Talk:Fog of war

Computer games?

While it certainly bears mentioning, booty is it really necessary for talking about fog of war specifically within computer games to take up nearly half the article? I haven't made any changes but it seems that either more examples of real-world fog of war should be added or else, the computer game explanations should be reduced. He who says zonk 12:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to expand the non-game fog of war material, but don't delete any game discussion for the sake of proportion. Stan 14:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

brainhell says: This bit sounds like politics driven POV material: "...although later it was found that no such weapons were available to military units." No such weapons were found, period. The sentence implies that they existed, but just weren't fielded.

This article is a bit Command & Conquer centric, the article needs to be expanded with more of a focus on real life, not necessarily shortening the computer game version but certianly evening out the article more. Also the computer game section should be more generalized as the concept predats C&C and while it might be a signifigant part of it it was in many other franchises as well Rise of Nations, Warcraft etc.--68.231.174.183 10:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to be that this ariticle is sub-standard; The gaming discussion is too detailed, and the real-life discussion is almost non-existant (for obvious reasons; this isn't a really big subject) The entry is disproportionate, and some of the gaming material should be stripped.--Caspiankilkelly 17:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, this article is not so good.

The military material doesn't sound quite right, and some references should be added. "Experienced soldiers often liken it to ..." and "Some people think ..." must be put in context or sourced, or removed.

The extensive non-encyclopedic game trivia should be replaced with a sentence or two. The game jargon "fog of war" is just shorthand for hiding things which are not is line of sight, and is not the same as the much more complex military concept. Even in the scope of gaming, half of the material is only here because the use of the term has been stretched way beyond the breaking point—anyway, it contains too much gamer's trivia and no discussion of the general concepts. —Michael Z. 2006-08-07 18:43 Z

I've replaced this section with a short general description. If you think any of it was valuable and verifiable encyclopedic content, then please remove it to Fog of war (gaming) rather than restoring it to this article about a military concept. The last version can be found in this revision. —Michael Z. 2006-08-07 19:14 Z

additions

I've added a little, will need to come back to it. I've used the UK layering of Grand Strategic, Military Strategic, Operational and Tactical to try to demonstrate how the fog of war varies, I'll need to think more about Operational because at the moment it doesnt need to vary much from Military Strategic.ALR 16:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I felt compelled to rewrite some of your very good additions - terms like "granularity" and some sophisticted sentence structures you employed are probably at a higher level of comprehension than the average reader. I hope I've managed to simplify the expression of the ideas without compromising the integrity of the concepts themselves. Incidentally, I note these additions were not footnoted - would you be able to provide a reference for the changes?Michael Dorosh 14:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the amendments, I recognise where my WP weaknesses are. Unfortunately in terms of sources I only have my notes from Staff College which are unpublished and about 6 years old. there are public domain references around, but I'm not sure what or where at the moment.ALR 15:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"...more sophisticated acronyms"

The sentence, "military theorists continue to develop increasingly more sophisticated acronyms such as C3I (command, control, communications and intelligence), C4ISTAR, etc.", adds nothing to the article. It does not explain these acronyms, nor why military theorists believe that whatever these acronyms represent reduce the fog of war, and why the author feels the theorists are wrong. I've killed this sentence. If someone want to expand on this, then please do, but as it was, it was completely superfluous. 216.145.54.158 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Pretentious and jargon-filled.

Don't use a big word when a smaller one will do. It makes you sound idiotic when you try to use unnecessary vocabulary words.

english

You can get your mesage across acurately using fewer words if you stick to regular english, instead of trying to impress people with your extensive vocab.66.58.243.18 00:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)redbaron.

not clear if the term comes from C

"Fog of war" is traditionally attributed to C, but there are no clear historical references to support that. It is a supposition, bordering on myth. If you look at the text of C, nowhere does he use the term "fog of war". In fact the word "fog" is only in the book four times, none of which correspond to the meaning of "fog of war", as pointed out by Kiesling ("On War - without the fog"). A possible source of the term is a paper from 1896: “The fog of war”, by Col. Lonsdale Hale, Royal Engineers (retired), Aldershot Military Academy, March 24, 1896. Quote: “the state of ignorance in which commanders frequently find themselves as regards the real strength and position, not only of their foes, but also of their friends”. I can find numerous uses of the term (in citation mark) right after 1896, but none before then. I don't have a copy of that article; it's near in time the first English language translation of C (1873). Interestingly, Graham was an engineer at some point in his career, so who knows. In any case, all of the preceding is original research by yours truly, so I don't feel comfortable updating the main text. But I thought I'd post it here in any case. --Psm (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly suggest rewriting this article

My goodness, what big words are used to describe such a simple theory. Please, fellow editors, let's not use 25 cent words when 5 cent words will do. I suggest this article be scrapped and rewritten in simpler language. Other input? Tell someone (talk) 09:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Too long in the video games section

The video games section is too long and elaborate. I believe it best to keep the section short and around RTS games. Cid SilverWing —Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

literal fog of war

This should include the literal fog of war, the obscuration of the battlefield caused by gunpowder smoke. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That ain't fog though, it's smoke. Nibios (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

von Clausewitz

Strip out everything except the quote by von Clausewitz, and you'll have a succinct definition by someone who knew how to write. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.105.222 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and if this were a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia we might do just that. -- Fyrefly (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

translation

The English version of the Clausewitz quote doesn't seem to be from a translated edition of the book (you wouldn't add a word in parentheses in a book translation), so I suppose it can be changed? "Hier ist es also zuerst" means "It is here of all places where", not "the first thing needed here is". Or maybe cite an accepted translation of the book?--178.5.33.233 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Looked up an official translated version:

War is the province of uncertainty: three-fourths of those things upon which action in War must be calculated, are hidden more or less in the clouds of great uncertainty. Here, then, above all a fine and penetrating mind is called for, to search out the truth by the tact of its judgment.

