While perhaps not quite as flexible, I wonder that setting fog conditions by territory seems less complex and easier to understand both from a designer's and player's perspective.  If a territory is fogged when attacking from A, but not fogged from B, and I own both A and B, won't condition B take precedence? I'm also concerned about how a map maker would make this information clear on a map.

 

Just as a bit of background, the idea came because right now I'm limited on my Qwerty map.  I wanted the ability to create artillery borders that attack fogged territories, but have other territories be no fog.

I envision the borders to have modifiers denoting the actual fog settings, so as a designer you could still set general fog and leave no modifiers if you wish.

And to your point above, I would think that the modifier with less fog would override the heavier fog.

I see it working like the border modifiers do now.  An border from A to B is set for a certain fog, and a border from B to A has an independent fog setting.  

If your fog borders are logical, you would describe them as part of the bigger picture.  "Continent A has light fog across its northern border with continent B. "  Or "Yoda can can see the Syth, but the Rebels are blind to Yoda. "

If it was Territory based but you had the option for the Border to be Normal and View would this solve the needed scenario?  I believe there has already been cases to have multiple border types (or border combinations) for a single border.  This would be able to solve the complete lift of Fog but not necessarily a subset and potentially account for multiple requests.

Seems like if we just allowed multiple border types (or provided all permutation of border types i.e. a view/attack border and a fortify/artillery border, etc.) Plus split view borders up into two types - view ownership and view unit count, you could do anything you wanted with the fog.  I think this is probably simpler than adding another fog by territory option.

If a complete fog by border solution was implemented, I will add a fog-by-territory feature to my advanced map editor that will allow map makers to define fog in a by territory basis and have my editor translate it into fog by border, so that could still be available to map makers if it would be better in some situations.

Ozyman wrote:

If a complete fog by border solution was implemented, I will add a fog-by-territory feature to my advanced map editor that will allow map makers to define fog in a by territory basis and have my editor translate it into fog by border, so that could still be available to map makers if it would be better in some situations.

Not that I'm yet convinced that fog-by-border is a good idea, but I think a fog-by-territory setting would set all borders by default. How else Tom convert all the existing maps into the system?

I think Ozy is headed down the right path with his proposal for all the permutations of borders. That would be pretty all encompassing.

After thinking about it some more it sounds like it would really need to be a Fog-by-border vs. a Fog-by-territory solution.  The problem is the relativity of the fog and the only way to fix that is to associate it with the border.  

For example, let's say  Territory A and Territory B border Territory C.  Territory A and B do not border each other.  Medium fog. Under normal fog settings, both can see C.

But, if I wanted A to be able to see C, and B to not be able to see C, then it would have to be by border because of the relativity.  A Fog-by-Territory setting would still be somewhat "universal" because it doesn't account for relative positions.

AttilaTheHun wrote: 

For example, let's say  Territory A and Territory B border Territory C.  Territory A and B do not border each other.  Medium fog. Under normal fog settings, both can see C.

But, if I wanted A to be able to see C, and B to not be able to see C, then it would have to be by border because of the relativity.  A Fog-by-Territory setting would still be somewhat "universal" because it doesn't account for relative positions.

..and if A and B are held by the same player, then the condition forced by A trumps the fog that would normally result from the C -> B border.  I suppose it's not too confusing.

M57 wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote: 

For example, let's say  Territory A and Territory B border Territory C.  Territory A and B do not border each other.  Medium fog. Under normal fog settings, both can see C.

But, if I wanted A to be able to see C, and B to not be able to see C, then it would have to be by border because of the relativity.  A Fog-by-Territory setting would still be somewhat "universal" because it doesn't account for relative positions.

..and if A and B are held by the same player, then the condition forced by A trumps the fog that would normally result from the C -> B border.  I suppose it's not too confusing.

Correct. OverlappIng fog would default to highest visibility.

Hello Everyone!

