Fog of war?

[TLHeart]

Firstly, you can go give us some HARD FACTS to prove why Keg and some guy like you are always arguing against FoW, claiming that Tynan would take months to program FoW and balance it and support your allegations that this suggestion does not fit the game in any sane way.

FOW does not fit with the backstory.  Also, when a pawn can walk to the edge of the map 4 times in 10 hours, the distance we are talking about is under 5 miles, not much is happening in that area we do not know about.... a few animals will wander to different locations, but we will see a raid coming. NO need for FOW. Especially a raid that drops from the atmosphere, with the ensuing heat trails.

A single person could sneak in without notice, but any raid will be detected quickly.

It is up to you to provide what benefit FOW would provide to a survival game.

[Johnny Masters]

Well this post certainly went on a bit since the last time i checked in.

To avoid addressing point-by-point - which didn't went so well the last time i did - i'll try to stick to major points, specially since some of the points have already been addressed, with the expected diffidence. Since a lot has been written, my response may seem "all over", if required please inquire and i'll be more precise.

rexx1888

Lets leave keg alone, on other topics his opinions are objectively correct, an hes pretty nice. It took me a few weeks of forum hopping to see, but its true.

By no means we (or at least I) are on a personal vendetta against Keg. I appreciate his input elsewhere and even his good sense on this very topic in reversing personal jabbing, the seemly picking is due to his vehement defense of anti-fow and that's about it, i'll always agree or disagree with people on a subject by subject basis, not on affection. Likewise Anduin might come off as strong sometimes, but his punctual remarks are always welcome even if we disagree, which is something we did in the past but has no affect in supporting my opinions here.

The paragraph above is just to emphasize that my complete disagreement with anti-fow arguments have nothing to do with personal feelings or emotional clinging to "being right", i hope we're all past that.

Now, as for the suspension bit:

I'm really baffled by the side discussion regarding the validity of fog of war in creating suspension. Frankly, anti-fow argument is already based on personal opinion, but disregarding the suspension making mechanic behind the concept of FoW is simply wrong.

Kegereneku

, as i said before, as much as i appreciate that quote (being a cinephile and whatnot), you simply can't compare movie to game. Each medium has its own language, some techniques are borrowed from others but each has its own twists. Suspension making even differs depending on each genre.

Still regarding that quote, please not that Hitchcock never imply that suspense requires omniscience. Information yes, but never omniscience.

Watch Rear Window. The protagonist, with his busted leg, sits all day watching his neighbors until he notices something strange going on in the front condo. He never saw the woman being killed nor his "allies" did. The entire PoV is attached to his line of sight (in game terms), he has no omniscience nor the audience does (we watch what he watches), yet suspense is achieved. Why? Because suspense doesn't require full disclosure of information, it requires just enough information to generate anticipation. There's hope (we will catch the killer, the girlfriend won't get caught) , there's fear (can we catch the killer? the girlfriend will get caught!) and uncertainty (how it will unfold?).

In a scene, the protagonist dials the killer and setups a fake meeting creating an opportunity so the gf can go into the killer's apartment. Since we are locked to his PoV we never know when the killer is going to arrive, but we know  he might arrive.  (hope: she will evade the killer. Fear: the killer will catch her). Now, while we can arguably discuss that the full disclosure of the killer location and walking speed could still achieve suspense (i wont say no, but i like not knowing where he is) how would that unfold in a game? If you are just the leg busted guy that's the same as spectating/movie, so lets focus on the gf. You are her and you can magically see the location and speed of the killer. How will that provide suspense?

In Alien and Aliens, we are shown just enough to fear the xenophorm, but all interactions work under the uncertainty of its location. When I said that FoW could have (or better: SHOULD) the aid of sound cues, music, text and whatever, you dismissed it as special effects, but these "special effects" are exactly what we use in the industry to create all the atmosphere required to create tension and suspense.

Then, in Touch of Evil, we have a sequence shot where a couple enters a car and moves toward a border. Previously, a hidden figure approaches the car and plants something. We don't know what it is but isn't good.  (note: we see him putting but we have no information of what it really is. No omniscience). Then we spend the next 3 minutes either forgetting about it or rooting so it's not something bad. Then, just as they leave the car and are about to kiss, the car explodes.  Of course, if you have no idea that something has been planted and it simply explodes, that's only surprise (and frustration) but my point is that you can't directly compare movie to game, if this scene wouldn't work (as is) in a game under FoW, it wouldn't work under omniscience as well: what's the point of entering the car if you know there's a bomb?

