One of the biggest differences between real warfare and tabletop wargaming is information. In most games, we enjoy a perfect view of the battlefield. We know where every enemy unit is located, where reserves are hiding, and often what our opponent is planning to do next. Real generals never had that luxury. So in this week's video, I take a look at one of the most fascinating ways to add realism, uncertainty, and excitement to tabletop battles: simulating the fog of war.
The concept is simple. Instead of allowing players complete knowledge of the battlefield, information is restricted or concealed. This forces commanders to make decisions based on incomplete intelligence, just as their historical counterparts had to do for centuries. Even with scouts, observation balloons, reconnaissance aircraft, and dispatch riders, battlefield information was often inaccurate or out of date by the time it reached senior commanders.
Over the years, my gaming group, Posties Rejects, have experimented with several different approaches to hidden information. Some of our earliest games used a simple sheet hung across the battlefield during deployment, preventing either side from seeing where the enemy was positioned. Once the screen was removed, carefully prepared battle plans often collapsed instantly, leading to frantic redeployments and plenty of laughter.
We've also used the same technique for historical games. American Civil War armies advancing through dense morning fog and First World War dawn attacks became far more unpredictable when neither side knew exactly where the enemy was located. In some cases, random movement was added to represent units losing direction, creating wonderfully chaotic openings to battles.
Another favourite method is the use of blinds. Instead of seeing actual units, players see markers representing possible forces. These may conceal powerful formations, small scouting parties, or even nothing at all. This approach works particularly well for periods such as the French & Indian War, where dense terrain and limited visibility naturally support hidden movement and deception.
The video also explores systems that we haven't personally used, including double-blind gaming. Popular in Kriegsspiel-style games, double-blind systems rely on an umpire and separate maps so that neither side can see the enemy until contact is made. While potentially more demanding to organise, these methods can create an incredibly immersive command experience.
Ultimately, the goal is not necessarily to make games more complicated. Instead, it's about creating uncertainty, surprise, and memorable stories. Some of the most enjoyable games are not those where every plan works perfectly, but those where unexpected events force players to adapt and think on their feet.
Quite a few years ago a friend and I played and ACW game on his driveway. We used 54mm figures. He was a gardener so we used flower pots to mark fake and real units that were revealed at a certain distance.
ReplyDeleteFor hidden placement of troops I use bits of marked paper placed under terrain. Or it can just be written down in notes and if there is no line of sight moves secretly measured and marked with an inconspicuous bit of rubbish.
For campaigns I use screw drawers each marked to correspond to a map hex. We secretly place and move slips of paper with army codes marked on them. When one marker meets an enemy one we set up the battle. If one 'army' is much smaller or just a scouting party there is an option of withdrawing, decided by dice roll and favoring the smaller force if it is cavalry.
Excellent article. Another issue is the instant awareness and response time, something commanders never had. One way to add fog-of-war is by not doing historical battles.
ReplyDeleteUsing dummy units (blinds) is always a nice mechanism. But instead of using markers, I have sometimes used models simply painted black (not expensive models of course, cheap plastic ones). Once the unit was identified as what it really was, it was replaced with the painted model.
ReplyDeleteA nice touch in our ww2 games: allied soldiers sometimes called any German tank a "Tiger". So I have a couple of black-painted Tigers. Players of course know it's a dummy marker, but as long as it hasn;t been spotted or identified, there's a "Tiger" on the table. Psychological warfare!
Another interesting topic for discussion. I've experienced the full uncertainty of a double-blind game with umpires a couple of times, and the only table with the true state of the battle was in another room that none of the players saw. They were glorious events and I could tell you some great stories, but there were no toy soldiers on the table; it was all "theatre of the mind" for us players. It's like that unusual foreign food that you really enjoyed, but you wouldn't want to eat it every week.
ReplyDeleteSince you mentioned the realistic situation for an officer in the field, Neil Thomas favours a die roll to discover what force has been assigned for you to lead (no opportunity to choose a force). He also applies random events to mess with the plans of both sides, but to my surprise no hidden deployments