Conquer Club

Does fog of war add an element of realism?

In real battle we would not all have the ability to see the entire map from a satellite view. We would not be able to see how a player is mobilising their troops. Unless we had armies close/adjacent to their territory.

I like to think of my armies as roving mobs with pitchforks and hockey sticks when I'm playing Fog of War, which is almost never. FoW ups the effects of randomness to an unacceptable degree.

I find I can formulate strategies in games without Fog of War that will lead to victory more often than not. Playing under Fog takes away my ability to do this. Fog of War games I've participated in seemed to boil down to the right cards at the right time and initial placement rather than enacting well-thought strategy. I may simply need more time to adapt myself to playing under the Fog, but initial impressions were a turn off.

I've played equally about half of my games with FoW. For me personally I play it more safe with fog turned on. Strategy for FoW is I do not: 1. spread myself too thin; 2. do not attack neutral armies I don't have to (I play mainly feudal war, so this means attacking n10 armies) and try to only leave myself open to attack from 2 directions at most.

Without FoW yes, from the start you can spread thin to get the bonuses but at the same time need to keep armies in reserve just incase your opponent(s) get lucky with the dice.

Personally I prefer FoW on so its like playing pika-boo ^_^

I'd disagree that you can't see what enemies are doing - Assuming you start with a decent initial army spread, you can tell whose going where relatively easily if you A. Copy down what you can initially see, and B. Track what you've lost.

In FoW, I can anticipate what someone is up to by what has just gone blank - Furthermore, if anything I think you can spread yourself thinner, since people do not have full knowledge of your borders. If player X is going for a territory cluster in the south, and you know that is keeping them occupied, then a border with them somewhere else could stay at light defense, and short of them using the same strategy it wouldn't appear, at first, as if you were up to anything in that region.

Always good? Perhaps not, but it does add another level - In FoW I worry less about the 'Oh my, player X has all this, lets gang up on her' effect.

i play a lot of FoW games and i am always disappointed with my military. apparently i have the potential to conquer the entire world but not the communication equipment to record what territories i have lost.

i can understand seeing question marks in the game log for other player's actions but if it was an attack on me, surely my advisors (the game log) should be able to recall the name of the territory just lost.

I'd have to agree with you on that greenoaks. If an enemy takes over one of my controlled territories, I do think the game log should at least show it instead of "Player X attacked ? from ? and conquered it from player X" After all..didn't I just own that territory?

While you can spread yourself thinner in your home territories, by the "not spreading yourself so thin" comment was on your borders where you know the enemy can break through. The game I am currently in is a perfect example:

I have BOB so can see that the last remaining player besides me (game of 4) owns 27 territories; I own 28. I pushed through realm of might castle and saw 13 of his armies sitting across the river. I own Imperial and Barbarians as well as Realm of Might, but because I see 13 of his armies sitting there, I have all of my defenses infront of him with only 1 army along my other 27 territories. Now I know he has a chance to break through behind me where there are only 1 army each, but counting his armies on Great Kingdom I'm gambling that he does not have enough to push through, mainly because he doesn't know where I am. If I'd have had more armies, I would have fortified the rear as well.

Yes FoW off is more of a tactics game from the 4th or 5th round depending on where your armies sit and which map your playing, but for me FoW on is strategy from the start.

If you pay attention to who is getting bonuses, you can usually get a pretty good idea of what territory they control. Not everybody pays attention. I think it's a little easier for one player to become dominant in a Fog game, because the rest of the players don't gang up on them. I think Fog games also tend to end faster, because people who don't pay attention can't see if they are about to get crushed.

What you don't know CAN hurt you.

thread of the noobs i love it

JACKAZZTJM wrote:thread of the noobs i love it

You are just jealous.

And I agree, what you don't know can hurt you.

comagoosie wrote:

JACKAZZTJM wrote:thread of the noobs i love it

You are just jealous.

And I agree, what you don't know can hurt you.

3 posts heat lol nono ima noob myself

i no longer consider myself a n00b.

Fog of War is among the more fun types of games here on CC. I love FoW!

There are a couple of things you can utilise to help you in FoW. In some games I take a screenshot of the starting positions and by keeping track of who attacks what i have a fairly decent idea of who is keeping what bonuses and I can pinpoint to some degree where build ups of enemy armies are likely to be.

In Feudal Wars I am a fan of parking right next to an enemy's ten and as soon as I see that decrease I bull my way through and nine times out of ten i take their castle along with the territories nearby.

I've just started playing, and I prefer it over the standard games. I feel as though it takes more strategy.

FOW is my choice. I like the element of suprise.

I don't know if you can call it realism in this age of spy satellites and high tech surveillance, but with unlimited fortifications the fog certainly alters strategies by allowing players to take greater risks and gamble with troop placements.

greenoaks wrote:i play a lot of FoW games and i am always disappointed with my military. apparently i have the potential to conquer the entire world but not the communication equipment to record what territories i have lost.

i can understand seeing question marks in the game log for other player's actions but if it was an attack on me, surely my advisors (the game log) should be able to recall the name of the territory just lost.

This is a very good point. Something to consider changing!

Realism? Who wants real in war ... No, I am here to have fun.

