Re: Need for Fog of War

[Darthscharnhorst2]

Having seen the game in action I found myself wondering what purpose does fog of war play in this title.  While I like the ability to hide units in asteroid fields and think it makes sense on planets with atmospheric conditions/jungles, I fail to see the benefit and rationale behind it in every battle.  While I believe that the defenders can build senors to dispell it, I'm not sure it should exist in open space and *nomal* planet conditions to begin with. 

 

As a play mechanic I think it would be a lot more enjoyable if fog of war was the exception rather than the norm.  What are your thoughts/impressions?

[Popcorn2008]

Fog of War has always represented what your units cant see (of course), and I think without it, the battle is unrealistic. Fog of war is necessary to perform sneak attacks on your enemy and so they dont know all your building strategy. I think removing fog of war would be a bad idea personally.

[Teradyn_pff]

Well, given the relative proximity of the maps, the Star Wars era technology would make any fog of war as represented in EAW as silly.  So this is an issue of a game mechanic being included for RTS play that is not SW accurate by any means.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

Fog of War has always represented what your units cant see (of course), and I think without it, the battle is unrealistic.

 

This is why I am torn with the idea and why I think FOW should be in the game, but only during certain times.  While fog of war makes perfect sense in WWII and to some extent modern RTS, I would think that in the Star Wars universe it does not apply.  Thus I would like to see fog of war in place when fighting in an asteroid field or during a snow storm but not in *normal conditions*.  I think this would add flavor to the game and make battles in those places more enjoyable.

[Otto von Bismark]

This game would be too freakin' easy without fog of war.

[felixforever]

i like it how it is

[Teradyn_pff]

i like it how it is

 

For the purposes of gameplay, I agree.  I was just noting that it is definately one of those things that isn't (and shouldn't be percieved to) trying to be SW realistic.

[Saracen]

Without Fog of war it is not an RTS. Strategy and tactical gameplay is the key, and going into the unknown is what allows these keys to work. I defy anybody who claims to be a Star Wars Purist who thinks it's not necessary due to realism issues... Stuff realism here for a moment will you! This is not a first person shooter!

 

Why would you want to see what the enemy is doing at all times... or to further my point, would you want the enemy to see what you're doing at all times? Is being led by the hand your only option because you find the concept of Fog of War too difficult to grasp?

 

Every RTS in history has used it in some form. It may be transparent, it may be jet black, but it's there! This gameplay mechanic keeps the RTS within it's Genre... It was never a written rule, but it is a rule that all RTS developers choose to abide by!

[Ghostly_Substance]

Without fog of war I guess we dont need spies, smugglers, bounty hunters, probe droids. Guess theres no point in scouts either. Yes without fog of war the Imperials would own 99% of the galaxy. Well then I guess the Rebels would need lots of cloaking devices just to hide to counter act the enemy player spying on them with the computer camera  :

[raydude]

Nothing in the SW movies suggests that they have any kind of detection technology that is better than our 20th century equivalent. For all the vaunted tech of the Empire they still couldn't find the secret rebel base in Episode IV. When the Millenium Falcon was brought on board the Death Star no life signs could be read aboard. They had to bring in a detector the size of a small cabinet into the ship to scan it thoroughly. And no, it wasn't because of the Force. The Force doesn't give you cloaking ability from radar or thermal detection. After jumping through hyperspace to Alderan the Millenium Falcon's sensors don't detect the Tie Fighters till they get shot at. Which brings up another good point - you can't tell whether or not a planet is blown up while in hyperspace.

 

In Empire Strikes Back the Empire had to send out probe droids to every planet to find the retreating Rebel forces. And even with multiple probe droids landing on Hoth only 1 managed to get a signal out. And it was a weak signal at that. The Empire couldn't track the thermal or radiation emissions from the Millenium Falcon in the asteroid field. The Millenium Falcon couldn't be detected while hiding on the side of the ISD. The Empire seems to have lost track of the entire Rebel fleet by the end of the movie.

 

In Return of the Jedi the Rebel fleet couldn't get a reading on the shield protecting the Death Star. AND they couldn't tell there was an Imperial fleet hiding on the other side of Endor. In addition, you'd think the captured transport would have a rudimentary radar - so that Han's strike team could see how many troops were REALLY on the Endor moon. Or you can just look outside the window while flying past the landing zones to see the AT-ATs and AT-STs there.

 

So according to the SW movies, fog of war is alive and well and oddly enough is just like the fog of war present in WW2.

[Popcorn2008]

Gameplay > Realism

 

You guys really need to memorize this inequality  :. While it may be realistic not to have fog of war, it ruins gameplay.

[raydude]

I would also pose this equality:

 

Star Wars detection tech = World War 2 detection tech

 

So within the SW universe, fog of war is completely realistic.

[Teradyn_pff]

Gameplay > Realism

 

You guys really need to memorize this inequality  :. While it may be realistic not to have fog of war, it ruins gameplay.

 

This does have a limit though.

[jedi mike]

I like fog of war its Little more challenging no fog = less fun my opinion

[noian]

Fog of war is good as it is right now.

In space, after a certain amount of time, fog of war dissapears and on land, fog of war is needed for tactics.

(thought I wish you could have bombing runs in areas that are in the fog of war since many times, just after my unit dies vs most of the enemy units, I get the bombardment run)

[Darksythe]

If any one hasent noticed, you can build Sennsor Arry's and i think when enemy enters your Planet you dont get the Fog of War but they still do so you get a slight advanatge, but im not sure, some one will have to test unless Sensor Arry's dont work atm?