Now, I know that you frequently state an idea of controlled FoW, but frankly, the same could be applied to FoW: controlled omniscience. It's only a matter of what you'd like to be more pervasive.

To sum: A story never shows too much nor too little, it shows precisely what it needs (or so it should be) (*inserts gandalf)

(...)To me, as I gave reasons for across the entire thread a "classic" FoW is only relevant for Wargame. And would IMO harms the storytelling & survival aspect of Rimworld, as well as impede Events creation.

That's a shallow and used argument. It was used in a previous topic and several people, including myself, have already established that several games other than wargames make use of Fog of War. Nevermind that it should include an *IMHO* there.

Then i have to point out that there's Fog of War [concept] and Fog of War [implementation]. As already said, the concept is used in MANY games (i'll guess: the majority) and relates to the struggle of information. The implementation of fog of war in games like an fps are what i would say "natural", but it doesn't make it any less a reality. The nature of strategy games and its distinct view requires an artificial method to emulate this state, thus was FoW [black veil] created. I'm not saying that's how rimworld should roll, i'll even agree that there was little innovation in improving this system, but i'm saying that it's a reliable approach and there's nothing wrong with it.

There's nothing in FoW (concept or implementation) that makes it a wargame. Frankly, you're the only one bringing wargames here. Why are you not, for instance, arguing against direct pawn selection? That's a feature in wargames as well. What gives? For instance, is Neo Scavenger a wargame? Is Don't starve now? Is civilization? Is Dead State? Dungeon Keeper? Torment? Fallout?

Is stratego any less of a board game because you can't see your foes pieces? There's chance involved, but so there is skill, and yes, there are not any less possible strategies available in stratego because there's a "FoW". If you are worried because of chance spoiling things, remember that in poker tournaments there's always the known champions.

MarvinKosh

I think that it is unreasonable punitive to require the player to draft colonists to go clear fog

Marvin, first you have to ask yourself why is it so punitive. Why? because it will hurt the economy? What will happen if it hurts, starvation? Unlikely, most likely you won't build sentry #22 so you hold off wave #81. There seems to be this idea that FoW will focus on war when it oh so much on the contrary. Rimworld is already war focused, if anything, FoW could provide another venues to provide strife that is not synonymous with invasions. There's no one saying that we HAVE to be invaded by someone just to test how nasty fow is, some people might just enjoy having a pawn strolling and seeing things as he goes.

Again: The game is about managing needs and security and information is (or can become) a need. Saying that doing so is annoying is a very analytical response for something it shouldn't. It reminds me of the joy suggestion post that tynan posted, where a few people criticized the idea of their pawns having time off because doing so was "wasteful" and "inefficient" ( i don't recall the exact words, but that was the gist). Tynam then reminded that the game is exactly about doing these sort of things, which i agree.

Turps

Speaking about emotion, you really bring nothing to the discussion despite a snark emotional "i don't wanna FoW". (no offense meant, just responding with the same tone)

Making walls-o-text has no saying on what kind of people we are or the righteousness of our worlds, jut our interest in the subject. Likewise, inability or aversion to read these words have no impact on the veracity of either side.

According to Tynan FoW was taken out because it confused people. That's not a surprise. If we had FoW now, it would be hell. The game was and is still not prepared for FoW, but that has nothing to do with its feasibility should it be given a go.

puddlejumper448

Puddle, i understand what you are trying to get at, but first have in mind that the scale is not realistic, if a map were indeed to be 100m~ we certainly wouldn't take hours to cross it, which is what happens under that logic. Everything has to be approximated or abstracted, just like the world map quadrants aren't meant to be only the map chosen, which would make the world really reallyyy small.

As pointed out already, obvious landmarks such as mountains would be a given, but the essence lies in the minutia of things you can't discern in the distance, which is what the topic should be about really (instead of de-railing every f* time because someone doesn't want FoW.
The type of discussion we should be having is exactly this:  what should we always be allowed to see? Mountains, sure. People? No, yes? depends on the distance? Gradual information disclosure? We can have a large field of vision, there's nothing wrong with that, but no, it's not the same as having omniscience because of other map features such as distance (already mentioned), walls and buildings, geographical accidents, altitude variations, etc.
Remembering a issue (bringing the colonies out in the open), a positive feature of FoW is that while dwarfing is safer open colonies enjoy a better field of view.