This is my source: https://edcat.uni-muenster.de/pub/bscw.cgi/d12517640/Clausewitz%20%22On%20War%22.pdf (page 32). Note how they use the word "cloud" instead of "fog". What now? Use another official translation? Seems like we definitely have to change it. Maplestrip (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There we go, fixed the quote - I managed to find a different translation. Also found another source which directly addresses whether it is truly the first use of the term, so that's pretty great~ Maplestrip (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Cutting out some game-parts

"In the Commands & Colors series of boardgames..." seems out of place (if anything, it should be moved up to where card games were discussed), is unreferenced (there isn't even a link to a Wikipedia article) and is really just an example of how fog of war works in one specific game. Shall I remove it?

Now for the big thing, "Two of the most successful Blizzard franchises...flight is reached by the player.": I'd like to cut out about half of this alinea. It is mostly giving examples of fog of war being used in a variety of games and is way oversized for one alinea. Anything that doesn't aid in understanding what the concept of fog of war is about should be get rid off.

I don't like removing big chunks of text without somekind of approval, but I'd be glad to do so here, as these things don't add anything to this article. Maplestrip (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been bold and gone through with it. Still in heavy need of references, but at least now it is readable Maplestrip (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

References

I added Simulating the Fog of War: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2008/P7511.pdf to further reading. This might be a great in-line reference, but its content seems a bit technical and long, so I have no idea what to take out of it. Someone who has read the whole thing could maybe use it to improve the physical game section? Maplestrip (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I was looking around some more and found a ton of references ("a ton" being 5). I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to warfare, nor am I too interested in the topic myself, but I hope someone can get the "juicy bits" out of these sources and improve this article:

• http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA403831 (Somehow, this link works oddly - titled: "Reducing the Fog of War: Linking Tactical War. Gaming to Critical Thinking")
• http://www.vrdesigns.nl/?p=672
• http://books.google.nl/books?id=bG8b30g-8VsC&dq=tactical+fog+of+war&source=gbs_navlinks_s
• http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG1086.pdf
• http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/07/12/fog-of-war-in-benghazi-hampered-military-response.html

references add by Maplestrip (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

"Some deaths in wartime have been specifically attributed to the fog of war" I tried... Well, please improve. Right now, it looks pretty bad, but at least it's sourced. Maplestrip (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Reassess request

I've done my best to improve the videogame portion of this article by adding a good amount of references (granted, some more reliable than others) to back up each statement made and rewriting/removing anything not sourced. The portion is somewhat short and far from perfect, but could it be c-class now? Does the rest of the article, which is painfully unsourced, keep it from going up a class? Maplestrip (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say the video game section is up to C-class, but the rest of the article drags it down to Start. It really needs some references. --PresN 21:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed the reassess request and am now really just waiting for people with knowledge of military to add references (such as the ones I suggested above) to this article. Maplestrip (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Tanktics

It's odd. I've read the CGW review of Tanktics[1] and it seems pretty upbeat, which is at odds with what CC says in the next cite[2]. That aside, our article is pretty misleading as it suggests, to a non-expert, that Tanktics used a standard map-shrouding FoW rather than the % chance of sighting that it actually used; expanding the para to explain this would be giving too much weight to this small area. Anyway, I'd suggest that that whole para adds nothing to the article. Anyone want to defend it? Bromley86 (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. I didn't want to add more weight to it, but it does seem to be misleading. Honestly, the biggest reason I kept it in was because it was one of the few references that was already in the article. Perhaps the mention of Chris Crawford and his game should be removed completely, only focusing on the other quotes in that article...

Thing is, in the interview, no one explains why the fog of war in Tanktics was bashed. It wasn't until I managed to find the original review (which was honestly hard to find) that I found out why. Crawford saying that fog of war should be entirely dumped might still be worth including, though, as the phrase "who wants to pay good money for confusion and chaos" hasn't lost its value. This was before the success of all those series, though, so it may also be dated.

Oh, and thanks for your improvements, by the way! Maplestrip (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've attempted to make it less misleading. What do you think of it now? Maplestrip (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo?

The line currently reads "the minimum distance for effective communication increases" Should that instead read "maximum"? Timothyawiseman (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The minimum distance I can communicate effectively is about a few centimeters, I suppose. The maximum depends on whether my cellphone is working ;) Yes, I think it should say "maximum," good catch! ~Mable (chat) 08:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Military expert

I reached out to the military history wikiproject about expert help on this article twice, but no answer. I pared down the unsourced sections. Someone can rewrite it with the proper tone and sourcing as needed. czar 08:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

As an aside

My father told me that one of the many corollaries of Murphy's Law is "choices made in the absence of complete information are invariably wrong", and that "attempts to take this law into consideration when making those choices have no influence on it". JHobson3 (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)