The appearance of the NO FOG clan.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Score:4, Insightful

Score:0, Copycat

[Breeblebox]

Score:4, Insightful

Score:0, Copycat

Yeah, you got me, I read slashdot too....

;]

[Cuyo Quiz]

SPAM!.

Yeah, i know, but i think this thread needed some honest to god spam after the blue letters.

Also, no fog is ok for small maps, i'm sure in a small skirmish, you should be able to see the enemy troops clearly, now to respond to their moves...in bigger maps, however, the adding of fog may be welcome, and also it may come with a dash of realism.

[Tux2B]

Fog gives the map some realism when the map is mainly composed of marsh (marais)

[drachefly]

Maybe if fog didn't obscure quite SO closely? Maybe twice the movement range instead of movement range +1?

Then it's a lot harder to achieve tactical surprise, but just as easy to achieve strategic surprise.

I know, changing the rules of the game, blah blah...

[turin]

Also, no fog is ok for small maps, i'm sure in a small skirmish, you should be able to see the enemy troops clearly, now to respond to their moves...in bigger maps, however, the adding of fog may be welcome, and also it may come with a dash of realism.

And I usually play rather small maps, so when I play, I 1,, know what faction they're using immediately anyway, 2., can probably see the entire front by turn 3, as well as a bit behind it if I'm using bats, and 3., find fog more of an annoyance than anything, because it doesn't block any information I don't already have except what type the enemy leader is (which is usually irrelevant, since if you get to their leader you've won anyway), but it makes me not able to undo my moves half the time.


As to what people have said about undo not being necessary to the game, I strongly disagree. In chess, there is no such thing as a 'misclick'. In wesnoth, it is extremely easy to click in one hex when you mean another, and thus make a really dumb move. It happens to me all the time. Normally, you could undo that move, but with fog, you often can't; that doesn't add to the strategy, it just pisses people off.

[Dave]

In chess, there is no such thing as a 'misclick'.

Apparently you've never played chess using a computer/GUI based interface.

[Tux2B]

In chess, there is no such thing as a 'misclick'.

Apparently you've never played chess using a computer/GUI based interface.

Or at chess competitions.

[Dave]

Anyhow, perhaps a partial solution to mis-clicking in FoW games is if we made it so if you press 'escape' while a unit is moving, the unit stops where it's at. That way, you might still have the chance to correct your mis-click.

David

[Noy]

Anyhow, perhaps a partial solution to mis-clicking in FoW games is if we made it so if you press 'escape' while a unit is moving, the unit stops where it's at. That way, you might still have the chance to correct your mis-click.

David

Another option includes having a few seconds grace period (like one or two) after a movement that allows you to correct an error (by pressing escape or undo).

[turin]

In chess, there is no such thing as a 'misclick'.

Apparently you've never played chess using a computer/GUI based interface.

Oh, I have; there's a reason I don't anymore.

And at chess competitions, it is a bit different. Yes, if you touch a piece you have to move it, but its really, really hard to accidentally drop a piece in the wrong place. I've never seen it happen. But, it happens to me in Wesnoth all the time.

I think having such a 'grace period' would probably just get frustrating, since you have to wait 1-2 seconds after the move for it to happen.

The best thing, IMHO, is to make it so not so many moves are un-undoable. Currently, if you move in a way that makes it so you can't see an area you could see earlier, you can't undo, AFAICT. This makes no sense, IMHO. If you can see an area at the beginning of your turn, it makes no sense for you to lose sight of that area until the end of your turn. Its a simple matter of giving players easier access to information they already have.

[Darth Fool]

The best thing, IMHO, is to make it so not so many moves are un-undoable. Currently, if you move in a way that makes it so you can't see an area you could see earlier, you can't undo, AFAICT. This makes no sense, IMHO. If you can see an area at the beginning of your turn, it makes no sense for you to lose sight of that area until the end of your turn. Its a simple matter of giving players easier access to information they already have.

Well, along those lines, it would make sense to not update the "visible" area of the map until the end of a players turn. This would change the game dynamic, however, and wether it would be for the better or worse is up for debate. Another possible solution would be to have the visible area not updated after you move until you click on another unit. This would have the advantages of the delay update option without the annoyance of having to wait.

[turin]

There really isn't anything to discuss - so i am not quite sure why i am posting exctpt to say - it is a game guys! The game has options, so why take out an option that is valuable to some - surprise, etc - and a distraction to others.

OAB*.

I personally could do without shroud - but i can see when i join that it is shrouded.

We're not talking about shroud, but about fog.

it doesn't help me win more games

Its not supposed to - its supposed to make the game more fun.

*:Options are bad... not always true, but usually.

[Dave]

The best thing, IMHO, is to make it so not so many moves are un-undoable. Currently, if you move in a way that makes it so you can't see an area you could see earlier, you can't undo, AFAICT. This makes no sense, IMHO. If you can see an area at the beginning of your turn, it makes no sense for you to lose sight of that area until the end of your turn. Its a simple matter of giving players easier access to information they already have.

I agree with this -- a good point, and a good idea. I think this would be a reasonable change. I might even look into making it myself after 1.0.

*:Options are bad... not always true, but usually.

Well, my way of looking at it is that options are always bad. Just that occasionally the need for them outweighs how bad they are. I.e. "a necessary evil".

David