American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

I noticed some like to play with it and some not.

What are your pros and cons?

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

I like extreme fog of war. I think the decrease in available information on enemy units. particularly in covering terrain, is more realistic. So is the inability to check line of sight from a hex not occupied by a friendly unit, even though that can be mildly annoying. The only feature I disagree with is the hidden value of objective hexes.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

The fact you can't see the viewable hexes when using it makes it preferable not to use it. I have to pull up the same scenario in a different window without the Extreme Fog of War in order to view the hexes I can see from a certain hex I don't occupy. I know some will say that isn't in the spirit of the rules but if they've played the game 10 times and know the LoS better than I do than that's not fair either. I look at it the same as viewing the Reinforcement Schedule in a different window in order to remind myself when the enemy is getting help and from where. I'm just leveling the playing field against an opponent who may know the scenario inside and out.

The XXX for units in forests is just fine and no problem. I'd also prefer the pictures of those units to show up as blank rather than to show them wearing Black Hats or other unit insignia which an opponent can quickly match using visual clues.

_________________
Gen. Mitch Johnson
GENERAL IN CHIEF

Let's assume for a moment that you could play a scenario that neither of you have played. The DOR can verify that from a club perspective. So, if you both were playing blind, would you change your answer? Honesty has to be assumed. Otherwise, I see you points, although I doubt anyone could memorize LOS from individual hexes. Also, in many cases, LOS can be determined by simply knowing how to read a topo map. Perhaps it would not be 100% when done manually.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

If we assumed honesty then we would have no reason to use passwords, right? We begin each game with the premise that your opponent isn't to be trusted and so we password protect everything. This level of distrust, or suspicion, must extend to scenario scouting and line of sight assumptions. All it takes is one well-placed ambush of my entering units for me to proclaim my opponent has cheated by scouting the scenario. He can argue he just got lucky or that his move was an obvious one to make. The outcome of this disagreement will be negative. It can all be avoided though by just taking simple precautions before the game begins. Let us both study the arrival times and numbers in the scenario and go into it on a level playing field. Then the outcome is what it is based on skill and gameplay as opposed to possible extenuating circumstances where one player knows much more than the other because they did their homework. I'll always do my homework on a scenario beforehand. If my opponent is lazy and doesn't then that's on them. All the data is there to be viewed and if you choose to not utilize it then you accept going into the battle at a disadvantage. Good luck.

The extreme Fog of War people are seeking is not possible in a prebuilt scenario where both sides have access to all the data. There is nothing WDS can do to address this aside from creating a random scenario generation tool which will create a scenario for single-use play and allow neither side to view the data for the opposing side.

_________________
Gen. Mitch Johnson
GENERAL IN CHIEF

Here’s a different viewpoint, from the perspective of someone who likes to play games (and shamelessly prefers to win them!). The bulk of all the dozens of games I have ever played were played before Extreme Fog of War existed. I therefore based the years of development of my personal gameplay on the original fog of war visibility. If I am made to play a game using Extreme Fog of War I am massively handicapped and at a great disadvantage – it feels like a different game. To me it falls into the category of undeniable realism at the expense of fun game playing, like ‘artillery capture’.
And the truth is these are games, and we like to play them competitively. I am loathe to fight with one hand tied behind my back – so I never select Extreme Fog of War, from the point of view of a 'level playing field' !

_________________
COL. Dave Spencer
5th Brigade, 4th Division, II Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

Like General Johnson I generally assume that the opponent will be opening the scenario (without EFoW) and looking around the map to determine lookout positions and confirm LoS. Assuming such a thing, I think it would be a nuisance to have to check them myself, so I almost always play with EFoW unchecked

Even with refereed original scenarios (like Blake's double-blind ones) the maps are still 'known' so such things can be checked.

If we could have EFoW without LoS restrictions I would use it because I like the uncertainty that other things in EFoW provide.

_________________
Paul Swanson
Lieutenant-General
First Division
First Corps
Army of Northern Virginia

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

Could not two players simply make a house rule that prohibits a player from opening the same scenarios as a side x side? As I mentioned, most LOS should be discernable by reading the topo on the map. I would certainly recommend it if someone wanted to play against the AI. The AI needs all the help it can get.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

Could not two players simply make a house rule that prohibits a player from opening the same scenarios as a side x side? As I mentioned, most LOS should be discernable by reading the topo on the map. I would certainly recommend it if someone wanted to play against the AI. The AI needs all the help it can get.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily trying to be a yes or no person. I was interested in folk's perspective and reasoning. The most valid one I think is the fun factor argument. If using EFOW takes the fun out of it, then by all means, nix it. But I think if you wanted more realism and can agree to play without a SxS game running at the same time. It does add more FOW and hence, realism.

And the best thing to try is to play a scenario blind. I mean neither player has played that particular scenario in the past. And though I designed more than half of all the scenarios this club plays, I am getting too old and it has been too long ago, that I can remember very little about the specifics of each scenario. And I not by any means a regimental flag expert. Save for maybe a dozen or so.

_________________
Brigadier General Richard Walker
II Corps, 4th Division, 6th Brigade
Army of Tennessee
(JTS/WDS Scenario Designer)

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

I'm surprised so many eschew the enhanced realism of EFOW because of the nuisance of being unable to see from a hex where nobody is, but to each their own.

What I usually do is look for a promising hex and send a mounted officer to investigate before moving a unit there. I don't see anything gamey about that and I believe
that was how it was done historically.

_________________
MG Mike Mihalik
Forrest's Cavalry Corps
AoWest/CSA

I totally agree. I play the game to have fun and as much realism as possible. If my opponent wants to cheat, that's fine. Just not what I'm after.

The only drawback to the limited LOS with EFOW is the two way radios the spotter have with the commanding officer.

_________________
Lt. Col. Jim Pyle
3rd Div
XVII Corps
Army of the Tennessee

_________________
Gen. Blake Strickler
Confederate General-in-Chief
El Presidente 2010 - 2012

We have to play poker sometimes because I don't know if you are bluffing or not.

_________________
Gen. Mitch Johnson
GENERAL IN CHIEF