Conquer Club

i think with four options there is enough to make everyone happy.

chapcrap wrote:

DJ Teflon wrote:I'm into it - big problem is if someone drops a bonus first turn but that should be prevented by xml anyway really.

Perhaps we should have 4 option - Sunny, Moonligt, Mist & Total Fog.

Would Mist be Fog as it is now?

Yes, or just call it fog and the new setting 'Dense Fog'

i read the moonlight thread, and personally that's not for me. but i do think the current fog needs to stay. plus a foggier fog. and if folks want "moonlight" that's fine too. i just prefer to have sunny, fog like our current fog, and another foggier fog, kind of like;

? for territory count
state bonus amounts as a ?
card terts and state 2 troops added to ? ( if applicable )
everything else in regular fog is fine for me.

then the fourth option could be for whatever anyone else wants.

i sure wish this was being taken for serious. or at least someone could say it's possible or not possible.

seems like a great idea with plenty of support.

Bump. All for this one.

support of this suggestion with one change leave the game log alone its needed to play,dis allow opponents to talk to anyone except thier team if it's a team game. otherwise players can talk to each other after the game

partly cloudy should be in there somewhere... sounds funny

good idea though...

In Fog games, it kind of bothers me that you can see so much information in the information section. Why should I know how many terits someone has or how many attacks they have made, if I can't see those terits? I'd totally play a super-foggy game where all that shows up in the live report is when players start and end turns, and absolutely nothing else, since I hypothetically am unaware of it. This might be a no-new-recruits option, though. I find it weird that I can tell how many reinforcements someone gets, or what bonuses they are getting, without seeing any of the involved terits (and obviously not all of them). I would say that perhaps when someone cashes spoils, that might make the feed (but not whether they got any bonuses for owning those terits), since with escalating spoils you'd need to know how many spoils had been played, but the number of spoils each player has at any moment should also be hidden. This total lack of information would make the game much more exploration-style, not investigation-style.

I presume that providing less, not more, information in the game log would be really easy (only show start/end of turn) to implement, and I think that this would be an interesting game dynamic option.

Am I the only person crazy enough to want to play a game like this? I'd totally play a super-foggy trench game with 8 players, just to play as blindly as possible. Comments appreciated.

Yes yes yes. We could call it Dark of Night warfare.

+1

I kind of liked "extra foggy, but Dark of Night does sound pretty awesome.

+2,Very good idea. Tougher way to play fog.

It's been suggested before ... But I'm still all for it.

Oh, I looked but maybe I just didn't search the right way. Anyway, I didn't mention but it also makes (truthful or not) diplomacy a bigger part of games, since you basically have to take people's word for where they are.

Yep. It would be a really cool setting. I don't think there are many people against it that I've seen. Most of the discussion is on where to draw the line.

Also, in your initial post, you said that you think spoils should make it in. That got me thinking that they don't necessarily have to. Why do you "need" to see what your spoils are going to be worth in an escalating game. (Or even what color your own or other people's cards are in a flat rate game ... or even which territs get nuked by whom in a nuke game). You could even kill that info. That would be an intense game, trying to guess at what spoils are worth.

Other people have even suggested disabling chat in games. You wouldn't even be able to do diplomacy. I think I'd play any variation/level of this fogginess.

would be fun to try , for sure better than trench

At fisrt I was in favour to show spoils, but with this comment:

agentcom wrote:Also, in your initial post, you said that you think spoils should make it in. That got me thinking that they don't necessarily have to. Why do you "need" to see what your spoils are going to be worth in an escalating game. (Or even what color your own or other people's cards are in a flat rate game ... or even which territs get nuked by whom in a nuke game). You could even kill that info. That would be an intense game, trying to guess at what spoils are worth.

Other people have even suggested disabling chat in games. You wouldn't even be able to do diplomacy. I think I'd play any variation/level of this fogginess.

I'm totally for this, the log should only show:
-Player A started the turn
-Player A ended the turn

Without, even the time (as that would not only help in fs game, but if you see a turn that took to long, you could guess things

Or just:
Player A ended the turn, without saying it started, because in a fs could go like this
-Player A starts his turn
-Player B starts his turn
-Player B ends his turn
-Player A ends his turn

With this you know, that they took it at the same time, and that Player A was longer time with the turn (for whatever reason)

We shouldn't know, anything, even the time where they took the turn, or even if someone was killed...

I think it will be easier, and even better just to delete the log without even knowing if they took or missed they turn. That would be awesome

Alright I see everyone's point about spoils. They don't really need to be included, although I do think that you should know how much the next spoil is going to be worth. I agree with agentcom now that it should just show beginnings and endings of turns in the log, and nothing else.

It's worth noting that I would specifically not be ok with just putting ?'s in place of all the numbers that aren't already treated that way in the log. I think that this gives away too much information, especially on a map such as any Age of Realms map, where if you saw a bojillion of "Player A got ? troops added to ?" instead of the current Player A got -1 troops added to ?", that still tells you a lot about the strength of players.

I don't think the log should be deleted completely. I want to go back and look at what happened in a finished game sometimes. Plus C&A mods use it to look for SD. But you would suppress it during the game. Instead of just swapping out territ/bonus names for ?s, you would completely hide those lines (temporarily). Just like team chat/notes to self are hidden from players in the Chat log, you would hide the relevant lines in the Game log

agentcom wrote:I don't think the log should be deleted completely. I want to go back and look at what happened in a finished game sometimes. Plus C&A mods use it to look for SD. But you would suppress it during the game. Instead of just swapping out territ/bonus names for ?s, you would completely hide those lines (temporarily). Just like team chat/notes to self are hidden from players in the Chat log, you would hide the relevant lines in the Game log

That seems reasonable. I do enjoy seeing where I went wrong in games.

sirgermaine wrote:

agentcom wrote:I don't think the log should be deleted completely. I want to go back and look at what happened in a finished game sometimes. Plus C&A mods use it to look for SD. But you would suppress it during the game. Instead of just swapping out territ/bonus names for ?s, you would completely hide those lines (temporarily). Just like team chat/notes to self are hidden from players in the Chat log, you would hide the relevant lines in the Game log

That seems reasonable. I do enjoy seeing where I went wrong in games.

True, when I said delete the log, I was reffering during the time that the game is active... and hiding all the lines of the log, like team chat, seems the most reasonable and easier way

If this were to be implemented.. Getting rid of chat would have to occur.. Too many people divulge troop counts or stacks destroyed.. so being blind about actions would be pointless if someone gets pissed and divulges all info.. Just saying

Culs De Sac wrote:If this were to be implemented.. Getting rid of chat would have to occur.. Too many people divulge troop counts or stacks destroyed.. so being blind about actions would be pointless if someone gets pissed and divulges all info.. Just saying

Bluffing has always been part of the grand tradition of fog games. I see no reason to eliminate chat.

You could rate people down for blabbing in chat, or let it be part of the game. The point here is not to have it be absolutely possible to ignore the other players entirely; in fact in my original post I noted that information or misinformation in chat would be a bigger, not smaller part of things.

I think this would be a crap ton of fun.

The territs of the enemy that you can see, can you see a troop count or just see the color of who owns it?

patrickaa317 wrote:I think this would be a crap ton of fun.

The territs of the enemy that you can see, can you see a troop count or just see the color of who owns it?

I vote troop count. unless you can code it so that you can only see a max of 10 troops at a time on a tert