Well you should always have relatively good data on the terrain because that doesn''t change. However satellites have to rotate the Earth so you might have data that''s maybe 5 or ten game minutes old. If it was a campaign-based game maybe at the beginning you''d get information every 10 minutes or so but as you progressed your missions got more important and more satellites were tasked to your missions.

Thank you for the ideas of modifying scouting. I like the idea of sattelites that pass every five minutes or so and temporary remove the fog of war. The spy ideas are also very good, and I''ve seen some games that did it (Dark Reign with those cool morphing scouts, Tzar)

About the realism worries, who cares about realism? As long as it is fun, realism always gets the short stick. Anyway, the US _can_ see everything that moves in Afghanistan, as they could in every single war the last 15 years. As for the rest of history, information traveled fast too. Such things as building a castle, putting some soldiers around him and thus hiding it from everybody else are naive. Armies could be seen from afar, and systems like outposts communicating through light signals could send words of an enemy army in hours across hundreds of km. even in the ancient times, without the emperor having to give personal orders to scouts.

The real problem is whether a game would be more fun with fog of war than without. (by ''without fog of war'' I mean the majority of enemy armies and buildings are not hidden - still some information can be hidden - example: trucks can be seen, but not what is inside them; likewise with buildings)

Maybe in games where all one can do is gather resources, build a large army and level the enemy FOW is required, and it adds depth to the game : having to guess the enemy intentions with limited information.

But in real strategy games, I believe FOW isn''t all that good. If there is a lot to do (attacking/defending vital roads, bridges, airports, highlands, ports, supply routes) every enemy action can mean one of many things. And as long as the enemies intentions are not completely clear, there is game. And a better game too, because right now there is a lot more to react: each time the enemy does something, the other player must understand the reason and do a counter move, instantly.

Many RTSs are more like single player games with short multiplayer battles in-between. The main resource gathering / army building gameplay of single player games is still there. Bad thing: multiplayer games should be more about reaction to enemy moves. The most that has been achieved in AOE for instance are decisions like ''if enemy builds unit x, build unit y''.

If you didn''t play Z (it''s abandonware now), then what of chess? Would it be better with fog of war?

Here''s a small idea... What if you the player is "a spy plane". Wherever you look, you see through FOW. But only your screen. The map is still in FOW, etc. So you can still be surprised by siege tanks setting up on the bridge, in case you aren''t looking straight on it...

}+TITANIUM+{

If you''re talking about modern warfare, you never enter an area without scouting. You always know quite a bit: the location of the enemy, rough strength of their forces, type of their forces, etc. However this information may not be 100% accurate. Someone already mentioned camouflage and maskirova. This is also a part of Fog Of War, it''s not just the black blocks on your map.

The following idea suits probably best for a game like Age Of Empires (or just about any game in a dark-age or similar setting).

You get a rough map of the area. For instance in Age Of Empires you''d get a rough hand drawn map of the area instead of the black in fog of war. Where your troops are you''d get the exact map. Then each player would have an Area Of Influence (like the borders in Alpha Centauri), where everything would be automatically scouted - not showing the enemy troops, but markers. A round marker in the area where the other player has crossed borders, which may be sized according to approximated enemy force strength. After that you''d get reports from the enemy movements within your borders in semi-random time intervals. A disappearing arrow on the rough map of the area, etc.

With a solution like that you''d get the scouting information, but you''d also have a lot of stuff that you don''t know. Where exactly the enemy is? How strong it really is (maskirova)? Is this a real attack or just someone exploring? Yes, exploring would also be a must. You can only scout automatically the areas within your borders, so you must find the exact position of the enemy base. You may have a rough idea (markers on the map) on the potential locations the enemy base, but nothing exact.


--BerLan

if the RTS was fully 3D and you could only see from the view point of your units, there''d be no need for fog of war, i''m thinking sacrifice

How did I miss this thread?

I think fog of war is stupid, and it has no place in my RTS design. Here's why:

1. The idea that you don't know the shape of the terrain you are fighting over is pretty stupid, doubly so in a modern/futuristic game where you have satellite mapping and stuff. Scouting is a pain in the arse, and not being able to see the whole map completely prevents you from making intelligent strategic decisions based on the terrain.

