Not sure if this is really a bug or just unfortunate side affect.  But if a map has Fog, then when attacking with an Artillery border to an area that already has the minimum (which it has to show since you can't see the Unit number), you get an error window that says "Artillery strikes may only reduce the target territory to 1 units".  Canceling out works, and then you can know that it's already at min, just a bit confusing.

Space Invaders? I've been using that as well.

Can you give me the board / game? Does this mean you're getting too much info by virtue of the message?

tom wrote: Can you give me the board / game? Does this mean you're getting too much info by virtue of the message?

http://www.wargear.net/games/view/12357

Well, that's a good question, because I was thinking about this today and not entirely sure how it should be handled.

The game also has limited attacks, so should an attack like that count as an attack since you do gain information (ie you just get an attacker/defender lost 0/0 and it counts as an attack), but then that does seem a bit weird since games that don't have Fog you wouldn't lose an attack because the line wouldn't get drawn.  I dunno, maybe the solution is that it really does "attack" in this scenario (Artillery to an area with Fogged units counts as an attack).

Yeah I agree I think's that what should happen as well. The message should probably be changed though/

I think that there should be an option, like a check box that is next to limited attacks that says "count artillery" or something.

Forward positions lift fog so artillery can be effective.  Otherwise (with the exception of nukes), you're just wasting ammo. Personally, I think artillery attacks shouldn't work in fog.  It's more realistic and solves the problem.  I came late to the party and I'm guessing the decision has already been made, but can this be considered an option?

M57 wrote:

Forward positions lift fog so artillery can be effective.  Otherwise (with the exception of nukes), you're just wasting ammo. Personally, I think artillery attacks shouldn't work in fog.  It's more realistic and solves the problem.  I came late to the party and I'm guessing the decision has already been made, but can this be considered an option?

Just because you can't see what's in the darkness doesn't mean it doesn't take a magic missile to the face.

Cramchakle wrote:

Just because you can't see what's in the darkness doesn't mean it doesn't take a magic missile to the face.

+1

Cramchakle wrote:

Just because you can't see what's in the darkness doesn't mean it doesn't take a magic missile to the face.

Well that's fine and good if want all artillery to be magical all the time.  But unfortunately, I usually make an attempt to, in as much as it's possible, base the mechanics of my boards on the reality of the scenario.

Besides, what's the point of having fog in the first place if you can simply blast through it?  I'm just thinking that it's kind of a shame that I may have to choose between having a fog layer or artillery when I'm designing a board.

Now on the other hand, it would be great if you could have separate modifiers in the case of fog attacks.

M57 wrote:

Cramchakle wrote:

Just because you can't see what's in the darkness doesn't mean it doesn't take a magic missile to the face.

Well that's fine and good if want all artillery to be magical all the time.  But unfortunately, I usually make an attempt to, in as much as it's possible, base the mechanics of my boards on the reality of the scenario.

Besides, what's the point of having fog in the first place if you can simply blast through it?  I'm just thinking that it's kind of a shame that I may have to choose between having a fog layer or artillery when I'm designing a board.

Huh?  Are we on the same page here? Why would you have to choose between Fog Layer and Artillery? 

This really only plays a role in limited attack boards, or at least plays a bigger role there.

I'm probably misunderstanding. My point: If your artillery as well as no other of your units is not adjacent to it's intended target (which should therefore be fogged), the artillery should not be as effective, if it should be effectlive at all. Correspondingly, once you have employed your recon unit to a position adjacent to the target, the fog will lift and your target can be accurately spotted. Does this make sense?

It occurs to me that with the current mechanics of WG, because the artillery can reach the target, then it can see the target, and there will never be fog in this case.. I suppose that's acceptable, but I really like the idea of the former scenario.  And BTW, if this is the case, what's the problem in the first place?  No fog, no foul.

M57 wrote:

Does this make sense?

It occurs to me that with the current mechanics of WG, because the artillery can reach the target, then it can see the target, and there will never be fog in this case.. I suppose that's acceptable, but I really like the idea of the former scenario.

Yep.

And I think someone else has brought up should Artillery really see through Fog, but I think it was kind of decided that since it is an "Attack" then it should see just as the regular Attack borders.

The problem is when the Fog setting is Heavy/Total and the Artillery border has to be drawn (it's not if it can't attack due to already the territory already at 0/1 with the lower Fog settings), yet there is an error message when you attempt to attack that Fogged area that doesn't allow you Artillery attack since the territory is already at 0/1, in which you gain information that you probably shouldn't without using up an Attack (which again, plays more of a role in limited attack games).

I agree with everybody.

Hehe. Amazing how complex a simple thing like an 'Artillery Border' can be.

Of course the name brings with it preconceived notions. Let's call them 'Attack Borders at a Distance' (ABD) instead. If you were to implement an ABD, then the default behavior becomes easier to define, which is simply that they behave exactly like a default border except the countries don't have to connect, so:

1. same abilities with regards to fog as default borders
2. can take over the country they are attacking
3. attack counts as an attack against any attack limits

In that sense the Artillery Border should have been called a Paratrooper Border, except the decision was made to change the default behavior of #2, so that they can't take over the country. This decision is the only reason we know have to discuss #1 and #3, and is also why both sides of the 'argument' are right.

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

'Blind Paratroopers':

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

'Paratroopers with AWACS support':

- see through fog that a default border would see through
- being able to invade
- every attack counts

In addition to Smart and Dumb Artillery:

- see/not see through fog that a default border would see through
- no invasion
- every attack counts
- all units used in the attack are lost (like you know, artillery)

I can't make a case for not having an attack count, which is the current behavior on Heavy Fog Artillery attacks against 0/1 territories. It would make sense in that case to simply have nothing happen except the loss of an attack.

Excellent post 11s,

I think you got em all.  Hmm... except maybe:

How about Predator Drones?

-able to see through fog
-surgical capability to take out the command post reduces further defensive modifiers by x for that turn.
-able to do loop-de-loops
-can look up skirts (covert operations do not affect attack count).

M57 wrote:

Excellent post 11s,

I think you got em all.  Hmm... except maybe:

How about Predator Drones?

-able to see through fog
-surgical capability to take out the command post reduces further defensive modifiers by x for that turn.
-able to do loop-de-loops
-can look up skirts (covert operations do not affect attack count).

 

Occasionally lose player control and attack random targets until player self destructs it?

Kind of like a "Crazy Ivan".

test.

M57 wrote: Kind of like a "Crazy Ivan".

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/2009/09/22/robot-airplane-goes-awol-gets-shot-down/

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060509X00531&key=%201

Cramchakle wrote:

M57 wrote:

Forward positions lift fog so artillery can be effective.  Otherwise (with the exception of nukes), you're just wasting ammo. Personally, I think artillery attacks shouldn't work in fog.  It's more realistic and solves the problem.  I came late to the party and I'm guessing the decision has already been made, but can this be considered an option?

Just because you can't see what's in the darkness doesn't mean it doesn't take a magic missile to the face.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_aJgcVv62Y