 

But well see.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

If any one hasent noticed, you can build Sennsor Arry's and i think when enemy enters your Planet you dont get the Fog of War but they still do so you get a slight advantage, but I'm not sure, some one will have to test unless Sensor Arry's dont work atm?

 

But well see.

 

Yes I saw this as a building but do not know its true effect.  I think they can be built in space as well.  It would be nice if the attacker could send spies to a planet or area of space to at least pinpoint where the buildings or defences were for bombing runs. 

 

Perhaps having all enemy units show up on radar but not knowing what their composition included would provide a good compromise.  I was never for doing away with fog of war, but simply evolving the concept to fit this game. 

 

Judging from the poll, it seem quite a few people agree that it could better be applied to certain situations instead of a blanket in every battle.  I would envision that certain sectors of the map would remain shrouded *asteroid fields, Nebula's, Jungles, certain atmospheric conditions, etc* but that if line of sight was not obscured than fog of war would not exist. 

 

Remember in space there is no curvature of the horizon nor are there buildings or hills to obstruct your view, this is why we can see billons of miles into space with telescopes.  To me, a rebel admiral should be able to spot an ISD a few handed miles downrange if there is nothing blocking his line of sight.  If you take these rules into consideration, battles in Nebula's and asteroid fields become that much more engaging because they offer a change of pace form the norm and allow you to play out unique tactical advantages. 

 

Once again, good points all around.

[Xenomorphine]

Being someone who is unable to experience the demonstration version, I'd have to say that this depends on just how it's done. Georaphically or simply in terms of detecting targets?

 

Geographically would not make sense. It would not alter gameplay, by any means! Any military force worth its salt, these days, would have satellite coverage and all the rest of it. The geography and terrain of a landscape or, most especially, a piece of open space above the atmosphere, would easily be known.

 

If it's purely along the lines of being unable to detect targets until they fall within a certain range, however, then that's far more understandable.

 

However, plenty of older games have the ability to let the user select which version of the above they prefer or, in some cases, turn both off entirely. I would think this is probably going to be the case for here. It would be extremely surprising if it were otherwise.

[Guest]

I always thought that fog of war was stupid... I mean: you have a birds eye veiw of the area and what's to stop you from seeing something somewhere else? I looks really stupid to see this mysterious shourd that covers everywhere except where your units are. People can see for miles right? Having a LOS that is like 50 feet in every direction (for most of the RTS games I have player) seems rather stupid that units can only see that far. The only things obstructing a LOS are trees, mountains, walls and stuff. But having a bird's eye veiw (in the case of most RTS games) makes that useless.

 

If a bunch of ATATs are coming from like 5 miles away on a flat terrain you could see them.

 

so uhhhh.......  maybe one day they will make RTS games that let you act as the commander and walk around in 1st or 3rd person or something?

[Otto von Bismark]

Now that I think about it, why is there fog of war? You're overseeing the battles, not fighting in them...

Hmmm.

 

By the way...An RTS game is currently being developed enabling the player to enter the battle(in first person). It's called Ghost Wars.

 

http://pc.ign.com/objects/742/742166.html

[Darthscharnhorst2]

By the way...An RTS game is currently being developed enabling the player to enter the battle(in first person). It's called Ghost Wars.

 

http://pc.ign.com/objects/742/742166.html

 

Yes that is a very cool feature and I think I have seen other games in development employing it.  Maybe in EWA2 we will get the chance to command an ISD and personally direct gun fire, or hop into Obi Wan.  That would seriously evolve the concept of FOW in an rts since as the Admiral or General you would only have line of sight and satellite reports to judge from.  You also have to weigh the choice of unleashing the power of your Flagship or lightsaber on the enemy with hanging back in order to have a good appraisal of the Battlefield and issue competent orders to your fleet/men.  A good example of this now is playing from the "general" perspective in Rome Total War.  It gives you an idea of the limitations of a commander; however this plays more into the simulation crowd rather than the RTS.

[Otto von Bismark]

RTS games have been evolving at a rather slow pace; hopefully this new 1st person thing'll help the genre along. The RTS genre has had the least amount of innovation in my view, perhaps 2006 is the year for change?

[Darthscharnhorst2]

RTS games have been evolving at a rather slow pace; hopefully this new 1st person thing'll help the genre along. The RTS genre has had the least amount of innovation in my view, perhaps 2006 is the year for change?

 

I have to agree.  One of my very first games was the original C&C and although the graphics have evolved a lot since there have been very few changes to the classic formula.  I think my two favortie games right now, Hearts of Iron II and Rome Total War *both heavily modded,* prove that a RTS can be fun, realistic, and still appeal to a large audience.

 

I had and to most extent still have high hopes for EAW but I get the overall feeling that while developers were willing to take some ground breaking chances, they were hesitant to jump into the deep end with games like Hearts of Iron and instead focused on "fun" instead of "rewarding" gameplay.  I am sure that EAW will sell like mad, but I hope the success encourages the dev team to continue to take more chances with innovation and develop rich rewarding experiences for the player instead of adopting a "watered down" approach to strategy in order to appease "the masses".

[Teradyn_pff]

RTS games have been evolving at a rather slow pace; hopefully this new 1st person thing'll help the genre along. The RTS genre has had the least amount of innovation in my view, perhaps 2006 is the year for change?

 

Meh, Battlezone had this along time ago.

[Otto von Bismark]

Really...Well, Battlezone was a piece of crap. I didn't mean to say that 1st person is the only new thing. Look at Spore.