[puddlejumper448]

Puddle, i understand what you are trying to get at, but first have in mind that the scale is not realistic, if a map were indeed to be 100m~ we certainly wouldn't take hours to cross it, which is what happens under that logic. Everything has to be approximated or abstracted, just like the world map quadrants aren't meant to be only the map chosen, which would make the world really reallyyy small.

I get what you mean, but I think you are wrong about one thing. The scale is very realistic in this game. People occupy one square, the chunky ones tend to take up close to the whole square,which would make the squares 2' each. A 5x5 room comes out to 10' x 10', colonists are just fine with 5x5 rooms space wise so its safe to assume its 10' x 10', that's a reasonable size room irl. Plants are planted one square each, and 2' apart is a good planting situation irl, (2-3' being ideal) The stools they sit on to eat are about 1.5' x 1'  because they don't take up the whole square, exactly the right size irl for a normal stool. Tables are 8'x4', a normal sized table for 8 people. Their twin beds are 2'x4' ft, which is a little small, arguably the only non realistic distance in the game. Deer are 2'x4', fairly close to real life size. Squirrels are ~1.5'x1', a realistic size. power lines are about .3' (hard to tell exactly), its just copper wire, basically realistic. I could keep going if you wish.

You example points to it taking hours to walk to the end of the map and says its because distance is unrealistic, but distance is very realistic, time isn't. It takes an hour to eat, and hour to play a game of horseshoes with yourself, and hour to take a walk, but it takes nearly seconds to build walls. 10 days in a month, 120 days in a year. Time is the obvious unrealistic part of the equation and it has no effect on FoV, so I still think my original argument stands.

Edit: 120 days in a year, not 100 dummy lol

[RemingtonRyder]

It's punitive to have the player manually direct a colonist to a vantage point because colonists are squishy and do not react well to bullets. Or arrows.

For example, I would never send one guy alone to scout out what's in the fog. Bare minimum, I would have someone following behind to provide covering fire if they find bad guys. Your own personal caution level may vary.

So two colonists to scout an area, and then when I'm done with that I'll have to do it again tomorrow.

My chances of actually detecting something moving in to attack and having some advance warning are not good, unless I have more colonists actively searching. Every day.

If I don't do that then I get surprise attacked every time a raid is generated. If I do, it's a surprise further away from the base but the only place where I have a fair amount of cover to hide behind and good sight lines is a surprisingly fortified area which is... my base!

Also, the camera can only cover so much of the map at once, so while this recon is going on I have to zoom out as far as I can and pan around watching for bad guys.

Want me to get behind this idea? Then give me the interface and tools to do recon properly. That is, lay the groundwork for this idea before arguing that it is worthwhile. Otherwise, it's basically just guesswork whether it adds what it is supposed to add without also adding too much micromanagement, or getting colonists gunned down if their AI just can't handle automated scouting.

[Anduin1357]

Can we now then start by discussing the mechanics of the game and not it's gameplay feasibility?
I hope that through the discussion of the mechanics, we can clear things up like time management and the scouting mechanics.

[Darth Fool]

If I don't do that then I get surprise attacked every time a raid is generated. If I do, it's a surprise further away from the base but the only place where I have a fair amount of cover to hide behind and good sight lines is a surprisingly fortified area which is... my base!

Also, the camera can only cover so much of the map at once, so while this recon is going on I have to zoom out as far as I can and pan around watching for bad guys.

It seems to me that you are forgetting the notifications.  There is no reason you could not still get the raid notifications just because of FoW.  The difference would be that you would not be able to immediately see what the raid is composed of.  So the, "Raiders from Pirates of the Carrageenan are attacking from the West.  They  [are attacking immediately | will set up before attack | are preparing to siege the colony]" notification would tell you that you need to consider sending out scouts and whether to send them in force or not. 

Want me to get behind this idea? Then give me the interface and tools to do recon properly. That is, lay the groundwork for this idea before arguing that it is worthwhile. Otherwise, it's basically just guesswork whether it adds what it is supposed to add without also adding too much micromanagement, or getting colonists gunned down if their AI just can't handle automated scouting.

Of course it is guesswork.  Just like item degradation, joy, having to eat, were all guesswork before being implemented.  It is also guesswork to say that such tools which would eliminate the annoyances of FoW micromanagment can not or would not be added. As I have said elsewhere, this topic seems to evoke in people such deep opinions that I think the only way to convince either side is to create a mod that does this.  Unfortunately, making such a mod is not trivial.  Since the changes needed would likely require some deep links into the guts of the Rimworld code and the code is not open-source (it's not exactly entirely closed source either), making such a mod without Tynan's building in support for it at some level will be difficult.