I'm making my first board and a similar problem to the question posed in this thread has arisen.  I want to have artillery borders that have a modified visibility to the normal borders.  Specifically I want the normal borders to be of the medium fog variety, only see adjacent territories can be seen, where as I would like the Artillery, since it's not adjacent to where it is attacking, to be like Total fog and only reveal the distinct territory it is attacking at the time of attack.

In this other thread: http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/603p1/Artillery_Borders_+_Fog

As I Roll11s puts it,

"A case can be made for 'Bombers':

- not seeing through fog that a default border would see through
- not being able to invade
- EVERY attack counts against the limit

'Bombers with AWACS support':

- see through fog that a default border would see through
- not being able to invade
- every attack counts"

I want Bomber's, no AWACS!

M57 goes onto clarify IRoll11's statement exactly as I want it for my board,

"My preference is "Bombers"  (no AWACS support)

-not seeing through fog

-not able to invade

-but with temporary RECON abilities after each attack..  (Same as a normal attack in total fog)

 

If you want to lift the fog you need to occupy a territory that is "normally" bordered to the target."

 

Now, back to this thread.

I can see here that Ozyman is referring to an "advanced map editor".  Specifically Ozy wrote,

"Seems like if we just allowed multiple border types (or provided all permutation of border types i.e. a view/attack border and a fortify/artillery border, etc.) Plus split view borders up into two types - view ownership and view unit count, you could do anything you wanted with the fog.  I think this is probably simpler than adding another fog by territory option.

If a complete fog by border solution was implemented, I will add a fog-by-territory feature to my advanced map editor that will allow map makers to define fog in a by territory basis and have my editor translate it into fog by border, so that could still be available to map makers if it would be better in some situations."

that seems to be able to do what I need... How do I get my hands on this Advanced Map editor?  Or is the option here somewhere in the Designer and I'm just missing it because my rookie status is causing me to fly in Total fog here?

Thanks a lot everyone,

Erick

http://www.wargear.net/forum/showthread/2658/Wargear_Advanced_Map_Editor

i believe fog settings for a board are total for every border option. so currently you couldn't have a 'normal' border have medium and an 'artillery' border have total.

without a test, i'm not sure what would happen in this case:
a medium fog board would look like with a couple artillery spots that attack half a board away. for example you only have australia and siam as owned territories. but one of the AUS territories could artillery to brazil. would you actually be able to see who owns brazil before attacking?  

EDIT: just did a test. the answer is: (for those who weren't already positive on the answer)
yes, you can see the artillery territory's target prior to attack.

Thanks weathertop. 

I actually don't even understand why completely blind artillery on medium and heavier fog settings isn't the norm, as I personally think that that is the more natural way for things, but alas they can see through those borders as if they are the snoopy woman sitting next door.  It just doesn't intuitively make sense to set a game with fog and then have the artillery spying all over the place... But, by all indications, Ozy's editor should be able to fix this.  Feel free to tune in on this matter Ozy to clarify that it'll work for my needs.

So as soon as I have defined all the Standard borders and artillery borders I follow the link weathertop provided, read all the documentaion, fill all the forms, give it my xml file at hat point and it'll spit back a fixed xml for the intended purposes, yes?

Thanks!

berickf wrote:

But, by all indications, Ozy's editor should be able to fix this. 

No it won't.  You may be misreading something.

Viewing abilities are based on border-type and fog setting.  View borders completely cut through the fog.  Attack and artillery (and I would guess transfer) borders give a level of viewing based on the fog setting.  Those can't be changed or customized at all.  (Except by, of course, changing the fog level.)  Not even in the .xml.  Border types are coded with a # in the .xml.  Wargear reads that #.  There is nothing we can do to intervene.

btw - It's been a standard annoyance on some boards that have view borders that you can't have a view border and an attack border between the same two territories.  So there are boards (e.g. Gauntlet) where you can view 2+ territories away but not the ones you can attack.

