Re: Need for Fog of War

[Darthscharnhorst2]

Yes, Battlezone tried to do both but did neither well.  Some people have said the same about EAW but at least EAW does seem fun.

[Davynelord_pff]

I kind of agree with Darthscharnhorst2 just a bit.  In space, where there is no visual or sensor disturbances within range (open space), only a tiny enemy attack fleet should be able to approach your fleet in the same sector and not be noticed.  A map with no asteroids, nebula's and such, there is nothing stopping the enemy sensors from detecting you and there will be sensors and patrols in such regions of space where the enemy wants to protect a space station or planet.

 

So I say fog of war on unknown/uncharted planets and those with jungle, trees, fog, thick rain/sandstorms/snow or dark atmospheres like mustafar are a must....but on planets and space where there is nothing but clear sky or space, it shouldn't be hard to see a massive fleet or troop regiment coming without the need for sensors.

 

I mean it's like being out on the ocean on a perfectly clear day with no clouds or raging waters, you can see miles and miles away and no huge ship or massive fleet/troops could sneak up on you unless they were under water and radar didn't detect them.  however, we are talking about space and star wars, so the only thing I can think of that would allow a massive fleet to surprise the enemy in clear open space is if the enemy fleet hyperspaces in right near the space station within immediate sight or attack range.

 

One alternative to simply having no fog on a map is putting up a sensor which in open space would reveal the whole map and in space with asteroid fields and such would simply be restricted to a small portion of the map. 

 

Also, lets not forget the fact that espionage is one of the biggest professions or missions done by both sides.  Typically from the rebel point of view, they would send in a spy or spies, get recon info and that would tell them exactly who, what and where they need to strike all without even having dropped their fleet or troops yet.  Of course there should always be a counter to it all and that would be even more strategic than just simply having the fog of war rules.    to have to take measures to prevent your enemy from taking your fog of war advantage away is in itself a great startegic element that adds to the fog of war rules instead of being so black and white, which is get to enemy territory and explore the map until you find the enemy.  I'm sorry but in any kind of war, it doesn't always happen like that.  If at all possible, any army wants intel on the enemy position before they send in their troops.

 

This is actually one thing I have always disliked about many RTS games with fog of war, especially in star wars games.  I mean you have no way of knowing if the troops or fleets you send in are enough to handle the enemy and that is a bad strategy for any army.  Sure you can always send in scouts and then retreat, but the way the game works, it alerts the enemy 100% of the time.  If you see them, they see you kinda thing and that makes fog of war simply a nuasance instead of a tactical or strategic element.  It just delays the inevitable.

 

 

Still I think it shouldn't be taken out of RTS games, just modified to add a deeper element than the typical black and white issues I stated above.

[Teradyn_pff]

One thing I think all board members need to keep in mind in this or any other thread is that EAW is not and never was planned to be attempting to create a SW universal simulation.  I know I and allot of other people were hoping it was, but that is just not the case.  So the arguments that it isn't realistic are a bit flimsy, but we still can not have any similarity to the movies and/or stories be completely thrown out of the window...

 

The fog of war, the entire map size really, are meant as a representation of a much larger conflict.  A space station designed to protect a planet would never be as weak as even the level 5 represented one in the game, in a simulation of course.  You wouldn't attack a space station like that with less than a full battlegroup, and one restricted to less than 7 ISDs or a mix of their equivalent pop worth is not something an Empire that spans millions of systems would consider a battlegroup.  Therefore, what we have is a symbolic representation, where all distances, strengths, etc are simplified from what they would be in "realistic Star Wars".

 

Once we take all of this into account, we can then discuss whether or not the way that the units, stations, and things like fog of war are represented in a way to match each other.

 

Does the fog of war in space represent the uncertainty that would be present in a space battle that would be worthy of the full representation?

 

Does the fog of war on the ground make sense for the attacker when they have ships in orbit with the capability of sensory overflight of the entire battlefield?  Remember to consider this with the distances, foilage, numbers, etc that the battle is really representing, not the literal interpretation of what is shown in the game.

 

Lets continue this thread discussing the pros and cons of the way that the fog of war is represented in this game with the above things in mind.