[Kegereneku]

Jhonny Master, please die in a fireI appreciate the more diplomatic tone. I believe that you are also in a quest for truths on the subject, may it come from you, or other.

Now let's get back to business constructive exchange of opinion.

Still regarding that quote, please not that Hitchcock never imply that suspense requires omniscience. Information yes, but never omniscience.

The error in your logic is that the very information required for the suspense, is the one a (classic) FoW would hide, and as I argued before (to NoImage) overwhelming information can be used effectively to mess-up with expectation through the sheer number of possibility.

I would like to point out that it have been awfully common here to use 'omniscience' as a derogatory terms although this 'Enhanced Information Display' is a feature in itself, other game simply have less parameters, different visual clue, and/or different constraint than Rimworld.

About "Rear Windows", I'm sorry but even if I had seen the movie, there is too much critical information/context/subtlety/director-intent missing for me (or anyone actually) to recognize your logic as either valid or wrong.
I don't think analyzing random movie scene will not lead us to an understanding.

The Hitchcock  "Bomb under the table" was precisely to bring forward carefully-chosen parameters.
Taking on that example. The main limiting factor in storymaking is how much information pertaining to the threat you can introduce/show before overwhelming or confusing the spectator, not how little you need.
- Knowing there is a bomb under the table is already something worrying.
- Knowing the bomb will explode at a certain time, make it even more worrying.
Now if I introduced the yield of the bomb (flashback or pause-accessible knowledge), I would make worrying any characters move that is getting in or out this yield.
Lastly, if I introduced a heroes running to tell the character (without making clear whether anyone is likely to survive)... I'd be adding a new source of worry.

Hence the final say of Hitchcock : The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed.

How it apply in Rimworld :
At the scale we are talking about, the "right information for tension" are boolean.
- is the threat/entity localized ? : Yes/No
- is the threat level identifiable ? : Yes/No
- Do the threat require immediate preparation ? : Yes/No

Things is with FoW :
- knowing there is 10 entity don't distinguish a bunch of tribal from raider or mechs
- knowing how threatening each are isn't important if you can isolate and overwhelm them. (wargame basic tactic)
- And knowing the threat is coming, is no different from an Event making them appear on you.

To sum: A story never shows too much nor too little, it shows precisely what it needs (or so it should be) (*inserts gandalf)

Yes a MOVIE with no pause button mustn't give pointless information, just like a GAME do not make a outcome depend of... blind luck. As said, the error in your logic is that knowing exactly what make a threat, a threat, is precisely what is needed.
Thus "FoW will impede storytelling and event creation"

This is also why, Jhonny Master, I keep saying "The only point of FoW is to fight FoW"

It was pretty clear, even without lurking on your answer to MarvinKosh, that you want make it a strategy game which as argued back and forth all along would significantly change the scope of the game.
So the implicit point of this discussion is to make FoW-proponent recognize/admitthe difficulty as well as acknowledge that other don't share their specific wish for 'permanent scout' or 'permanent threats'.

If you want a compromise, we have to isolate the aspect/features unnecessary or considered unacceptable from the one actually researched to provide (if possible) alternative.

Remember : a Permanent/regenerating FoW is only ONE solution, not the best one.

Can we now then start by discussing the mechanics of the game and not it's gameplay feasibility?
I hope that through the discussion of the mechanics, we can clear things up like time management and the scouting mechanics.

Before you build a feature, you have to know whether or not it is possible. Talking like it is feasible, do not make it feasible. You have to prove it.

Since the entire mechanic of "FoW" rely on being able to scout through pawn, the best way I see to start would be to get HARD DATA on that.
- calculate the time it take to visually cover a region.
- calculate how far you can go before requiring meal/sleep.
- estimate how far an event, enemy scout or a raid group must be to miss it.
- estimate how long you have to react to the event/raid in worse case condition.
- estimate how long you have to take care of the Raiders before Events start piling up.
- estimate how advantaged you have to be over your enemy for them to not see your scout and follow him home, or for you to follow them.
- estimate how much the raider have to know about where you are to know where to send the scout.
- see if you have to increase day length or speed
- Not forgetting to try out multiple walking speed to take into account that you might not have fast runner.