2. You don't need fog of war to use stealth. My plan is that all terrain and most buildings are always visible. Units are not, unless they are actually spotted by one of your friendly units or buildings. I think that players may overestimate how much they can actually see, (because nothing will be blacked out, it will be harder to tell which areas are covered and which areas aren't) and will accidentally leave open spots in their defence which an enemy unit could sneak through. I think this will make it possible to use small infantry units to great effect, since they might find and exploit these gaps more easily than an army of 400 tanks. (lets face it, 400 tanks will be visible from miles away) You still need to scout, because you don't know where the enemies forces are, just his buildings.

3. Have you ever played Starcraft on a 256x256 map? Scouring the entire map for one last building before you can win is a real pain in the arse.

In short, I completely agree with Diodor's conclusion. Better stealth features, scrap the stupid fog of war. And whoever came up with the idea of regenerating fog of war should be slapped with a gigantic rotten trout.


Edited by - Sandman on November 26, 2001 9:20:59 AM

I don''t like fog of war, myself. However, my complaint with it is not that it isn''t realistic, but that most games don''t understand that there are different levels of knowledge about the map.

For example, in C&C, you can''t see all the terrain even if you''re playing as GDI, who we know has satellites floating up above. That''s unrealistic, GDI should be able to see what''s on the ground, and chances are that NOD would have access to survey maps.

Also in C&C, you can''t see units that are in the fog of war. That makes sense if FOW is defined as the parts of the map that are not visible. However, what about when part of the map that was previously visible becomes inaccessible to you? C&C will hide it again - and all the units that were in there. Yet, even before satellites were invented, military commanders had learnt that just because you can''t see a bit of the terrain, that doesn''t mean you can''t remember what was there before hand.

IMO, there''s no reason why buildings shouldn''t stay on the map once you''ve seen them, even if they''re lost in FOW. Naturally, the buildings should be unchanged in your view of the map even if they are changed (upgraded, destroyed, whatever) until you get to see them again.

For units, the same holds. If you see a unit and then it is lost in FOW, the game should remember that you saw it (although it wouldn''t update its position).

quote: Original post by Sandman
How did I miss this thread?

I think fog of war is stupid, and it has no place in my RTS design. Here''s why:

1. The idea that you don''t know the shape of the terrain you are fighting over is pretty stupid, doubly so in a modern/futuristic game where you have satellite mapping and stuff. Scouting is a pain in the arse, and not being able to see the whole map completely prevents you from making intelligent strategic decisions based on the terrain.

Even in ancient times, the notion of fighting on terrain you don''t know is stupid. Back in the day, armies would have made sure that they met on terrain they knew, and today armies would be hard pushed to find any terrain they don''t know.

Having said that, this doesn''t mean that scouting is evil. Often, scouting is bad because the game doesn''t do it well. Many games require you to explicitly control scouts, rather than allowing you to just say ''go and scout''.

In reality, it would be pretty difficult to control scouts - radio/light/whatever signals are likely to be spotted by the enemy who, even if they cannot decipher the signals, are going to know a scout is around. Perhaps a good game would allow a scout to be extremely stealthy, but by giving it orders you would risk breaking its cover.

quote:
2. You don''t need fog of war to use stealth. My plan is that all terrain and most buildings are always visible.

Fine, but what if I decide to hastily erect a building somewhere you couldn''t possibly see it being built?

quote:
I think that players may overestimate how much they can actually see, (because nothing will be blacked out, it will be harder to tell which areas are covered and which areas aren''t) and will accidentally leave open spots in their defence which an enemy unit could sneak through. I think this will make it possible to use small infantry units to great effect, since they might find and exploit these gaps more easily than an army of 400 tanks (lets face it, 400 tanks will be visible from miles away).

Any large force of cavalry or infanty are visible from miles away by the dust they send into the air. You can even tell what''s coming at you by inspecting the shape of the dust (low = infanty, high = cavalry).

quote:
3. Have you ever played Starcraft on a 256x256 map? Scouring the entire map for one last building before you can win is a real pain in the arse.

That''s not a problem with FOW, that''s a problem with game design. In reality, you might not know where the ''one last building'' is but, in reality, military victory is rarely magically secured by destroying the ''one last building'', so it doesn''t usually matter. In TA, you have to do the same thing, and it really sucks.

