Fog of war and the map end in 3D?

[MacSoftish]

Now that we all have seen the screenshots of Heroes 5 I think it is time to discuss some elemenets of the game that haven't really been discussed before; fog of war (fow) and the map end. Now in Heroes 3 it was the usual fow, if you go there it will go away and stay away. And the ending of a map would just be a sudden stop, it all worked well in 2D.

However in 3D we have a different situation, fow will have to be real thick to cover the terrain (high and lows, buildings?). Or maybe the various buildings will not render until the fow is lifted to prevent one from reading the horizon so to speak?

Then we have the map ending, how will it be neatly put into the 3D world? Just an ubrupt ending? A border then empty? From the screenshots one could get the idea that there are mountains that act like the final borders. But what's behind those? Doesn't really matter one might think since there is no gameplay there.

One could draw the conclusion that we will not be able to zoom down and angle our view as much as seen in those screenshots mainly because it generates problems ... what do you guys think?

[Heroine_LL]

I wouldn't like fog of war as in H4 but prefer only the shroud as in H3. Fog of war might add to strategy but also constantly puts a blanket over beautiful graphics and landscapes which I always thought was a shame. If fog of war is implemented, it should be optional imo.

[Aseved]

Well, that's a good question.

I think thick fog is quite easy to generate in a 3D environment. AFAIK, 3D engines use a "fog" (or athmosphere density) parameter to know until were they have to draw - that is what also gives the several "layers" of horizon, each one more difuminated.

Now, if this parameter can be adjusted to different map zones, it might present no problem - zones under the fog of war will fade away much faster, and therefore you will be unable to see under them. Also, there is a possibility to only render the terrain in these zones, as you comment (wich is quite similar to what is done under the "light" fog of war in Heroes IV, were heroes/creatures are nod drawn even being there)

About the map borders. I see two possibilities, one is to make the 3D surface of the map "float" in a void space (wich I do not like that much) so the end of the map is a sheet floating in the void. The second possibility, that works quite well, is a trick many 3D games use nowadays. There is a little extension after map borders (let's say a "second border") that expands a bit what is inside the true map. And camera is relatively free, but not allowed to go into positions that allow you to see behind that "second border". That way, you sense the world continues, because you are not allowed to see the end.

On a side note, answering to Heroine... i'd like FoW as in H4, but much more lighter so the graphs are little obscured, but still can shine.

[Lepastur]

I agree Aseved. But this matter depends on the perspectives we'll be able to choose. If our views are bound to the ground, maybe there won't be fog of war (it would be no longer needed), perhaps a line of sight system which would depend on the hero's scouting skill in order to set the spottin field, which I see the more logical because before, from King's Bounty to H4, heroes were allowed to see through mountains and forests. Maybe this system could be completed with an assembled minimap on 2D, or maybe this matter could be solved with a spell of low level which would show us a more detailed vision of what is explored yet, don't know, what's your opinion?

[Vitirr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lepastur:
I agree Aseved. But this matter depends on the perspectives we'll be able to choose. If our views are bound to the ground... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're crazy did you know? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. That won't ever happen, that would certainly kill the game. How are you supposed to take tactical decisions with such a perspective?.

And it's already been confirmed that there's free camera so we won't be bound to anything.

[UndeadDontDie]

While I agree that it makes no sense, I'd like FOW to act like it did in HoMM III, so once an area is revealed you can see anyone who goes through.
This is because FOW forces you to keep units in explored areas to look up for enemies, increasing MM a whole lot and making turns longer and more boring.
As for map borders, the good old 3D trick Aseved mentioned is what most games use, and what I think will fit in quite nicely.

[Lepastur]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vitirr:

You're crazy did you know? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, my friend, someones say crazy people are no more than people with a big and weird imagination http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. I was only supposing certain facts, nothing more http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>That won't ever happen, that would certainly kill the game. How are you supposed to take tactical decisions with such a perspective?. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For example with what I said above, a tactical minimap, which it seems more logical and realistic (inside fantasy).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And it's already been confirmed that there's free camera so we won't be bound to anything. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure? That's relative, maybe we'll have a free camera bound to the ground http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

[Elor_Once_Dark]

I think the map edges could also be dealt with by encasing the map in impassable terrain of various sorts. That would prevent a strange effect of your being able to look further, but run against a glass wall. Of course, it poses some problems of explaining "How did we actually get here?", but well, you could still have one or two "invisible wall" places, e.g. on a road, with a roadsign say "To Exeter", making it understandable that this area is off the map.