Well Amidon 37, if so, that's really disappointing.  Why would the default (and only) setting for Artillery be so counter intuitive to how it should be!

berickf- I answered in another thread, but Amidon37 is correct, the advanced editor is not going to be able to create borders that are not creatable in the normal editor (just more of them more efficiently).

I can think of a workaround for your situation.  As with most workarounds it has limitations and doesn't perfectly cover what you want. 

Each territory would also have a small territory within it.  Let's call the small territory a 'target'.  So if you have a territory 'Brazil'.  In that territory you create a tiny circle called 'Brazil-Target'.     Then you add a one-way border from the 'artillery' territory to the 'target'.  And an additional one-way border from the target to the main territory.

Players can now attack to the target, and from their to the territory, without revealing the ownership of the eventual target until they have committed the units to attack. 

You probably also want a -100 self destroying factory on all targets so that any units left behind at the end of the turn are destroyed.  (This is a good example of something the Advanced editor could help with).

Not quite what you are looking for, but the closest I could come up with.

berickf wrote:

Well Amidon 37, if so, that's really disappointing.  Why would the default (and only) setting for Artillery be so counter intuitive to how it should be!

I think every border that allows attacks via it (attack-only, artillery, standard) see through the fog the same (i.e. based on the map fog level).  Fortify-only borders don't see through fog.

I wish when a Artillery border is created it could be defined as "standard" and follow the board rules for any fog setting as it is like all other borders, or "blind" and automatically be set to Total fog to preserve the integrity of the fog for medium and greater settings.  This is unfortunate that it is as it is.  Is this even on the radar of things to be  implemented?

berickf wrote:

I wish when a Artillery border is created it could be defined as "standard" and follow the board rules for any fog setting as it is like all other borders, or "blind" and automatically be set to Total fog to preserve the integrity of the fog for medium and greater settings.  This is unfortunate that it is as it is.  Is this even on the radar of things to be  implemented?

I'm going to guess that it (or something similar) is pretty low on the list.  Not that it's not a good idea, but it's very specific and limited in its functionality, and there are features that people are asking for that promise broader impact.  That said, if you come up with a broad ranging feature that not only does what you want, but also has additional dimensionally..

Now, if you think it needs "fixing" because it's working incorrectly in the first place.. that's another thing.. but remember, there may be existing boards that work around - or even 'with' the 'flaw'.  That's always a concern.

M57 wrote:

berickf wrote:

I wish when a Artillery border is created it could be defined as "standard" and follow the board rules for any fog setting as it is like all other borders, or "blind" and automatically be set to Total fog to preserve the integrity of the fog for medium and greater settings.  This is unfortunate that it is as it is.  Is this even on the radar of things to be  implemented?

I'm going to guess that it (or something similar) is pretty low on the list.  Not that it's not a good idea, but it's very specific and limited in its functionality, and there are features that people are asking for that promise broader impact.  That said, if you come up with a broad ranging feature that not only does what you want, but also has additional dimensionally..

Now, if you think it needs "fixing" because it's working incorrectly in the first place.. that's another thing.. but remember, there may be existing boards that work around - or even 'with' the 'flaw'.  That's always a concern.

I actually think it's working incorrectly, but maybe that's just me.  I can not imagine a board where you want to have medium or heavy fog and artillery, but then one's artillery cuts right through the fog making the fog defunct in the process.  Basically you have to play that board in Total fog, so the artillery works properly, but so many people feel uncomfortable with Total that it reduces the usability of the board...  Ideally an artillery "default" should be blind, but again, maybe that's just me?

My rationalization is that the concept of fog is non-Risklike to start.  And probably the concept of artillery preceded the concept of fog. (assuming these pre-fog concepts originated on a piece of cardboard, and fog is an idea that the internet made plausible and accessible).  If you think in these terms (that fog is an "add-on"), then it's not hard to imagine the way it has been implemented.   I'm not saying that you aren't right and that it should be different Sometimes old habits die hard.