Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

While Fog of War is an inherent attribute of these games, for a number of reasons I think it is somewhat illusionary. Also being a tabletop miniatures player where for the most part you have a helicopter view of the entire battlefield I have wondered if there is "value" to playing the HPS and Talonsoft games (this topic applies to ACW and Nap as well) without FoW?

The one advantage might be to encourage or provide a basis for studying the tactics of the period.

Having had this conversation with a couple of folks, I know the quick response is generally negative, but having just started some "camapign games" it seems to me that there could be some value to playing without FoW.

Comments?

Bob,
To me, FoW is absolutely necessary. While I can see that it might in a training setting allow a better understanding of the tactics, even that is somewhat illusory.

Part of tactics is a flexibility to deal with the unexpected. For example, the appearance of forces from an unexpected quarter. The "tactics" there would consist of keeping a reserve, or perhaps having the end of the line in a flank-refused position.

Reading your post,t he first thing that came to mind was the Battle of Ramillies (I'm intruiged by the War of the Spanish Succession, so my examples tend to come from there). In that battle, Marlborough realized that his right flank was largely secure due to terrain, and that there was opportunity on his center-left, AND that because of the lay of the land, he could transfer his forces out of sight of the French. Suffice it to say he did so, and won the battle.

so for me, FOW is an automatic option.

In training games I always (almost) have FOW off. On "real" games, I have it on.

In some battles, where there are no terrain advantages or ways of hidden movemnet, then playing without FOW would work. Often, scenarios (maybe not the historical way) have room for using flanking and envelopement movements that make no sense if your opponent sees them coming.

I don't see the advantage beyond training purposes.

It certainly has it's place in training games to allow for closer examination of what student/instructor are doing. Also, you can get an idea of the various modifiers etc quite clearly. It would allow a trainee to see the effects of C&C earlier.

However in a competitive game, it allows for too much micro management (and we already do that enough). Focus fire on fatigued troops, commit just enough to a melee to ensure success and not a copany more, etc, etc.

However, if you interest is in watching the grand spectactle of a battle unfold, then leaving it off is the answer. Mind you , players would need to mover in regimental lines and pay attention to spacing and unit density, but could have merit.

Cox
NJM

FoW is most crucial in some scenarios. How can I be dastardly and daring at the same time if my opponent sees my every move? I say leae FoW on at all times.

It would nice to have fog of war on the terrain as well. My son plays a game where the terrain appears as black screen until units move into it. It then becomes visable. However, I agree with most others that fow is best except for training. That said, there are no rules saying you must play with fow. When you set up a game, ask your opponent. They might be willing.