[Salventus]

I think they should have an intelligence skill which will uncover the whole map once reached grandmaster level. If a Hero dosn't have the skill then he will constantly roam in the Fog Of War and never be able to lift the shroud. Meaning, the shroud should work with the intelligence skill and the fog of war should work with the scouting skill as usual.

[LegendReborn]

Fog of war is simply a term used to describe the uncertainty involved in dealing with the chaotic nature of a strategic (and sometimes tactical) battlefield. The shroud implementation, wherein the territory that has been seen is visible, but units are not, has come to be not only accepted, but expected. I would expect them to utilize some similar system.

As far as edges are concerned, this is not an issue, there are many many ways to get around it. See how WoW handles it and you can get some ideas. Huge raging rivers, massive mountation ranges, area that are forbidden by the gods, all of these can serve as means to maintain the suspension of disbelief while still providing boundaries...

[Campaigner_1st]

Fog of war as in Heroes IV is a must and a great strategical addition as it keeps you alert all the time and forces you to employ scouts to keep tabs on your enemies. It also increases the importance of the scouting skill.

[obiter]

i think some people have funny ideas about how 3D is going to change the game.

i wouldn't expect the 3D to be something like in World of Warcraft or Everquest, where getting up on a high mountain means you can see absolutely everything. HOMM5 is *not* going to be a 3rd person adventure game!

rather, i think the 3D implementation of HOMM5 will be much like WarCraft III, with the traditional "shroud" FoW rather than an actual 3D "fog" of varying density. similarly, the edge of a map in HOMM5 will be just like in every other strategy / RTS game: it just stops! no need to change this just because things are in 3D.

and as for an "active" vs. "passive" FoW (ie, where things are either revealed permanently or depend on the presense of a unit), theres no reason both couldn't be in the game and toggled on and off depending on your preference.

[Sikon_]

Of course, the FoW on/off option means there should be an option for mapmakers to fix this setting for a particular map, and in multiplayer games the setting should be the same for every player.
Considering map edges, Warcraft III handled them nicely since mapmakers could adjust both "camera bounds" and true map bounds, preventing you from seeing the edges.
In Etherlords, as far as I remember, the map was "secluded", so, if you crossed the eastern border, you appeared in the west. I doubt, however, that they will implement anything like this in Heroes. Impassable edges looked really nice and didn't have the "end of the world" look - basically a wall of trees or other obstacles separating the visible map from the "black void".

[Silent-wolf]

"i think the 3D implementation of HOMM5 will be much like WarCraft III, with the traditional "shroud" FoW rather than an actual 3D "fog" of varying density." - Obiter

Agreed, I imagine this game to having more of a WC3 perspective/feel, also with how the camera might be manipulated. I really don't care how whether the FOW is active or passive, just so long as it actually works against computer players. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif ( active would make the cover of darkness become important again )

[obiter]

i like the fog of war that only reveals an area around units. it totally adds to the game to have to set up patrols and make sure coastlines and "backdoors" are covered from sneak attack. it also makes spells like "vision" meaningful, again dversifying the gameplay.

on the other hand, turning FoW off makes the game one of pure strategic positioning, which can be fun in its own right. more chess-like than fluid.

i hope both are present in the final game.

[Zamolxis108]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heroine_LL:
I wouldn't like fog of war as in H4 but prefer only the shroud as in H3. Fog of war might add to strategy but also constantly puts a blanket over beautiful graphics and landscapes which I always thought was a shame. If fog of war is implemented, it should be optional imo. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I second that. I maybe wouldn't even put it as optional. The FOW doesn't actually add to strategy, just changes it. It chances the "fear" strategy - you can never go to far from any of the important towns of mines (as another player might take it) - with the a more "chess-like" strategy - you see what your enemy is doing, so you can develope a real long time strategy. With FOW you can never be too adventurous, and I loved that about Heroes. This, and not to forget what Heroine_LL said - the graphic (and I may add - cinematic) aspect - it's way more boring playing by yourself and not seeing anything else but but black and foggy grey around your territory. It's more fun to see the AI (or fellow players) fighting, winning/losing, exploring etc (comments on what the others are doing can be a fun chat when playing in multiplayer).

