Talk:Fog of war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] "...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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)