"Fog of War" Combat

[calithena]

A system I have played only occasionally but I have enjoyed involves everyone declaring what they do secretly before initiative order, etc. are determined. Then everyone 'reveals' and actions are resolved according to a variety of different systems. GM adjudicates apparent conflicts. Sometimes you can lose actions or run in the wrong direction when this kind of system is used; at other times there is cool serendipity and unexpected cool things happen. I believe Hargrave recommends something like this in one of the Arduin Grimoires.

Who has played this way? Has it worked well for you?

[DungeonDevil]

F.O.W. is a concept I've used in some wargames, e.g. Corps d'Armee by Wootten (brilliantly designed, BTW).
However, I don't think it is a feature of RPGs.
On that note, did EGG or DLA make any published remarks about such issues in the RAW? In SR? In The Dragon?

[Finarvyn]

A couple of thoughts, none of which may actually answer your question:

(1) I agree with DuneonDevil that wargames might provide some good inspiration. I think that Avalon Hill's Midway had a system with two maps and a referee, as that particular battle was very cat-and-mouse historically. I think there was a submarine game that I played decades ago with a similar premise. There are probably others, but I suspect naval and submarine games are more likely to use hidden movement than ground-combat games as there are fewer pieces in play there. Ground games tend to have lots of figures/units.

(2) Chainmail has siege rules, and part of that includes mining tunnels to try to get under castle walls. I think there were rules for tunnels and counter-tunnels, but that might not be very helpful for your context. I seem to remember some interview with Arneson where he tried to discuss how the "fog of war" might work in role playing, but I can't recall the source. The old article "Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery" from Strategic Review #5 has an example of a scenario where German WWII soldiers encountered a fantasy army, and I think that "fog of war" was critical (particularly at the start of the scenario since neither player knew what sort of enemy he was fighting).

(3) British military historian John Keegan wrote a book called The Face of Battle (I think that's the one I'm thinking about; I have several Keegan books and hope I'm not mis-recalling which one) and if I recall correctly he talks about what a typical soldier on the front lines would have experienced. I think there was an ancient battle, a Napoleonic battle, maybe trench warfare in WWI. While this might not give you rules for "fog of war" it might give you some inspiration on what a soldier would experience and therefore what rules to build for your scenario.

www.amazon.com/Face-Battle-Study-Agincourt-Waterloo/dp/0140048979

[yesmar]

Aug 16, 2024 14:12:47 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

The old article "Sturmgeschutz and Sorcery" from Strategic Review #5 has an example of a scenario where German WWII soldiers encountered a fantasy army, and I think that "fog of war" was critical (particularly at the start of the scenario since neither player knew what sort of enemy he was fighting).

In fact, it was not the traditional ‘fog of war,’ but rather a thick, vision-obscuring fog resistant to Dispell Magic!

[DungeonDevil]

Am I wrong in attributing the phrase more to what commanders experienced, than the rank-n-file troops? That's the approach of Corps d'Armee, which is very high-lvl (a.k.a. "ten thousand foot view") where the smallest unit played is the brigade.

E.g. you, the Commander-in-Chief (CiC) issue an order to a unit on your flank some distance away, that requires a horseborne messenger to deliver the orders. The appropriate time later, the messenger should arrive at the destination, but the unit does not activate and carry out your orders at the critical moment in the engagement. You, therefore, are left in the dark (thus, fog of war) about what happened.

1) Did the messenger have an accident en route? Did he fall off his horse and get injured? Was he shot by enemy snipers? Intercepted by enemy hussars?
2) Did he indeed arrive at the intended destination, but the brigade commander not understand the orders? Is he wilfully insubordinate and refuse to carry them out?
3) Is the brigade commander incapacitated or killed?
4) Is the brigade compromised or effectively inoperative for some reason?
5) Were the orders ambiguous, unclear or impossible, given current conditions, to carry out?

AARGH! So many questions? What is going on?! Why didn't he move into attack?

That's the fog of war for ya!

[Punkrabbitt]

Aug 16, 2024 17:31:49 GMT -6 DungeonDevil said:

Am I wrong in attributing the phrase more to what commanders experienced, than the rank-n-file troops? That's the approach of Corps d'Armee, which is very high-lvl (a.k.a. "ten thousand foot view") where the smallest unit played is the brigade.

E.g. you, the Commander-in-Chief (CiC) issue an order to a unit on your flank some distance away, that requires a horseborne messenger to deliver the orders. The appropriate time later, the messenger should arrive at the destination, but the unit does not activate and carry out your orders at the critical moment in the engagement. You, therefore, are left in the dark (thus, fog of war) about what happened.

1) Did the messenger have an accident en route? Did he fall off his horse and get injured? Was he shot by enemy snipers? Intercepted by enemy hussars?
2) Did he indeed arrive at the intended destination, but the brigade commander not understand the orders? Is he wilfully insubordinate and refuse to carry them out?
3) Is the brigade commander incapacitated or killed?
4) Is the brigade compromised or effectively inoperative for some reason?
5) Were the orders ambiguous, unclear or impossible, given current conditions, to carry out?

AARGH! So many questions? What is going on?! Why didn't he move into attack?

That's the fog of war for ya!

I prefer skirmish games for my miniatures, but if I played a Big Battle game, this is the kind of thing I want going on.

[hamurai]

Torchbearer uses cards for 4 possible actions - Attack, Defend, Maneuver, Feint. Every character can do this in combat and players are supposed to coordinate themselves and discuss tactics (Who does what in the following round?). Then, all players select one of the possible actions secretly. The DM has already chosen their card, then all reveal their action card.

Depending on the DM's/monster's card, some of the player actions will prove either really useful or, sometimes, more or less wasted. For example, if a player chooses to defend when the monsters choose to maneuver (and not attack), the defend action is unnecessary. Also, IIRC there was a chart that you'd even get some bonus dice when using a "good" action.

I've run Torchbearer 1E a couple of times and my players really enjoyed this combat system. Since Torchbearer is quite punishing for players who waste time in the dungeon, there's usually the pressure to get the combat over with quickly, so you don't waste more resources than necessary, which ensures that players usually act offensively. At least the combat characters will. The rest will try to support them with Maneuvers and Feints, or just try to defend themselves.

[exploderwizard]

I think something like this in an rpg, can give an undue advantage to the GM. The GM, being of a single mind, can have many creatures working and coordinating together. The GM has the benefit of knowing what every monster, or NPC is generally going to do. So the opposition will be a well oiled machine against the scattered actions of several players. The "fog" in this case only applies to the players. Good teamwork is part of what makes rpg play fun and I wouldn't want to give that up.