Is there any maps where having vision to see through fog is worth anything?  

I'm actually considering it for Appomatox.. I don't know if you are familiar with that board, but I think the use of vision has potential there..

Amidon37 wrote:

Is there any maps where having vision to see through fog is worth anything?  

What do you mean "worth anything"?  Castles uses View Only borders nicely, I tried to incorporate them into Europa 2210, and Gauntlet uses them effectively just to name a few.

I will have to try Castles again then. The one time I played I took a castle too early and then lost it. I haven't tried Gauntlet yet. I'll give that a try also.

I am early into a Europa game and just took two watchtowers (don't tell anyone.) I am not sure if the extra information will prove pivotal in games or not. Which is what I meant by "worth anything". A probing attack with a 3 gets you the owner (in total fog games) and number of armies, so the information gained by vision would have to be used in the placement phase - at least that is my thinking so far. I'll have to see how the game plays out.

I've played a few games of Ancient Islands of Kjeldor and one of Dungeon and in neither one of those spending time and units to gain vision helped me out at all. So, I was curious about the topic in general.

Lots of good examples in your post Amidon and I have to pretty much agree with all of them.

Taking shrines on Kjeldor usually isn't worth the unit cost, but under certain circumstances it can be pivotal. For instance, with fewer players in the game the shrines are a total waste. But in a larger game where the unit counts tend to get much higher and the game extends longer, if you don't conquer your own shrine at the right stage of the game you're dead in the water. Not only for the extra bonus, but because at some point you'll need to be choosing your attacks very judiciously and having a better idea of the balance of power will allow you to do that.

Dungeon is another example of a dual-use vision territory that under the right ocnditions can be very helpful. I more often use the torches to jump over occupied territories than for the vision, but again, in a larger game where the endgame becomes crucial, the key decisions on that board come down to where to place your units and where & when to use your fortifies. Being able to see the stacks at the end of the halls can be pretty clutch. I think I advocated for a slightly larger vision radius on the torches in board testing because I think they could still play a bigger role in the game.

Europa... my jury is still out on that one. In the games I've played I've gone for towers too, but there are just too many of them, I think. Pretty much everyone will have vision regardless of what you do, which doesn't exactly make going for it a waste of time, but it certainly doesn't seem to carry much of an advantage.

I think Castles uses it the best. I love seeing the map open up when you take a castle and I really think it helps because you can then make a call on if a player has taken the castle or not and you can go for the easy elim.
Gauntlet I think it is crucial to take the neckless to be able to take over a maze. I'll grant, having just one of them in each maze makes it tough. I also like taking it when I am getting crushed in one of the mazes just to try and get info on who is the really strong player and where.
Truth be known, I hate fog. It works in gameplay sometimes but I think it takes away from a player being able to use strategy because you can't set yourself up. Sometimes it just comes down cashing and going all out and that just doesn't appeal to me all that much anymore.

An update having recently lost another game of Castles and one of Kjeldor and am in another Dungeon game.

Took a shrine in Kjeldor just to do it. Was sort of worth it since an opponent had one and I was able to attack through it, but in the end it didn't matter much. Not doing that again.

In Castles it *is* wonderful how the map lights up when you grab one. It makes a big difference, but I still got killed when I lost my castle.

In Dungeon it's fun to walk by a torch and see some stuff, but I still have not seen anything that I think will matter much.

So, my my current opinions (for what they are worth) -

1) In order for vision to be useful/pivotal you need to go big. The whole map I think is the best, but at least pretty far from where you already are. If it is just 2 or 3 countries away, then in general you already own many of those around that place and have a good general idea of who is next to you already.

2) I am not a fan of the boards with "get a capital for a big bonus, but die if you lose it". It's an alright game mechanic, but can be over/mis-used. The strategy seems to be to grab as many as you can and then go from there.

I think castles would be a good board just with the castles granting vision and not being capitals.

Yeah, I disagree with all of this. You want to play Castles without the capitals? Play one of the other Europe maps and add fog to it but Castles may be one of the best overall designed maps I've ever played (and I've played a lot). The Capitals are in the perfect locations to make them obtainable and dangerous which is awesome!

I've lost games because of taking a capital and that's my fault. If you can't defend it, don't take it. Don't start claiming map flaws or design flaws because the map isn't being nice to you.
Feel free to not be a fan of a map. I'm not a fan of lots of maps. You know what I do to be sure there are maps on the site that I do like? I make my own. My maps aren't popular and in fact most people never play them after the first game on them, but I'm sick of Conquer and Cash maps and so I try to make other things (not recently, but in general). If everything is a standard Risk map in a new location I'm gonna start actually working at work.
That's my 2 cents, keep the change.

