Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I'm talking to my opponent on the phone and he is very aware of my artillery destroying a bridge when his units are <b><font color="orange"><i>at best</i></font id="orange"></b> <font color="red"><b>20 kilometers</b></font id="red"> away on the map! He knows exactly what bridge is being shot at and exactly how much damage it is taking each turn because a window pops up telling him this information.

Should I repair a bridge, all he has to do is click on the hex with the bridge to tell how much I've repaired it as well.

<i><font color="orange"><b>And this is all with Fog of War checked.</b></font id="orange"></i>

With all due respect, this situation should not be. I can imagine a commander hearing some muffled cannon shot some distance away with the wind blowing in the right direction, but he really should not know where exactly it is or how much damage is being done.

<b>Also, checking Line of Sight from</b> <font color="orange"><b><i>empty</i></b></font id="orange"> <b>hexes or even enemy units is exactly the same thing.</b>

These things are not historical nor are they even <i><b><font color="red">possible</font id="red"></b></i> without <i><font color="orange"><b>satellites.</b></font id="orange"></i> They are not Fog of War.

Its high time that they get changed.

Respectfully Yours,
Rick

PS. Vive 'lEmpereur



Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord

I've experienced exactly same problem at Eckmuhl

Generalissimo
Opolchenie Korpus
Russian Army

I agree that there are issues with teh way fog of war is currently implimented...

Now.. what solutions can be put into place ?

Monsieur le Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee
NWC Cabinet Member

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by John Corbin</i>

Now.. what solutions can be put into place ?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can't it be like the range command ? We could have a "view range" with a maximum of visible hex for each unit (i.e. no more than 30 or ... depending on well studied criteria ...)

<font color="orange">1e Luitenant Valère Bernard </font id="orange">
<font color="red">Anglo-Allied Administrative Adjutant</font id="red">
<font color="orange">Divisie Nederlandsche Kavallerie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
</font id="orange">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by John Corbin</i>
<br />I agree that there are issues with teh way fog of war is currently implimented...

Now.. what solutions can be put into place ?

Monsieur le Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee
NWC Cabinet Member
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm glad that you asked that Monsieur le Marechal. [:)]

Well, for one thing, I would eliminate entirely the satellite LOS ability. I would make it so you could only check LOS from your units and only your units.

Bridges would maybe have something like a question mark "?" (OR a destroyed bridge image) until one of <font color="orange"><b>your own</b></font id="orange"> units were able to recon it by actually looking at it (ie. having it within LOS.) Kind-of like how a victory hex works but your opponent would not see what you see ---until he recons it himself.

Gone would be the ability to click on a hex with a bridge to see what it's strength is if it is not in LOS. The bridge's attributes like those of any enemy unit would be hidden until you recon it.

Your opponent would not see any combat results from you firing your artillery at a bridge during a replay. They would remain hidden.

Victory flag hexes would operate in the same way with the scenario's initial flag setup being present until confirming that or seeing that it had been changed by actually looking at it.

I guess that means sending units and keeping them there to defend it (bridge or victory hex) ---like it was done historically.

Some of the esteemed game designing gods have to make these changes for a future patch. This is not anything any house rule can change.

Cheers,
Rick

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord

Rick,

To be entirely honest, one thing to remember is that the rate of available improvements is limited. In other words, there are not going to be any massive leaps or changes in the engine, but rather incremental things. That said, what I'm getting at is this:

"Do you consider this to be the single most vital change that needs to be made?"

It's possible to wish that the next game or patch has so many changes so that it's basically a new engine. That said, it's not going to happen. Thus, it is very important that we not only say "this should be fixed", but also "where does this rate?"

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

I would suggest writing John Tiller directly with this...coming from an "end user" goes a lot further than us designers constantly baggering him with changes.

Maréchal Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

FZM Freiherr Gary,
I understand completely what you are saying. Priorities <u>are</u> important. I also know that this is how its always been. Old habits die hard, eh?

The information that the engine supplies the player is unhistorical and impossible during the given time period. It supplies current information that any army (let alone the commander) didn't have for over 160 years into the future.

To me, historical correctness is the most important thing in our gaming and this issue has an effect of such fundamental importance that it strikes deep to the core of what we are doing when we game.