[Buddhi_West]

I liked the passive fog of HoMM3 better, but maybe optional active or passiv fog would be the best way

[karlito31]

Its good strategy addition , keep it in for H5.

[dino_rpg]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamolxis108:
I second that. I maybe wouldn't even put it as optional. The FOW doesn't actually add to strategy, just changes it. It chances the "fear" strategy - you can never go to far from any of the important towns of mines (as another player might take it) - with the a more "chess-like" strategy - you see what your enemy is doing, so you can develope a real long time strategy. With FOW you can never be too adventurous, and I loved that about Heroes.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ah! but that's the cool stuff about FOW, otherwise, it could be better to get rid of it completely and let you see the whole map at the beggining (just as a chess table as you say)

I think FOW is a neccesary feature just like in HIV, after all, players shouldn't be God like in the sense they could actually see what are their enemies doing, neither could have some kind of spies in order to keep track of the enemy moves everytime

I really think it adds a lot of fun to the game, if you just adventure with your whole army far away of your borders (just as it could happen on real life for those people who want a realistic game) then any enemy troop could reach your town and capture it unprotected, this could happen with or without the FOW, it's just that with FOW this will be harder because the enemy couldn't see your portion of the map either, so they don't know if your town is protected or not (just think about this applied on a multiplayer game)

On the other hand, without FOW, you just could see how the enemy evolves and if they've a defensive or aggresive stance, so if you take a look and see no Lv3+ troops in the enemy castle while you already have many Lv4, then you send your troops and finish the enemy when you want, this is neither funny or balanced because better players will have more advantage than ever (at the expense of a quick and cheap scouting hero/unit, they are able to see the enemy for the rest of the game, pretty unfair if you ask me)

[Zamolxis108]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dino_rpg:
I really think it adds a lot of fun to the game,... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And, after 5 years of playing strategy games with or without FOW, I can assure you that for me it doesn't. Not being able to see anything from the game except for my part it takes out half the fun for me. Not being able to plan long time strategies (like in chess) depending on my opponents move, will take out again half of the fun that's left. And if you add to that the fear that any minute now an opponent with a great army might come and take your castle, while you were away for some mines, and missed a great battle, plus all that you invested in the castle - you're really left with not much fun.

Having no shroud from the beginning would also not be good, and has nothing to do with what I, Heroine_LL and also others want. This would spoil all the fun of discovering new territories, and I think nobody would want that. But it would be a real pity to not be able to enjoy your discovery, just because there's no mine or anything like that around to flag.

Nevertheless, if other people take fun of the "fear" I was talking about, and don't enjoy it more then the things said above we are enjoying, then I guess I'm alright with having the FOW as an option. But ONLY as option.

[dino_rpg]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamolxis108:
Nevertheless, if other people take fun of the "fear" I was talking about, and don't enjoy it more then the things said above we are enjoying, then I guess I'm alright with having the FOW as an option. But ONLY as option. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, we agreed this would be the best for every player, if you like it then turn it on, if don't just turn it off, and that's it (I just hope the developers put attention to this so the game ships with this option available but only at the campaign/map selection, not during gameplay)

Just to argue a little bit more on some points of view, though we already agreed what's the better for the game, I have to say:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamolxis108:
Not being able to plan long time strategies (like in chess) depending on my opponents move, will take out again half of the fun that's left. And if you add to that the fear that any minute now an opponent with a great army might come and take your castle, while you were away for some mines, and missed a great battle, plus all that you invested in the castle - you're really left with not much fun.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ok, it seems to me you're a HOMMIII player and I'm a HOMMIV player, no doubt about it, but that "fear" thing you spoke is irrelevant to me, because on the first place no matter which game are we talking about, it's irresponsible (couldn't find a better word to say this right now) to leave your castle unprotected. Tell me something, did you play H3 with only a single hero everytime? when I played that game I almost always have 8 heroes (and many more inside every owned castle), and many times my main Hero/army was almost beaten because it has to attack a full developed town and has lots of casualties, by the time my reinforcements arrive, my secondary hero was most powerful so my main army/hero was on the way back to my town to recruit more units, I almost always have my town well protected this way (no much hero chaining because that's just boring and takes a lot of time, and I never played the expansions nor hear about those spells mentioned on other posts)
On H4, my main hero was always the same, but I keep lots of secondary heroes protecting my town because of the fear factor if you like to call it that way, but even on H3, though I could see every enemy move, still nothing prevents one of my two (or more) enemy armies to take my castle while I was trying to take the other one just because the map objective is to conquer every enemy town, so that fear factor thing doesn't apply, what really apply in both cases is the fact I've to keep some backup hero(s)/army in order to protect my castle