I suggested such experiment here using screenshot/Paint/Devmod.

[Anduin1357]

But.but Keg! This is a discussion on Fog of War and not it's feasibility!
I would love you to create a different thread on the feasibility and have the mods lock it!

[Turps]

Johnny Master I apologize to you and all others that saw my comment as snarky, that certainly was not my intent. Being snarky or kicking anyone in a post is just not me and are a bit embarrassed at the response it got.

Totally agree with your thoughts on wall texting. However with my lifestyle I just literally do not have the time to put all my thoughts down to create a wall o text. To write something the length of ur post would take me idk 1-2 hrs, it would be poorly written and with twice as many commas than it needs lol.

Tynan did say it confused people but also said at the end of the comment "It's one of those ideas that seems good but just doesn't work out that well. RimWorld has had and lost several of those so far."

After all the years of gaming I reckon I've got a pretty good idea of my likes and dislikes in games so your gonna be pulling a miracle to change my thoughts on FoW and the same goes for me convincing you yeah?? Sorry if it comes across as "I don't wanna FoW" but if introduce to the game yeah I'd buy it and give it a go, everything else Tynan has done for the game has been fkn gold! I do agree with your comments if introduced now it would be hell, lots would have to change. Which is why I'm calling for people that played the game when FoW was in. Tell us what was confusing, how did it fail, what would you change to make it work, how would you tweek it, tell us something real and not just speculation, tell us everything? Please this thread needs your help!

[ARiA1089]

I think fog of war is too much of an RTS element and detracts from the stories of RimWorld overall.

It's also not very balanced - raiders and berserk animals automatically seek/find colonists, while the player wouldn't be able to see them or attack them back if they're in the fog of war.

when you just get down to it, rim-world has quite a few features a standard RTS has, controllable units, building, and of course the guys that try to kill you (well that kinda depends some RTS don't have violence)

my opinion, no Fog of war would be a bad idea, i like veiwing everything on the map and using that data to my advantage

[akiceabear]

I've been viewing this by mobile for the last week or two so have abstained from posting, and will essentially ignore most of the arguments above. While many of them are well thought out, they also are largely repetitive of all arguments on this topic in the past. Essentially, you either like FOW or you hate it.

I find MarvinKosh's comment here the most telling:

It's punitive to have the player manually direct a colonist to a vantage point because colonists are squishy and do not react well to bullets. Or arrows.

No - it's perceived as punitive by anti-FOW, while pro-FOW actually enjoy the resulting tension/challenge. Steadfastly opposing development of a FOW option when starting a game is punitive to the 48.8% of players that are supportive of the concept (versus 38.3% against), assuming the poll here is even close to representative. The topic comes up regularly and with different posters requesting it over time, so clearly there is some substantial baseline of interest in this feature.

Rather than responding to the very impassioned views of those above, I'll instead describe my current views on a ideal FOW implementation which would not impinge on the gameplay of those against it.

Mechanics:

• When starting a new game, there is a check-box at the difficulty screen to enable fog of war. If enabled, FOW can not be switched off during that game.
• The terrain (ground/mountains) of the map is visible upon landing, per a scan from space before the crash, and remains visible through the fog of war. This includes unclaimed buildings.
• Anything on top of the terrain is invisible when shrouded by fog of war. This includes NPC pawns, animals, vegetation, unknown items and fires. What objects/characters are visible or not through the fog is modifiable.
• After being seen once an item remains visible.
• Fog of war is cleared by player controlled pawns' vision. This takes the form of a cone of radius r and width of angle a. The exact parameters of r and a are determined by the pawn's stats and (dis)abilities related to sight. Suggest a first try of r=20 and a=75% for a pawn in good health. A (perhaps) easier implementation is simply a=360. r and a easily modifiable.
• Walls and mountains block a pawn's vision.
• Vision distance r is reduced by some factor depending on the darkness of an area (or just during night time/extreme weather).
• When a pawn clears FOW with their vision, the visibility persists for time t even if the pawn immediately leaves the area. Suggest a t value of around 1 hour as a first try. Again, t is easily modifiable.
• t is shorter (i.e. re-shrouds faster) during night and extreme weather.
• A pawn can not fire upon a character unless it is visible. This means drafted snipers may need a spotter, or undrafted hunters may need to walk within visible distance of prey before firing. Force attack on a area of ground is still possible if covered by fog of war.
• Events are still announced via a message, but you can not jump to location (or see them, of course). Can be wholly disabled by mod.

