I wander if any of you, has experimented with Fog of War in this serie and how it worked out.
From one side, I think is must add quite a bit of complexity, on other hand, the lack of it, seems to me, a real pity. When I read the historical account, of those campaigns, they are full of events, based on it and that determined, quite a lot, the historical outcomes.

Views: 638

Replies to This Discussion

I think you'll be pleased when Battle Above the Clouds comes out .... but that's all I'm sayin!
Camon, give me some fuel for my wargaming fantasies :)

On other hand, I'm working on a personal project to implement them where the umpire role is managed by a web application and online players will get info only when several conditions will be true. I also plan to add more FOW by variable army size, initial set up and victory conditions.

I would like to see players panicking like McLellan or one of his collegues were during ACW... but that's all I can saying...
Also because me neither knows it, as I'm still at a very initial development phase.
:))
Actually, I believe this series builds in a good deal of the "fog of war" in subtle but very effective ways. While you can see your opponents pieces on the map, you can't really know how far they can move or where they can end up by the end of a turn. You can't predict who is going to get to a specific location first, if there is any question at all about it. And the combat table is such that at 1:3 attack can be a bold success and a 5:1 attack a disastrous failure. One can also use the Force markers and the optional rule about keeping the composition of the Forces hidden. Put all this together and you get quite a bit of fog of war - in fact, so much fog I often find myself anxiously praying for a bit of sunshine!
I see your points Mark, I really do. However when I read historical accounts I have maybe on a more strategic level (not much more than GCACW one), the wish of playing a simulation where FOW aspects are deeper, but also not cumbersome to manage (like using force markers, dummies, etc..).
I think for example to the 1862 campaign that lead to the second Manassas, where 2 out of 3 rebs Corps manage to march almost unseen by Pope's army around its flank to show up on their rear.
I'm sure we can find several other similar examples.
I'm still working on my project (ACW played online mentioned in previous msg), unfortunately at a very slow pace. If and when I will be able to have a working beta, maybe I will be able to better illustrate my wishes on this topic.
Giorgio

If you do get to a working beta, I'd be more than glad to see it! I do understand your points, as well, and adding in some absolutely REAL recon functions for the cavalry, for example, would be great fun, if not a bit frightening!
The current game allows for the second battle of Manassas. This would be a series of rolls where the confed player wins and moves Jackson's Corp behind the Union line...this is very possible given that the confed player wins all tie rolls. This has happened in several games...of course there have been some where the Union player was able to counter too. Even the problems with finding Jackson's Corp can come up, due to the Union player rolling low, and also given the difference between avg movement rolls. The only thing I would change/clear up is the ability to know what is in a force. (Number of divisions/regiments could be one level and number of troops a second.)

There is an issue of The General, the old Avalon Hill wargame mag that has an article about Fog of War for use in the series of GCACW games. Patrick Hirtle wrote it I believe.  I have the mag but would need to dig it out.  I played in a multiplayer game using FOW.  It was a LOT of fun!  I have asked a few people if they'd like to play that way but the answer was always negative :(   Let me know if you'd like to play using the FOW rules...I can email them to you!

Just noticed this is an old thread...too bad :(

Was that where you use the "Force" counters for a stack of units and they can only be revealed by examination by Cavalry. I'd be interested in reading rules and maybe playing a scenario with them.
That's the one.  My email: wolfslair9@yahoo.com.  Email me for the rules.  I should be able to scan them.  Give me your email and I will send it.

Please send a copy to me too.

giorgio.clavelli@gmail.com

 

Thanks

Thanks for the scans Chuck
Thanks. Either of you guys interested in playing?

RSS

Help Center

Latest Activity

Nathan posted a video

Series Comparison: La Bataille [Regs XXX and ML] versus BAR

Series Comparison: La Bataille [Regs XXX and ML] versus BAR
18 hours ago
Scott Martin left a comment for Eric Walters
"Howdy back.  Seems to be a lot of Eric Walters in the USMC.  I knew one in my Game Club…"
yesterday
Eric Walters left a comment for Scott Martin
"Howdy, Scott!  Welcome to the CONSIMWORLD Social Website!  Am also a retired Marine, but…"
yesterday
Scott Martin is now a member of ConsimWorld
yesterday
Nathan posted a video

The Battle of Fontenoy [(3 - Final) Report Three - 1pm to 3pm - FRENCH VICTORY!]

The Battle of Fontenoy: 11 May, 1745 [Clash of Arms Games 2012] [Report Three [FINAL] 1pm to 3pm] Designers: Paul Dangel, Mathew Hinkle Series: Battles from ...
Monday
Jo Bader commented on Jo Bader's group Second Front
" "
Sunday
Jo Bader commented on Jo Bader's group Second Front
Sunday
Joseph replied to John Kranz's discussion What are you playing?
"Played at Monstercon: GMT's "U.S. Civil War" (aka:CSA's Revolutionary War of…"
Saturday

Events

Members

CSW Related Links

Please be sure to check-out these CSW services.

© 2019   Created by John Kranz.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service