 

For my version, I think that the fog of war in space should be infinite line-of-sight.  In other words, you can see as far as you can see with nothing in the way.  Remember that the speed of Hyperspace in SW is millions of times the speed of light and the Death Star was able to track something as small as the Millennium Falcon through Hyperspace.  Spacial anomalies should be somewhat limiting for line-of-sight, so basically it would be like a flashlight beam emanating from all space vessels in all directions and the beam would be of course blocked by asteroid fields, nebula, etc.

 

On the ground is a bit tricky.  While the same idea could be used for line-of-sight, I think that the size of the maps in this game and the fact that they are representing an entire world conquest makes it necessary for the fog of war to be a certain radius around units to simulate the horizon (in an abstract sense).  Of course the issue of orbital fleets not helping to clear the fog of war is still a problem.  It would probably be very difficult to have the player with orbiting fleets to have no fog of war and the other player to have it from a game balance perspective.  It is also hard to imagine orbiting fleets not assisting with static targets and defenses with orbital bombardment when this was so common in the "real SW universe".  How do we justify these lacks?  I am not 100% sure on this as it is hard to rationalize the same type of battle awareness to exist in the SW universe as it did in WWI or WWII.  The technological differences there are just too incredibly vast.  But I also want to avoid slipping too far into the simulation way of looking at this as well.  The fact of the matter is that many of the battles, situations and intelligence availability in the SW movies followed a pattern that was more in line with WWI or WWII.  Given this, I think that the fog of war tends to follow the representation of the SW movies which are of course the ultimate cannon.  There are some contradictions within the SW movies of course, but we can't do anything about that and neither can Petroglyph.

 

In conclusion, I think that the fog of war on the ground should be pretty much left alone, except for possibly scaling the distances that the units can see based on their height above the ground.  As for space, I feel that the fog of war should be collision based instead of radius based.  The problem with this is that it would probably take work in the engine to fix this, and that will not be happening before the game goes gold...

[DarthCycle]

Just to add my 2 cents,

 

To argue that fog of war shouldn't be in the game because of the timeline and technology available, I would offer this simple question/answer: if computers and sensors are so powerfull, why are weapons platform manned by personnel on capital ships and why are fighters manned by pilots? Isn't there available technology to do this?

 

At least, you could manned all this by droids?

 

From a gameplay perspective, fog of war adds an tactical element to the game.

[Darthscharnhorst2]

 

From a gameplay perspective, fog of war adds an tactical element to the game.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of evolving the concept of FOW as opposed to scrubbing it.  Teradyn makes some excellent points, most of which I agree with.  He also hits the nail on the head regarding it not being a SW universal simulation, I keep having to catch myself and try to work within the framework the devs set up.  Hopefully one day we will get a game more along those lines. 

 

However, there is nor reason why a simple RTS cannot be realistic.  Look at the massive amount of WWII ones on the market which model armor values true line of sight. etc.  I was hoping for something more along those lines instead of a C&C approach.  But at least EAW, with hard points etc, tries a little.

[DarthCycle]

The balance between realism, simplicity and fun is hard to achieve.

 

When you model too few elements, it's often too simple hence not very fun.

When you model too many elements, it gets complicated (the opposite of simple) and is also not always fun. It's a tough compromise.

 

The fog of war is designed into a binary model: I see you or I don't. It's not elegant but it's simple. It works in the sense that it adds some tactical challenges hence also increase the fun factor. But there is a limit to the increase of the fun factor when you incorporate complexity in the gameplay. It's a downward curve: starts high, but drops low really fast.

 

There might be a correlation between age, short spawn attention, concentration of caffeine and sugar in bloodstream, sex drive and the complexity in games. But I haven't figured out the formula yet  ;D

[Darthscharnhorst2]

 

There might be a correlation between age, short spawn attention, concentration of caffeine and sugar in bloodstream, sex drive and the complexity in games. But I haven't figured out the formula yet  ;D

 

Ha, very good point!  I really didn't care about such things 5 or 6 years ago when I booted up C&C for the first time.  I wonder what the average age of the potential EAW player will be.