I truly appreciate the changes that have been made and I always look forward to those made in the future. They are a very good thing, but something just had to be said.

Respectfully Yours,
Rick

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i>
<br />I would suggest writing John Tiller directly with this...coming from an "end user" goes a lot further than us designers constantly baggering him with changes.

Maréchal Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale




<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Marechal Rich,

I've done exactly that. Thank you sir.

<font size="5"><font color="yellow"><b>To everyone,

I have referenced this topic in my email to John. If you any feelings about it, please make them known here. Hopefully John will read them and take them to heart.</b></font id="yellow"></font id="size5">

Gratefully Yours,
Rick
[:)]



Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord

One concern I do have is that where does this principal stop?

Should the details of local terrain also be hidden unless we can "see" them at the moment? This not would be in the least "unhistorical", because the finer points of terrain would be something that may not be realized until forces get there. To be historical, you'd have to have the sorts of major features like roads, bridges, towns, ridges and rivers always visible.

However, things like marsh hexes, woods, orchards, farms and the like would be the kind of thing you can "stumble" into (even streams).

I think that would be going too far. Of course, I'm not an absolute historical purist. I think there must be a balance between detail and playability.

Anyway, as long as Napoleon can control the movement of a single skirmisher 220 hexes away, the idea of realism in these games is a touch absurd in any case.

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />One concern I do have is that where does this principal stop?....

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

FZM Gary,
It stops with LOS from only your own units, bridges, and victory hexes -period.

As for Napoleon or Wellington or Blucher controlling skirmishers 220 hexes away, I see (us the players) as role playing. Role playing not just the army commander, but also the commanders at <font color="orange"><b>all</b></font id="orange"> levels. The army moves with one mind. Ours.

As for realism, only so much can be done with any turn based system and a more realistic LOS system certainly has to be one of them.

Cheers,
Rick

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord

While I think line of sight is excessive in these games and the bridge damage topic a candidate for a change, this would not be high on my list. If fact just the opposite is true, I think there ought to be more information avaialable about the enemy, even under FOW. My "data" is more from the ACW, but I assume it was true in the Napoleonic era. I also know that much of what I am asking for is available by looking at the scenario, but that does take some of the fun out of things.

First, while there clearly are exceptions, I think opposing commanders had more info about the overall enemy strength and location them we do. I think there ought to be a bit more detail, including manpower estimates, available in the sceanrio description and that info out to accessible during the game. Now for those who already know the battles in a lot of detail this would be redundant, but for those who are visiting the battlefields for the first time it would be useful eg I think the HPS game was the first time I ever heard of Eckmuhl. On the topic of bridges for example, in the Wagram scenarios I think I should know up front which ones have the chance of random bridge destruction due to floating logs.

Second, even under FOW,unit information and even some data about their qualtiy should be available when they are close. In the ACW and I assume Nap Wars, opposing commanders could id units well before small arms range and knew if the units were good, average, or poor. I think we should know this as well. Perhaps the way it would work is tat at some distance you would get the Division ID and the average quality of ratings in that divison, when they get adjacent you would get more detail.

Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commanding 71st Highlanders
Commandant, RMA

Bob,
Besides the bridge and victory flag problem, the kind of impossible information that I'm talking about is the information that comes from the ability to see from a hilltop without anyone ever going to the top of the hill. That and being able to see through the eyes of your enemy.

<font color="orange">That</font id="orange"> is what I meant by too much information and such is the kind of information that belongs only in the realm of <font color="red">science fiction</font id="red"> and not in the <font color="orange">Napoleonic Era.</font id="orange">

Cheers,
Rick

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord

I just want to report that John has fixed this FOW issue with bridge damage.

He says : Watch for this in the next update or new release.

Many thanks to him! [8D][8D][8D]

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord

It must be interesting this Fog of War. Sometimes it hide, sometimes it reveal a things. [:)]

<font color="limegreen"><i>
Lt. Colonel [url="nihad.rizvanovic@zg.htnet.hr"]Nihad Rizvanovic[/url]
L'Armée du Rhin
VII Saxon Corps

<font color="beige"><i>The only true conquests, and those which awaken no regrets,
are the conquests obtained over ignorance</i></font id="beige">

http://free-zg.t-com.hr/nixon/

</i></font id="limegreen">