In Castles it's a tactical advantage because you know who to attack based on the greater board position. But, yes, if you lose your capital you'll still lose.

In Kjeldor it's only important in certain circumstances. A little bit like Total Wargear - if you can get to the satellites before everyone else, it's huge. If you're late to the party, it's less important. On Kjeldor the shrines not only grant vision but double your bonus on that continent. So if you can do it on your first couple turns, before everyone else will know you've done it, it gives you quite a bit of control.

Play more games on Castles before you judge the game mechanic. Because depending on the game state there are a LOT of different strategies you'll want to employ depending on the circumstances with regard to the castles; one of which is "don't take any".

asm wrote:

one of which is "don't take any".

I hate it when people do that... It's extremely frustrating to throw all your units into taking a capital only to discover they haven't even moved in yet. As for Castles, I love that map. It's very simple, but as asm says it has so many different strategies to employ.

I think Gauntlet makes very good use of view borders. Then again, I think Gauntlet does a ton of things right and is my favorite map here...

If the capitals on Castles just granted vision, then yes, I would probably never take one. I have certainly used the knowledge sight beyond sight grants to my advantage. Even 1 continent on that map can really swing the balance of power, so knowing if someone has 1 or more can drastically alter your gameplay. But, having a capital also grants increases in bonus, attack bonuses to repel people from leaving a large 'nail' in the corner of your continent, and defense bonuses themselves. That said, all that power comes balanced by some risk. A theme I try to include in as many of my maps as possible is trade-offs. I rarely want someone to just get stronger by having more. Plenty of maps do it well, but I want to make people weigh every decision they make. Road Warrior is a great example of this without requiring capitals. Capitals do make the job a lot easier, though.

Anyway, I hear your complaint, but I don't really understand what you want.

Cramchakle wrote: 
Anyway, I hear your complaint, but I don't really understand what you want.

Not complaining really, just talking. 

And I've only played Castles twice, so I am far from an expert on such things.    And I am certainly not asking or suggesting you (Cram) to change on anything on it.  As Risky said, it just may not be my favorite map and that's fine.  There are certainly enough maps to keep everyone happy.  I'll have to hit my head on the map some more and see what I can do.

Interesting  how you (Cram) said "I rarely want someone to just get stronger by having more"  I'll have to think about that.

I guess my problem is with "That said, all that power comes balanced by some risk".  A capital is more than "some" risk, they are "a lot "of risk.  But I guess we are playing "Risk" after all.

Cramchakle wrote: If the capitals on Castles just granted vision, then yes, I would probably never take one.

Interesting... I normally take them mainly for the sight they give. The bonus is nice, but on the smaller continents it doesn't matter too much. Seeing the whole map reveal after taking the first capital is Wargasmic.

Castles should definitely stay the way it is. Yes, it is a huge risk to take a castle, but it can be reduced by controlling more than one.

Typically, I try to take a second castle the turn I first take my first one. This makes it much harder for someone to eliminate me, and if someone does take one of them, they may have just set themselves up for an easy elimination. Also, careful reading of the history does help you figure out whether someone has a castle or not.

I'm not suggesting that I will be changing Castles. I won't. I've made a lot of maps now, between the old site and this one, and Castles is by far my proudest achievement.

I was more wondering what Amidon was pushing us towards with his criticism of various 'view granting' territory applications -- generally, not specific just to Castles.

bengaltiger wrote:

Cramchakle wrote: If the capitals on Castles just granted vision, then yes, I would probably never take one.

Interesting... I normally take them mainly for the sight they give. The bonus is nice, but on the smaller continents it doesn't matter too much. Seeing the whole map reveal after taking the first capital is Wargasmic.

Yes, and you beat me on that map consistently. So I guess now we know why.

Cramchakle wrote:
I was more wondering what Amidon was pushing us towards with his criticism of various 'view granting' territory applications -- generally, not specific just to Castles.

I think what i am saying (and please forgive me if I am just being a dork) is the "view granting" in Castle's is the best use of vision I have seen.  (and admittedly I have not played all maps.  I have yet to play Gauntlet in particular)  In order for vision to be useful you need to see where you aren't.  I think that ability you built into the capitals on that map is the most important power you gave them. 

Amidon37 wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:
I was more wondering what Amidon was pushing us towards with his criticism of various 'view granting' territory applications -- generally, not specific just to Castles.

I think what i am saying (and please forgive me if I am just being a dork) is the "view granting" in Castle's is the best use of vision I have seen.  (and admittedly I have not played all maps.  I have yet to play Gauntlet in particular)  In order for vision to be useful you need to see where you aren't.  I think that ability you built into the capitals on that map is the most important power you gave them. 

It seems I more or less read your earlier posts with the opposite meaning of what you intended. Likely my own fault.