It was what is known as a jocundly observational kinetic expression. I tend to do it rather often, true. (:-(

"More fun than just throwing dice for it, no?"

Well… not really.

Your suggestion involves vastly more work in advance, some of which will prove to be irrelevant, pretty much requires an independent umpire prepared to do all of that work, and from the players subjective viewpoint the experience is literally exactly the same, in that you will still only discover what a piece of terrain is actually like when your troops walk into it.

Even the probability of finding out what each piece of terrain is actually like is the same.

It's just lots more work for the exact same outcome and in game experience.

Your suggestion involves vastly more work in advance, some of which will prove to be irrelevant, pretty much requires an independent umpire prepared to do all of that work, and from the players subjective viewpoint the experience is literally exactly the same, in that you will still only discover what a piece of terrain is actually like when your troops walk into it.

Even the probability of finding out what each piece of terrain is actually like is the same.

It's just lots more work for the exact same outcome and in game experience.

Maybe. It would be an idea to try it out and see if it's really that bad. BTW in my own system there is a terrain pre-game that involves operational-level maps already drawn up – admittedly not with hidden terrain features. OK maybe dice are the way to go with this.

"shuffling 4 terrain pieces, one of which has a path marked on the back, and put one of the 4 down at random, flipping it when a unit moves i to it"

There is also the factor that (after one or more games) players will recognize the differences between the terrain pieces and figure out which is which (and adjust their strategy/tactics to suit.) Better to randomize with dice, because I don't think it will work too well to draw the terrain from a bag or hat… ;-)

"shuffling 4 terrain pieces, one of which has a path marked on the back, and put one of the 4 down at random, flipping it when a unit moves i to it"

There is also the factor that (after one or more games) players will recognize the differences between the terrain pieces and figure out which is which (and adjust their strategy/tactics to suit.) Better to randomize with dice, because I don't think it will work too well to draw the terrain from a bag or hat… ;-)

Sure. It would have to be done with maps. I still like the idea of one player being able to know hidden terrain features whilst the other doesn't – e.g. Wellington knowing at Waterloo that the woods behind him didn't have undergrowth and would not impede a retreat if necessary. But as madaxman points out it is difficult to model unless a whole bunch of battlemaps are created beforehand (by the game designer?) with visible and hidden terrain. But how does one prevent players from sneaking a peek at the hidden terrain map beforehand? Yeah, maybe just go with dice or no hidden terrain at all. Not all that satisfactory either way.

Sometimes you have to settle for the barely good enough and resort to dice, what can I say?

BTW there was a poll on the SoA forum about hidden units and terrain. Might be of interest.

Bolingar – So accoring to you setting up a map pre game is too much work. Should it not be meis saying that, me who does not spend endless hours painting. To the endless hours painter a few minuites on a computor drawing maps should be a mere nothing. Practicaly print maps of your terrain pieces on cards with the options fpr blank or perhaps even doiffrent track configurations. Thatr should not tax even a painter. Draw a card for defender so he knows whats there, but don't mark it out. As the the random ford, random positioning without reference to the overall geology of the ground can abnd does make some non credidle solution. Fords positions are not dependent on a single independant variable in the real world, again die have there uses but they are not by any meand a good solution to fog of war in many cases.

Bolingar – So accoring to you setting up a map pre game is too much work. Should it not be meis saying that, me who does not spend endless hours painting. To the endless hours painter a few minuites on a computor drawing maps should be a mere nothing. Practicaly print maps of your terrain pieces on cards with the options fpr blank or perhaps even doiffrent track configurations. Thatr should not tax even a painter. Draw a card for defender so he knows whats there, but don't mark it out. As the the random ford, random positioning without reference to the overall geology of the ground can abnd does make some non credidle solution. Fords positions are not dependent on a single independant variable in the real world, again die have there uses but they are not by any meand a good solution to fog of war in many cases.

I got most of this. So you're saying make hidden terrain features depend on what is geographically probable? Thus players can guess there should be a ford there rather than there and the odds are they'll be right?

