Fog of War

[Humrlmo]

What's the guideline for openly announcing in game chat location or bonus that another player has in a fog-of-war game? Is there any unwritten rules for such a thing? The way I see it is the game was set up for FOW and informing the other players what someone has (bonus or number of troops) and/or where they are located is a violation of fair game play.

If I need to edit & add player accused/game #/and more specifics, I'll be glad to - was just checking if there's a violation of rules on this. Also players have been added as foe but it doesn't change the active game/s!

Yes it's happened on 2 different games by 2 different people just days apart!!!

[dezzy26]

its sucks but it is allowed

just rate them accordingly with the appropriate tags
that's probably your only course of action

[yrral]

belongs in General Discussion.... Q&A

[The Neon Peon]

I fail to even see how this is an argument. It is brought up a lot for that.

If you are by far the game leader, in any game type, it is perfectly permissible to have the other players declare and alliance against you. I have been on both sides of this, and I can't find a logical argument as to why the other players should not work together if I hold half the map.

Now, lets say it is a fog game. How much good does it do for any of them if they do not tell each other my position. Only one of them might be able to see me, or two. If you form an alliance (even if it is mutual: aka. this guy is getting 50 deploy, I don't think it is smart to attack the other guy), then it is just plain stupidity to not tell each other where I am. It is like saying, lets work together, but you have to do your own thing, and I will do my thing, but we are still working together.

That just does not make sense to me.

If I see someone with a stack of over 100, and a guy keeps on attacking me. I will tell him where that stack is, who owns it, and how many troops are in it. Why? Because I prefer to not just sit there and wait for death to take me. If you think it is improper to even say where the opponent is (not even declare an alliance against him, just give info...), you can go ahead and lose fog games. I have won a good deal of them by simply saying where the enemy is, so that the underdogs do not waste their troops looking for the leader.

[Megadeth666]

Uncertainty and confusion generated in wartime by a combination of limited, inaccurate and contradictory information, deliberate deception and the mayhem and stress caused by combat.

[Humrlmo]

I fail to even see how this is an argument. It is brought up a lot for that.

If you are by far the game leader, in any game type, it is perfectly permissible to have the other players declare and alliance against you. I have been on both sides of this, and I can't find a logical argument as to why the other players should not work together if I hold half the map.

Now, lets say it is a fog game. How much good does it do for any of them if they do not tell each other my position. Only one of them might be able to see me, or two. If you form an alliance (even if it is mutual: aka. this guy is getting 50 deploy, I don't think it is smart to attack the other guy), then it is just plain stupidity to not tell each other where I am. It is like saying, lets work together, but you have to do your own thing, and I will do my thing, but we are still working together.

That just does not make sense to me.

If I see someone with a stack of over 100, and a guy keeps on attacking me. I will tell him where that stack is, who owns it, and how many troops are in it. Why? Because I prefer to not just sit there and wait for death to take me. If you think it is improper to even say where the opponent is (not even declare an alliance against him, just give info...), you can go ahead and lose fog games. I have won a good deal of them by simply saying where the enemy is, so that the underdogs do not waste their troops looking for the leader.

That is the whole purpose of fog - for concealment of your location or strength/weakness. If one is going to announce that player-x (red) holds a bonus that has a weak boarder on it; shouldn't they also declare what the others have? I don't know what green, blue, or yellow hold & they've been doing the same thing I have....trying to establish a strong-hold on the game (that's what it's about!) Green could also hold a bonus now (may be more valuable too) & if yellow turns focus on breaking mine since blue made that announcement, it could turn the game far into greens favor since yellow came after me rather than keeping green in check.

My view on it. If you don't like the setting of fog...DON'T JOIN THE GAME! It's that simple. A 4 person game with fog & only on round 2. Why can it be frowned upon during tournaments but not in regular game play?

As far as this belonging in Q&A, I wasn't sure if there's any violation of those "UNWRITTEN" rules!

[The Neon Peon]

Well, if you are the leader, you should probably know where the other people are. It is a simple rule: if you are ahead, expect everyone else to be doing everything possible to bring you down. Think of every game as a two player: it is just you and your enemy. Your enemy is everyone else, and they are all working against you as one.

Yes, the purpose of fog is to hide where you are, but think about it this way... You are trying to hide, but you are letting one person see you (your bonus, your stack...). If you are letting that person see information that you do not want others to know, who's fault is it? Once the info is out, it is no longer under your control in real life.

So, just create 2 layers of troops or something. One with 10 men on it (outside layer) and one with 40 on the inside. That way, you are hidden to a great extent.

[lancehoch]

There are no current punishments for announcing information in a fog of war game. It can be used as a strategy, but it can also be misinformation. You may leave whatever ratings and tags you feel appropriate for this action, but it is part of the game. Move to Q&A from C&A.

[Geger]

Hm.. similar topics :
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=66444
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=65933
viewtopic.php?f=57&t=42395

QFT :

It can be used as a strategy, but it can also be misinformation.

[DBandit70]

Fog also brings into play deception and lying, which in the course of war are necessary. Maybe in one case you can mislead others into attacking an innocent weak player while you politic your way to an escape. But in a way it is poor sportsmanship which in a war who cares. So what are we left with, is CC a game of war where dirty play and using every advantage at our disposal is allowable becuase it is war, or is it just a game with rules that must be upheld? It is for most here just a game and with this being a game, only those who exercise good manners in game play ought to play, those who want war and will do anything to win, should be in there own games. How to make that happen? To reconcile the two forces is not possible and there is no happy median, so we have a rating system which if more detailed and actually used has an option in creating games we could ultimately remove the bad boys from the group and let them play amongest themselves. Then I would propose that those who are not allowed in games because of poor ratings may have their day in court to have their rating cleared along with all their points, medals, and achievements, a chance at repentence. If they fall again, then perhaps the courts will see not fit to give forgiveness a second time.

[The Neon Peon]

I have been in some really fun Fog of War games... at least 30 rounds long because of what you call "cheap tactics"

I (blue) get slaughtered in one area of the map, then I reveal the location so that the other player (green) in the game will know where red's huge bonus is coming from. The fight between me and red leaves both of us weak, so green is able to keep up a fight for a few more rounds. This is a flat rate game, and therefore I have to attack... they exchange at least 15 territories and bonuses a turn and are both making claims against the other player winning. I try to attack the stronger player as to not just suicide the game, but since one of them (I have never taken the trouble to find out) was lying to me. In the end, red (the original player who's location was revealed) won the contest and got green down to 6 territories, who claimed he had a stack worth 115 on one of them (which was in a way possible from both of our vantage points. For the next many rounds, we debated against whether the stack existed while fighting each other, and convincing green to attack the other person.

This process was repeated several times with each player assuming the leader position and the weakling position, and the person who is contending with the leader position. It turned out to be a really fun game because of it. You might have said there was a whole lot of cheap tactics going on, but that is what made the game fun. We knew that we could be being lied to, and took precautions against that all the time.

Now, had one of the persons not believed in this type of "play to win," rather, "when there is a leader, don't try to form a 2 v 1 alliance against him, and if you do, definitely do not work efficiently against him by even telling each other which areas to attack."