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamolxis108:
This would spoil all the fun of _discovering_ new territories, and I think nobody would want that.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agreed with you, I don't want to lose that feeling when you discovered something new on the map, but on the other hand, I don't want to lose the feeling of danger when I see a new enemy hero approaching, a hero of whom I don't know for sure if has a big army, composed of creatures I could counter, if he has some powerful artifacts or the kind of magic he's going to use against me, I agreed, there're more tactics on knowing all of this facts and prepare myself to counter them before the battle, but that take all the "fun" because I already know how the things are going to end, if I know the enemy AI is building non flyers creatures, then I try and find quicksand and train lots of archers, then that's game over for the AI (talking about H4), if he's using fire based magic, then I try to train fire based creatures and that give me advantage, that kind of game is something I surely try to avoid, I rather prefer to learn the tough way which kind of creatures am I facing, have the feeling I'm at war and I don't know about my enemy so I still could be surprised, and have a big battle which pull out the best of the game facing armies with same chances of winning

One final word, I don't know about you playing RTS games, but I'm an old player and one of my favorites Age of Empires II, was great in many ways, but once I afford to buy that tech which show me the position of every enemy peasant and reveals the world map (take the FOW off), the game lose its feeling and becomes a hunt for spots on the map, no more chances for the almost beaten enemy, everytime it try to rebuild, I knew exactly when he was heading to so that was game over. On the other hand, I once played Age of Empires (the original) against a friend of mine, and I gathered a big army, I was prepared to kill him and though I leave a big army as backup on my town, my main army destroyed everything pretty easily on his way to my friend base, just when I think I've killed his last peasant, suddenly a big enemy army head to my base and create havoc, the reason, a single peasant escape my attack and on a far away land build another city while I was distracted destroying his main base, so I was ashamed after that attack, and surely, that could never happend if there were no FOW in the game

[Aseved]

Just a lil. incision on that Fog of War discussion, as the topic has already moved to that. Two comments

Graphic Beauty: I said before, and I repeat. It is not necessary FoW obscures the map... just a sublte layer of gray will make. You will still be able to tell what is under the FoW and what not, and it wonâ´t hamper the graphics that much. Using such a dark FoW as in Heroes IV is a great error.

Fear/Complete Info Strategies: Both have its ways to plays and I probably will not be able to tell wich is better, either the complete info of Heroes I-III or the "Fear" of IV.
Anyway, and that is the point I would like to make, I think I would like more something in the middle: that is, still FoW in my enemies' lands but clear view inside my territory and around the border. Civ III manages to do this well, but it is a different game with different options, so the comparison can be only used to show what is the "feeling" I want. Something like this in heroes would be this way: most -or all- the land around your cities and "core" mines (the ones in your "kingdom") is not covered by the FOW. And mines or flagged buildings in "enemy territory" - far away from your lands appear like in Heroes IV (little view around them).

Maybe this could be managed in a simple way like this: Buildings have two "view" ranges, a very small one (Heroes IV-like), and one that is quite large. When captured, the building will start at the small view level, but as the days you are holding it increase, its view range will increase. Garrisoning units might also give a view increase. And maybe also being in the view range of other of your buildings (that will give a kingdom-like zone were you have connected buildings with a big LOS).

Also - a thing Heroes IV missed blatantly: there should be buildings specially designed to give you areas with LOS: guard towers, observatories,... Summing up, you should have enough view of what is happening were you control the land - and not worry about armies coming out of the dark to take your main city - but the things on the border, or inside enemy territory, should be much more unsecure.

[Zamolxis108]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aseved:
When captured, the building will start at the small view level, but as the days you are holding it increase, its view range will increase. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Great original idea. Sure others may find some flaws also in this, but maybe we can build smth that might really work nicely starting from here.