I admire your pluck Bolingar! And your willingness to single handedly take on a whole swath of posters. So good for you. I do see your point. It really comes down to a cost/benefit analysis for me.

Thanks Marcus. :-) one thing about having a hidden ford somewhere on the river as opposed to dicing for one: with a hidden ford you know there's one ford to be found, whereas with dice you may discover one ford, no ford or several fords. Not quite the same thing.

Interesting discussion. However, regarding terrain, aren't there maps, locals who know the area, recon before a battle, etc. that would allow players to know where specific important terrain features are?

Water levels can drop exposing new fords too.

Of course, maps and intel can always be wrong.

Just because you know a ford exists does not mean it will be usable. The water level may be too high or temporarily washed out, certain types of units like horses and vehicles may not be able to cross or there may be engineering prep time to make it affordable.

What kind of a commander will be confronted with terrain obstacles without any knowledge whatsoever? I'd shoot my recon commander.

Wolfhag

Again in the real world many of the command variables are not completely independent as wolfhag points out. Some level of uncertainty is reasonable but not any level. If a ford was vital to an attack in whatever period it would be suicide and utter incompetence to launch such an attack without a good idea where and if a ford exists. Now it may be that the exact whereabouts may be a bit of an issue but that it is somewhere in the region where it is useful may be key to a tactical plan.

From a game standpoint say the die rolling went completely against the player. This could end up in a game that went out of the set of interesting games and just becomes an utter waste of both sides time. Some of Charles Grants scenario books were very poor because of this type of effect. basically the books were a waste, far to random to guarantee a good game.

Interesting article here by Rachael Simmons, designer of Napoleon's Triumph and Bonaparte at Marengo, on what chance in wargaming represents. The article unfortunately doesn't go into whether chance represents it adequately (her games BTW are diceless).

After my own heart.

Bolingar, intersting link but as you say outlines some of the issues but than does not address solutions. His chance as a variable in repeated games does seem to me to be off. Very quickly chance can take a game out of th set of interesting games.

This is self evident in Gharkles Grants wargame scenarios, many chance varied games become pointless, booring games. Some WW2 scenario games where the forec is varied slightly does give some variety but generall do not force a major change of plan, They keep within the set of interesting games but the secenario does not vary much so not endless re-playability.

one thing about having a hidden ford somewhere on the river as opposed to dicing for one: with a hidden ford you know there's one ford to be found, whereas with dice you may discover one ford, no ford or several fords. Not quite the same thing.

I think you've layed out the disagreement quite well in your comment above. My question is how does the commander know in advance that there is one ford and only one ford to be found? If we are representing large clashes and major battles the commanding general is removed from the kind of low level knowledge of the sort that you are describing. Your method presumes a "god" like omniscience to the player that I think moves us further away from the kind of simulation talk that began this topic. Dice, for all its problems, keeps the contingent nature of the battle front and centre.

And you do realize that TtS has its own random system using cards in place of dice and prearranged squares for movement that bring their own set of problems. So the poster is misleading.

My question is how does the commander know in advance that there is one ford and only one ford to be found?

Thinking about it, I feel that either you use dice for a ford or some unknown terrain feature, or you use something like Berthier to create maps with hidden terrain features that appear only when you physically move a unit on them – but then you're trying to combine a PC game with a tabletop game.

OK, in the absence of anything more practical, go with dicing for fords and the like, or just have them on the table from the get-go.

Re one ford or several, one could dice for a ford. If one appears (i.e. you throw a 6 or whatever is required) there are no additional fords for the rest of the game. That should do it.

@Bolingar regarding Arcane Warfare Excel

Not having read through all things written here (ahem) – the idea (especially) like in Stratego I believe is the basis for the rules "Arcane Warfare Excel 10" by Jerboa. Did someone here mention them?

From what I've seen this system uses dice. See here

That is an old version – diceless version is number 10, see here link

That is an old version – diceless version is number 10, see here link

Ah!