Just Plain Wrong

quote:
Even in ancient times, the notion of fighting on terrain you don't know is stupid. Back in the day, armies would have made sure that they met on terrain they knew, and today armies would be hard pushed to find any terrain they don't know.

Having said that, this doesn't mean that scouting is evil. Often, scouting is bad because the game doesn't do it well. Many games require you to explicitly control scouts, rather than allowing you to just say 'go and scout'.

In reality, it would be pretty difficult to control scouts - radio/light/whatever signals are likely to be spotted by the enemy who, even if they cannot decipher the signals, are going to know a scout is around. Perhaps a good game would allow a scout to be extremely stealthy, but by giving it orders you would risk breaking its cover.

As far as I am concerned, the only role scouting will play is determining the size and position of enemy units. Scouting terrain is tedious, and frankly unrealistic for the game I am designing. I say this is the "only" role for scouts, that does not mean it isn't going to be a very important one - in fact, it will probably be essential.

quote:
Fine, but what if I decide to hastily erect a building somewhere you couldn't possibly see it being built?

Like where? Like I said, most buildings will be visible from anywhere on the map, but not all - it will be possible to build small camoflaged/dug in positions. Other than these, where are you going to hide an airstrip for example? (note, game is set in futuristic setting, all players will have excellent satellite coverage)

quote:
Any large force of cavalry or infanty are visible from miles away by the dust they send into the air. You can even tell what's coming at you by inspecting the shape of the dust (low = infanty, high = cavalry).

Yet with conventional fog of war, 500 tanks can surprise you just as easily as 1 soldier on foot. Hmmmm.

quote:
That's not a problem with FOW, that's a problem with game design. In reality, you might not know where the 'one last building' is but, in reality, military victory is rarely magically secured by destroying the 'one last building', so it doesn't usually matter. In TA, you have to do the same thing, and it really sucks.

Also true. But just tracking down the last enemy base can be a pain in the ass on a map that size.


Edited by - Sandman on November 26, 2001 1:41:59 PM

I am for FOW, but not how it is implemented in most games.

First of all maps should start out explored, not dark. Generally things should be seen from farther away then most games right now; you shouldn''t have to be right next to something to see it.

The way AoK (just using it cause I familiar with it) handles FOW is that each unit has a constant Line-Of-Sight (LOS) which is a radius around the unit that removes the FOW around it, then returns once the unit moves. This is just like WC2, SC, AoE and most other RTS''s.

I think that LOS should be scrapped in favor of a variable sighting system. This system is not based on the unit that is looking, but on the unit being spotted. Each unit has a variable, which dictates the length they can be away from an enemy unit without being spotted.

I don''t know an exact equation (I just thought this up ) it would be a combination of many things, but here are some basic rules to get the idea.

- The larger a unit or building is the easier it is spotted. Generally buildings should be spotted from very far away.

- The noisier a unit/building is the easier it is spotted. A tank should be more easily spotted than a sniper.

- More surrounding units the easier it is spotted. A huge army should be more easily seen then one or two units.

- A unit surrounded by trees should be easier to see than one out in the open.

Of course this may not work in practice. Taking away FOW completely makes comebacks way harder, and a lot of strategy IMO. Once someone gains momentum it would be way easier to win.

quote:
By RadGuy:
- More surrounding units the easier it is spotted. A huge army should be more easily seen then one or two units.

I think this is a really good idea, and I have a suggestion as to how it could be implemented in a tiled-map game (like C&C or AoE):

Each unit has a "visibility value", the higher the value, the easier it is to spot. Now, each tile in the game also has a visibility value, and that value is increased with each unit that is near it. (of course it goes back to normal once those units leave.) The higher the visibility value of a TILE the easier it is to spot that tile via satellite/ground recon. For instance:

This is an 8x8 square of tiles. The numbers indicate how visible that tile is.

In this square, there is a unit in the middle with a visibility value of 4.

  1222221112333211123432111233321112222211111111111111111111111111  

You get the picture. Now for TWO units in a square, right next to each other, each with a visiblity value of 4.

  1555555115666651156776511566665115555551111111111111111111111111  

I don''t know if I''ve made this very clear, but if implemented properly, I believe this would make using little groups of commandoes etc. very effective, because they have low visibility values AND there are only a few of them. RadGuy had the idea, I''m just suggesting a practical way to use it.

---------------

I finally got it all together...
...and then forgot where I put it.