Global Triumph

It's been brought up before, this is one feature that Johnny specifically said he would not put in.

Besides, late night placement and fog of war are two very separate categories in my opinion. Unfortunately, I don't know of any way to correct late placement with a cycle, people are going to do it no matter what time the update is.

As far as fog of war, if Johnny says no than I guess it's a no. I would only agree to it if radar was vastly improved and units had varying line-of-sight no less than, say 3-5 sectors. But I don't know how you would work bases and turrets and air attacks/recon into it, etc. I think it's asking too much for this simple of a game.

its the only way people have a chance to win is stay up at last minute. people who won the most maps didnt win because they are good players, its because they take the advantage of waiting. which in return takes the fun out of the game for others. i hate waiting but i have to cuz my enemies do it.

If you are an order of magnitude larger than your enemy, you can do it any time of day.

Hey Johnap88,
Of course this means war. I have been a part of many a win and it is not the only way to win in this game. If there is ever a 1-1 battleground, I challenge you to a duel and will kick your butt. A level playing field and you are toast.

The best advice to win a map is to have allies and coordinate attacks. 2 players at 50% of 1 enemy will be about 112% as effective if used correctly.

The most disappointing maps I have been apart of are when my alliance falls apart and can't respond to the other side.

Fog of war had two devastating effects when it was put into place last year (for 1 week).
  1) As an attacker, you will always establish a hopscotched beachhead.
      Can't stop what you can't see. Water to land attacks were brutally effective.

  2) As a defender, your defense survivability of bases and defended territory increased into the near impossible to take ever.
      The cost of attacking and conquering defended bases went from ones ability to estimate the cost in missiles, land troops, etc to one of complete overkill or failure. It was so costly to send enough to be sure in a fog of war game.

I don't see Johnny adding that feature back again.

-IC
Winner of 7 maps
Loser of less

I think there are two things going on here.  One is "Fog of War", and the other is "Invisible units".

Fog of War has never been used and has only been suggested.  As RaptorZ stated: Fog of War would let you see units in your visible range.  Units/Bases no matter now old they are would not be visible.

The term "Invisible units" has been used in other threads and refers to units being invisible to other players when they are placed.  They are invisible until the daily cycle runs, and then they will move and attack, or whatever.  (Other threads have suggested a daily cycle to build the units, then another daily cycle to move them... ugh).  This is what eliminated the advantages players had with logging on after their foes.

Invisible units was put into effect for a little while, then removed from the game.  Johnny noticed two things that made him remove them:  1)  As IC stated, CTs in transports could not be seen, which made it impossible (I would say harder) to stop beach head landings.  2)  Johnny did not like the fact that jets would get shot down by invisible units.

Check out some of the discussions on these threads:
http://gt.toomuchstupid.com/board/t_t313
http://gt.toomuchstupid.com/board/t_t352
http://gt.toomuchstupid.com/board/t_t394

I have only really bothered to try to log on after my enemies on one map that I have played:  Notho.

I had noticed that Russia was pushing me back and his forward bases were unstoppable.  Then for several days I logged on after him and used that advantage to steal 5-15 bases a day.  Then I was pushing into his territory.  After noticing that overwhelming advantage I had over the situation, I have logged on late since.  This is one example of how much of an advantage later-playing players have.

I am for invisible units.  Basically said:  The player that logs on first is ALREADY playing as if the invisible units rule was in effect.  All the rule would do is eliminate the unfair advantage the later-playing player has.  The player that logs on first won't be able to stop beach head landings either.  A good player knows how to stop beach head landings anyways... and if they cant stop the beach head landings, then why don't they do the same back to their enemy?  It is a two-way coast after all...

LOL, nice quote IC...

FoW
1)  your teritory and neighboring areas are allowed to be seen, radar on coastal regions (maybe need a little tweaking for greater range) but should negate any surprise coastal landing

2)  attack tactics would need to change, adapt, and overcome (to steal a movie quote)  but effective attacking strategies would allow you to play how you (and when I say you, I mean you specifically IC, and others of experience) always did. 

What it would negate is late night placing in vital areas, it may cause some to over compensate where the attack isn't....much like real life....intelligence is the key, or scouting in this thought...

My thoughts on this to name a real life example was Gulf War 1, or even WWII.....both Iraq and France over committed to places allowing the enemy to take full advantage of weak points due to better scouting/intelligence

but I digress...just throwing a thought out there, perhaps you create a new unit the drone..which should be expensive...but allows real time scouting,  but like missiles, if you throw it out too far, it gets shot up to Shiznit if there are many units in an area it was going to fly over to scout.

The game is great either way as I look forward to playing it no matter if I am winning or losing....but the other thing is that it has a ton more potential, which for Johnny has to be exciting if he even wants to take it to that level....if not it's fun as is....

The main issue with invisible units was their impact on air strikes.  It was impossible for the air attacker to guess at what would be in place in front of them.  I personally was on the receiving end of a loss of 75 jets due to invisible jeeps.

I think Fog of war could work.

I also have suggested a fixed placement satellite. It would cost $$$$$. You would get to place it once and never move it. But it would give you full visibility of the battlefield. All units, all bases. Much like radar but huge range.

I read up a bit on that when Johnny decided to change it back.  The only prob I still see with it is if you log on first to set air strikes, you are already having to take into account that the later-playing player will place jeeps after you set your air strikes.  So the point I made still stands: The earlier-playing player is already playing with "invisible units".

I can also see why the way it is now could be better.  Ex: If you feel you need to make a serious attack and decide to stay up till 4 making sure it succeeds...  But this goes back to the unfair advantage those would have who decide to do this on a nightly basis.

(Sorry, my post is not completely related to this topic...  More of a note that "invisible units" and FoW are related)

After reading what you're saying, I think I'm becoming more of a fan of invisible units. Perhaps they need some sort of restrictions, like reduced movement or reduced air attack for the first day, and remain visible on transports, but I think that would really help with the late attack-setting issue.
But that's another topic. I'm still a no for fog of war.