Really interesting discussion. While I see the appeal of Bolingar's proposal (well, more that a proposal since it's in his actual system), I think there are simply too many variables to account for everything, and, what's more, a general, or even a local commander, could not be adequately aware of even te main ones to accurately predict an outcome. Dice allow for the unknown. Having said that, there are certainly games that place more weight on randomness, eg using a d10 or bigger, while others use an average dice 2,3,3,4,4,5, or even what Bruce Quarrie called a "fire dice 1,1,2,2,3,3. Too much random chance is frustrating, a bit can make for a great narrative. I've lost a whole game on on a 6/1 split before (DBM, I should have won, destroyed the element and broken his command and army. Instead he did it to me – frustrating but it didn't kill me. I'm still here to tell the tale. Another that I remember was between my brother and a friend – 1st ed WRG WWII. 17 panthers in a beaten zone of off table Soviet 203mm Howitzers. 1/18 chance of any one vehicle being destroyed. All 17 gone in one bound!

However, there are advantages to dice. The ancient period is replete with examples of unpredictable outcomes; commanders, both attacker and defender, having incomplete knowledge of terrain, broken ground having an unexpected effect, weather effects, a flank march arriving early or, more commonly, late or not at all.

Even straight up combat didn't always occur consistently along a line, yet there is often no reference in our sources to the bit that did well having been elite.

So I ultimately fall on the side of having a random factor and living with the outcome. Which is not to say I wouldn't enjoy a game that didn't use it.

Does anyone here remember the Fletcher Pratt naval rules. You had a complex system of calculating a ship's 'points', which was its damage potential. Guns dished out damage based on calibre (shell weight I think), and players estimated range at the target before placing shot fall template. Completely flawed I suppose on the 'realism' front, but I remember a lot of fun being had! No dice that I recall.

Cheers,
John

Fletcher Prat rules, hopeless if you play a man who can guess ranges to within milometers even 1 to 2 meters away. Dice less has its merits in many things but replaced by range guessing is not one I would even consider based on experience.

Erzherzog Johann that's 4.6 *10^-20 % in aircraft terms that's well past extremely improbable. More like a duff die.

UshCha, I played a lot of very enjoyable Fletcher Pratt games. Range estimation just needs a little regular practice. Also it's better played on a larger scale floor so you're estimating from 10 metres away, but alternately use binoculars backwards. If you want to be really sharp you can make your own rangefinder.

@Erzherzog Johann

I think there are simply too many variables to account for everything, and, what's more, a general, or even a local commander, could not be adequately aware of even the main ones to accurately predict an outcome.

My point is that you don't need dice to represent this.

Too many variables
Variables divide into those that have a significant affect on combat outcome and those that don't. A lot of variables in a unit tend to average out (just like throwing 100 x D6 will tend to give an average throw of 3,5). Hence these don't significantly alter combat outcomes which can be represented as a fixed factor.

Those factors that do significantly affect combat outcome are few and IMHO can all be represented as modifiers of a basic combat factor, at least enough to create a reasonable verisimilitude of actual combat.

Could not be adequately aware of even the main ones to accurately predict an outcome
This is fog of war and can be represented by actual fog of war or by the impossibility of calculating any distance ahead the outcome of combats: whether this batch of units will win out against that batch.

Item #1 is not what dice are commonly modeling. They reflect the history of units in fact not having perfectly consistent performance set in stone over a day (or any other arbitrary period). Whence came the misconception either about games or about reality is baffling!

The combat value hidden even from the controlling player prior to engagement goes back to Panzergruppe Guderian by James F. Dunnigan (1976, SPI). That design still employed a dice vector into a CRT, and the untried unit strength "black box" has itself been criticized as too random.

Certainly from a game perspective, having more dependent on a single piece of luck — rather than multiple chances that in the aggregate more precisely approximate the mean the greater their number — is a shift of _more_ from skill to luck!

Napoleon's Triumph entails no dice or equivalent but depends entirely on a single-blind system a la Stratego. The combat resolution is more complicated than in predecessor Bonaparte at Marengo, not the effective randomness of "Scissors, Paper, Rock, Shotgun" because there are trade-offs that make live choices.

