Buying Vision for Fog

[universalchiro]

Concise description:

• The ability to buy vision to reveal a fogged region at the cost of troops intended for deployment.

Specifics/Details:

• Additional game setting for risk takers that seek a different angle of battle tactics. The amount of troops required to reveal a region is determined by player initiating the game. Options range from one troop sacrificed from deployment to reveal one region to 10 troops sacrificed to reveal one fogged region. At Game initiators discretion.
  
  When one buys vision to unfog a region by sacrificing X number of troop(s):
  *The cost of vision to reveal one fogged region is set in "Start a game" settings selections.
  *The cost of vision ranges from 1-10 troops per fogged region.
  *This is exclusive information that only the purchaser and teammates can view.
  *The vision is lifted and fog restored when the next player starts their turn.
  *The cost remains the same even if it's a region you've purchased to view in the past.
  *Game Log reads, " "x player spent 1-10 spy to view ? region". Since it's fog, other players won't see what region was viewed.
  *The cost of vision will be posted below map next to other game settings.

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• Thrill seekers get another facet to the game of wits. At what price would you pay to know how many troops an opponent has hidden? Haven't you said, "I am dying to know if so and so picked up that bonus", are you seeking an additional level of battle tactics? Well now you have an opportunity to find out what was once hidden, now you'll know if opponent has that bonus, But is the cost of knowing worth the sacrifice of troops for the Intel. You are the general of your army, you must decide to keep the troops and use them for battle or sacrifice a couple for information. What will you do?

[puppydog85]

+1 this.

[Foxglove]

Very interesting! I like this too.

[Swifte]

Whew - i thought you were talking about paying money to CC for fog vision! That would be nuts.

This however... is interesting. I'll think about it some more

[betiko]

I like it but what i don t like is that the bigger your deployment, the less it "costs" you.
If for example you pay 1 troop per region...
Also, how would it work on the long run? Say you paid for sao paolo. Do yo get to see sao paolo the entire game, or just for that round?

[universalchiro]

One bite of the apple please. If you want another bite, then wait your turn and pay for additional bites.

Fog is restored once next player takes their turn.
Purchasing of a region and revealing the region is exclusive information not shared by other players that is not a teammate.

[judge_reinhold]

I'm all for this, since it will make anyone who uses it so much easier to beat.

It should only work per region per round, not entire game. That would be ridiculous.

[ChrisPond]

I like it but what i don t like is that the bigger your deployment, the less it "costs" you.
If for example you pay 1 troop per region...
Also, how would it work on the long run? Say you paid for sao paolo. Do yo get to see sao paolo the entire game, or just for that round?

i think instead of 1-10 troops to "buy" the vision, you could just make it a percentage of the deploy. only problem i see with this is on maps where you end up with no deploy (or very little...this can happen on maps like kings court 2). in that case you could knock your teammate to no or little deploy and use him to be the "spy". it would add another dimension to the game. maybe since most maps revolve around a 3 deploy to start with, you could make the default cost to 33% of your deploy?

how would that be handled in the log? i would say it should come up in the log as "x player spent y troops to see z region". that way other players in the game know that player x is spying but do not know what they are spying at. deploys would therefore be accounted for in the log.

Whew - i thought you were talking about paying money to CC for fog vision! That would be nuts.

This however... is interesting. I'll think about it some more

This is what i thought at first as well

[Foxglove]

Here's another idea: maybe the cost could be a chain somehow - to see the first depth of ? regions (2 away from your territories) it costs 1 troop. To see a fog region of depth 2 it costs 2 troops, etc. This way it gets more expensive the further you want to see.

[Sohail88]

This idea is genius!!! +1 up vote!!

[Flow520]

Here's another idea: maybe the cost could be a chain somehow - to see the first depth of ? regions (2 away from your territories) it costs 1 troop. To see a fog region of depth 2 it costs 2 troops, etc. This way it gets more expensive the further you want to see.

I think this adds a nice touch of realism to the idea. (Though I have no idea what the the magnitude of the troop cost should be.)

[judge_reinhold]

Hey, I know a way you can spend troops to see territories 1-2 away from your borders - it's called attacking. lol

Knowledge is valuable in the fog, but not as valuable as your deploy, I'd say. Anyone who spends a lot on spying will lose to whoever saves their troops for attack.