AI changes:

• Recognizing this is a potential black hole of development time, I suggest no changes to AI except related to undrafted hunters.
• Hunters will only fire on prey once visible, and thus will need to walk close enough to them if shrouded. If prey is shrouded, hunters can still automatically track down that target using the auto-hunt beacon (or similar), or using their "tracking skill". My view is that this implementation would be more or less consistent with hunting in real life - just because you can not see/fire upon a elk right this second doesn't mean you don't know how to track one down in a forest.
• Enemy AI would remain unchanged, i.e. omnipotent with respect to vision. Fog of war is intended to create tension/challenge for the player, not the AI. Besides, there are apparently already some "fake" scout raider behaviors, I believe, to create the illusion of this without needing to achieve the singularity.

Items:

• Security cameras acquired by trade, with variable radius r and angle a - the vision here rotates (360/180) around a pole/wall they are installed with. Cost of the camera and its energy demand are determined by r and a.
• Binoculars of factor f change a pawn's vision parameters to r*f and a/f. Suggested to equip on hunters and snipers.
• A flying drone and launcher can be acquired by trade. The drone is launched in one direction and flies until it reaches the edge of the map, where it lands. All area within radius r of its flight path is illuminated. The drone must be hauled back to base before it can be launched again. Suggested use: when warning of a impending raid is received.
• Infrared radar, only by trade. Would show any shrouded animal/pawn as a red blip within the shroud, of a large enough size that it is hard to distinguish if there are multiple in one area. Chance of shorting out increases exponentially with continuous use/insufficient cool down.

Traits:

• Variety of traits related to fog of war are possible. Many obvious ones to buff/debuff r/a. Some interesting tradeoffs also possible, like ESP (can see through walls or with 360 degree).

I hope this makes clear that FOW would add to existing options and items, increasing player choice, rather than reducing them. I never play on Phoebe Base Builder, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included as an option in vanilla. Similarly, only some players are strong proponents of the Nutrient Paste Dispenser, but again that doesn't mean it is useless or worsening others' gameplay experience or was a waste of development time.

My guess is Tynan would only need to develop the mechanics listed above, and modders would flourish on the items and balance/tweaking side (e.g. the parameters of r/a/t). I think the potential "development-multiplier" from the modding community is a big reason to at least get the mechanics in place for the option earlier rather than later, even without any other items or balance. I at least would be extremely pleased if even just the mechanics were implemented. Keep in mind that Tynan said a 3-stage FOW (I think similar to what I describe in mechanics) would take days or week(s) but not months to implement.

Regarding discussion on the topic, it seems to me there are two meaningful discussions to be had which may inform Tynan:

• What a fog of war option should include, assuming it is implemented. In my view only those that are interested in playing with this option should participate in such a discussion - inevitably resolute opponents become trolls in such threads. For example, I don't rant on the forums about how the easier difficulties should be removed, or that the Joy system was a waste of development time.
• What major features should be implemented before fog of war. This naturally makes more sense for everyone (pro/against) to participate in. Ideally this would consist of arguments for a feature, rather than arguments against other features.

Unfortunately, so far this thread has also included plenty of a third type - pro-FOW vs anti-FOW, which is just a display of passion and trolling rather than reasonable discussion (in extreme cases). Perhaps the above two reasonable discussions could somehow be spun off as their own separate threads to hopefully be kept on topic and constructive, rather than the poisonous merry-go-round this one occasionally is.

[Adamiks]

There are largely repetitive of all arguments on this topic so i will say this:
No. RimWorld have too small maps for FOW. This isn't Warcraft with maps 2-3 larger than Rimworld maps.

[RemingtonRyder]

Um, that's not an accurate representation of my viewpoint. I said that using colonists to manually explore FoW is a lot of micro and not a lot of payoff for doing it. I also made a subtle Hunt for Red October reference.

The designation or interface or whatever to say 'explore this area and then return to base' to allow for less micromanagement and smart autonomous exploration, isn't in the game. It would need to be added.

The point that I think should taken is that it's easy to get wrapped up arguing for or against instead of DTDF.

That's Designing the Damn Feature, by the way.

Fog of War is a very nuanced feature. You could say that there are features within the feature. So showering it with +1s or -1s isn't going to get it off the ground or sink it. As akiceabear said, there are (at least) two avenues of discussion worth exploring. So, I invite you to do that now.

Also, topic locked.