Item #2 is a point on which I agree; it may work as design for effect, but the process from period to period can still seem awkward — to gamers as well as to simulators — compared with a system of distributing a more set budget of resources.

I'd say what's really being abstracted is the time it takes firstly for information to work its way up the chain of command; secondly to write orders; and finally for new orders to make their way down to the lowest level units involved (and any preparatory evolutions to be completed).

Especially without actual players in the roles of sub-commanders, I think it's often worthwhile to throw in probabilities of delay or loss of communication, or of misunderstanding (e.g., the Charge of the Light Brigade).

H.G. Wells in his Little Wars tested the players' own marksmanship with toy cannot shooting actual projectiles at the figurines! Others have done something similar by adjusting anti-tank weapon effectiveness based upon how accurately the attacking player estimates the on-table range.

Such dependence on player skill is of course not a realistic simulation of what would in the event not depend on a higher level commander's adroitness, but would be governed by the expertise of the soldiers and the quality of their equipment.

A bit late to the party, but will chime in with my thoughts.
It occurs to me we are not talking about fog of war here, but what has been called friction. Those things that depart from the expected norm present in all warfare. Unit A fails to advance as far as unit B across what appears to be the same terrain for whatever reason. Unit C's fire is more devastating than expected causing unit D to break before contact.
There are certain situations in war which seem tailor made for dice resolution.
(1) A good example is armour penetration. Now it would be possible to calculate it exactly if you had the muzzle velocity of the shell, exact distance to target, exact angle the shell struck the armour, exact armour characteristics of the strike point (how thick is it? Has it been weakened by a previous strike?). However that is impossible to know in advance, but if you take the results over a large number of strikes it shows the classic bell shaped curve. Most shells will penetrate around the expected norm, but a few will under or over perform. Using dice rolls with a bell shaped probability curve as a modifier to a base penetration simulates this nicely. Now you may say this only applies to modern warfare, but it also applies to arrows and edged weapons on armoured targets in ancient times. You could argue that because of the numbers involved it will average out and you can treat it as a fixed factor, but I would suggest that is not accurate. A similar probability curve will affect the number of hits scored, some will miss completely or hit shields and have no effect. Some hits will fail to penetrate causing no loss. While it is unlikely you will get no losses or every arrow striking home there are times when there will results significantly above or below the average. Such things can significantly affect the outcome of a battle.
(2) Chance events. I am thinking of things like the breaking of 2 French square by the KGL in Spain (if my memory serves me correctly, I am sure a Napoloeinic buff will correct me if I get it wrong). The first square broke because a dying horse flattened a section of the square allowing the KGL inside where they completed its destruction. The second square broke when charged after seeing the first disintegrate. The initial square breaking I would suggest is pure chance. So some sort of random way of generating such seems the best way. Now you may say that is such a slim chance that to include it is not necessary, but there are so many slim chances across the whole gamut of warfare that it is likely some will occur on a regular basis. The second square breaking you could resolve in a deterministic way, by a modifier that means the square will break if charged. Again I would argue that is unrealistic as there are occasions it will break and occasions it will stand and the factors that will determine that are not known in advance, while accepting that there are factors that will make it more or less likely they will stand. Better quality units more likely to stand. Fatigued units more likely to break, or maybe not. Maybe there are too tired to run and stand and accept their fate in a fatalistic manner. The point remains whether they stand or break is not a deterministic thing.
Final point there has been mention of a units performance on a given day being fixed once it is determined if they are having a good day or not. Again that seems unrealistic to me. A units performance will vary throughout a battle due to things like fatigue, morale, casualties. There is good evidence across history that units will eventually be spent having used up their store of courage, stamina and resolve for the day, but after rest, food and maybe a pep talk from the officers will be ready to face battle again. However even across the course of a battle a units performance will vary depending on fatigue, whether they are successful or not, how many casualties they have taken. Now you can track this deterministically, but it is a lot of things to consider and you have to decide things like how many turns of rest reduce fatigue and by how much. How long does the elation of winning a fight last before the fatigue from the combat and subsequent movement causes it to wear off.
If your system does address these issues I would be very interested to see how it works. Good luck! :-)