Does it add strategy would be a better question ... and I vote "yes", though I only like it on some maps. (Waterloo in fog? ugh .. hard enough without fog.

The fog was a format I shied from Before that,I accidentally joined a fog game by misclicking on the join button when all I wanted to do was to check a player background. I also did not realise that it was in the fog. That game was a disaster The players were so unfriendly and openly hostile which led me to believe that this fog is troublesome.

So I avoided the fog for a long time until recently I joined a tourney that used the feudal war map fog format 1vs 1. This makes me believe that the fog of war actually makes sense for feudal and perhaps a selected number of maps.

For example, I like the FOW in feudal that has 1 territory as your starting point and all others are filled with neutrals between you and your opponents. This is the unknown factor that increases the element of surprise/uncertainty. If you play this surprise element well, even from weak positions, your chances of winning the game is higher compared to the sunny format.

An example of a weak position above is supposing you get a streak of bad rolls, everybody can see how weak you are and target you in the sunshine but not in the fog because nobody can be sure. However a caveat is I have played enough 1vs 1 fog sequential or otherwise, to know that you almost never win from weak positions, arising from starting second and disparity in rolls (lately I have lost a disproportionate high number of games due to an unexplained bad dice streak while my opponents keep on getting good ones, strangely enough)

Well , I am done experimenting with 1v1 fog or sunny but I still keep to the feudal map because it is a map that supports the fog well. The element of uncertainty increases with the number of players. So now I am experimenting with 4 player terminator because it seems like ideal number.

Winning is not guaranteed even from strong positions but winning from weak positions, even harder. If you are one of those players who seems to find yourself in weak positions (as I often am) as explained above then you want to play the fog to have a higher chance of winning. So when you are weak but you still win, it is truly satisfying.

I suggest you experiment with more maps to find the map that suits you in the fog.

Last piece of advise, I found out through the hard way that you got to be very careful who you play with. I think it is best to avoid players who have long playing histories together especially in the fog. Have fun

the Age of Realms maps are also good for FoW and 4 players. the others players do not know where you are and whether you had a bad run of dice or are just building.

AORM and Feudal just dont make sense without FoW. On normal maps, it is too open to abuse. Some players make multies who are just there for them to see the rest of the map

kletka wrote:AORM and Feudal just dont make sense without FoW. On normal maps, it is too open to abuse. Some players make multies who are just there for them to see the rest of the map

In that case, you should report those multis. In particular, it is wise to avoid those players with long playing histories together. The fact was the mods have investigated them arising from cheating complaints brought by lower ranks who felt that they used cheating tactics to win. So far, they escaped with just a warning but I believe cc is monitoring them and if responsible players like yourself voice out, I know cc will be able to compile more evidence in the matter

Tell them your other FOW strategy Road-- pm players to find out their locations.... or you just want to keep that strategy to yourself.

roadwarrior wrote:The fog was a format I shied from Before that,I accidentally joined a fog game by misclicking on the join button when all I wanted to do was to check a player background. I also did not realise that it was in the fog. That game was a disaster The players were so unfriendly and openly hostile which led me to believe that this fog is troublesome.

So I avoided the fog for a long time until recently I joined a tourney that used the feudal war map fog format 1vs 1. This makes me believe that the fog of war actually makes sense for feudal and perhaps a selected number of maps.

For example, I like the FOW in feudal that has 1 territory as your starting point and all others are filled with neutrals between you and your opponents. This is the unknown factor that increases the element of surprise/uncertainty. If you play this surprise element well, even from weak positions, your chances of winning the game is higher compared to the sunny format.

An example of a weak position above is supposing you get a streak of bad rolls, everybody can see how weak you are and target you in the sunshine but not in the fog because nobody can be sure. However a caveat is I have played enough 1vs 1 fog sequential or otherwise, to know that you almost never win from weak positions, arising from starting second and disparity in rolls (lately I have lost a disproportionate high number of games due to an unexplained bad dice streak while my opponents keep on getting good ones, strangely enough)

Well , I am done experimenting with 1v1 fog or sunny but I still keep to the feudal map because it is a map that supports the fog well. The element of uncertainty increases with the number of players. So now I am experimenting with 4 player terminator because it seems like ideal number.

Winning is not guaranteed even from strong positions but winning from weak positions, even harder. If you are one of those players who seems to find yourself in weak positions (as I often am) as explained above then you want to play the fog to have a higher chance of winning. So when you are weak but you still win, it is truly satisfying.

I suggest you experiment with more maps to find the map that suits you in the fog.

Last piece of advise, I found out through the hard way that you got to be very careful who you play with. I think it is best to avoid players who have long playing histories together especially in the fog. Have fun

Why were the other players in that game hostile ?
I dare you to post a link so everybody here can see why they were unfriendly

I like playing with fog. And I think the ideal map for fog is waterloo. It not only makes the map more realistic but allows for subtle tactical play.

I also like the fog in extremely large maps such as World 2.1 and I prefer it with escalating cards. I believe that there is a definite strategy when you are playing fog + escalating. It may be more demanding in terms of brain power required but it is also more fun. In escalating 2.1 games, I often find myself scouting during the finishing move.

Having said that, I think if you are playing fog you should definitely get BOB. Also regarding what territory has been attacked, the snapshot feature of BOB can be quite useful.