[universalchiro]

Here's another idea: maybe the cost could be a chain somehow - to see the first depth of ? regions (2 away from your territories) it costs 1 troop. To see a fog region of depth 2 it costs 2 troops, etc. This way it gets more expensive the further you want to see.

A progressive tier of cost away from border, interesting idea, the programming algorithms may get too complicated for this progressive inflation of the cost of vision. Maybe down the road. But good idea.

[universalchiro]

i think instead of 1-10 troops to "buy" the vision, you could just make it a percentage of the deploy. only problem i see with this is on maps where you end up with no deploy (or very little...this can happen on maps like kings court 2). in that case you could knock your teammate to no or little deploy and use him to be the "spy". it would add another dimension to the game. maybe since most maps revolve around a 3 deploy to start with, you could make the default cost to 33% of your deploy?

how would that be handled in the log? i would say it should come up in the log as "x player spent y troops to see z region". that way other players in the game know that player x is spying but do not know what they are spying at. deploys would therefore be accounted for in the log.

Percentage of deploy is interesting. But there may be some rounding up and rounding down issues of the cost of vision. This may also increase the difficulty of the programming. But a good idea.

Appearance in the log: Roger that. Thought implemented

[ChrisPond]

Other problem I see with your way is that u would set the vision cost in settings. I think u need to come up with one price, or one way to set the price. Think about how long it would take to fill games by being able to set prices from 1-10 troops. Games would take forever to fill.

[judge_reinhold]

What about something really simple, like these options:

1.)
each player can reveal 1 foggy territory to themselves (and their team) per turn. No cost. You just have to choose carefully.

2.)
Each player gets to vote for revealing 1 territory per round. Whichever territory gets the most votes is revealed to all players. That could be a way to root out secret stackers. If 3 players all want to prove a fourth is lying, they can do it.

[universalchiro]

How about we beta test this concept to work out the kinks?
Foxglove, you're on the Beta team with Icepack and JaneAustin, does that sound doable?

[macbone]

It'll have to be coded first before it can be beta-tested, UC. =)

[Kaskavel]

Here's another idea: maybe the cost could be a chain somehow - to see the first depth of ? regions (2 away from your territories) it costs 1 troop. To see a fog region of depth 2 it costs 2 troops, etc. This way it gets more expensive the further you want to see.

You make clever thoughts no doubt, but result is not necessairily correct. In Trench situations with big stacks hitting a 2 back and forth for example, it is the exact opposite that matters! You would give anything to know from which side opponent is weaker so that you try to advance from there.
Basicaly, the OP idea seems reasonable enough. Let the game creator decide. He should be wise enough to make the cost 1 for doodle and 4 for Eurasia no doubt. (those 10 seem unreasonable to me on first thought)
And before you decide, keep in mind how crazy things will get in foggy nuclear games, a powerfuly influencing combination that I am not certain if all of you have thought about.

[Foxglove]

How about we beta test this concept to work out the kinks?
Foxglove, you're on the Beta team with Icepack and JaneAustin, does that sound doable?

That's not how the process works, unfortunately!

The admin decide what features and suggestions to implement. The beta team is there to help test out things that the admin has already implemented - we don't guide the process of coding new features.

[Foxglove]

Here's another idea: maybe the cost could be a chain somehow - to see the first depth of ? regions (2 away from your territories) it costs 1 troop. To see a fog region of depth 2 it costs 2 troops, etc. This way it gets more expensive the further you want to see.

You make clever thoughts no doubt, but result is not necessairily correct. In Trench situations with big stacks hitting a 2 back and forth for example, it is the exact opposite that matters! You would give anything to know from which side opponent is weaker so that you try to advance from there.
Basicaly, the OP idea seems reasonable enough. Let the game creator decide. He should be wise enough to make the cost 1 for doodle and 4 for Eurasia no doubt. (those 10 seem unreasonable to me on first thought)
And before you decide, keep in mind how crazy things will get in foggy nuclear games, a powerfuly influencing combination that I am not certain if all of you have thought about.

Yes, good thoughts! Ideally we need to think about the different configurations of game options and how they would be impacted by a feature like this. My thought behind the increasing cost of fog vision was to simplify the game creation process in a way that would work for both small and large maps, but you are right that this doesn't adequately account for things like trench and nukes.

[dakky21]

And in maps like AoR where you can get a lot of bonuses quickly, that would kill the fog of war settings. Hive and City Mogul would lose some playability if that feature was mandatory.