Talk:Fog of war

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  Unfortunately in terms of sources I only have my notes from  Staff College which are unpublished and about 6 years old.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)
thread_title:  additions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "...more sophisticated acronyms" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  english 

message: "Fog of war" is traditionally attributed to C, but there are no clear historical references to support that.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)
thread_title:  not clear if the term comes from C 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Strongly suggest rewriting this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too long in the video games section 

message: 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)
replies: text: That ain't fog though, it's smoke. Nibios (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  literal fog of war 

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Cutting out some game-parts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reassess request 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Military expert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  As an aside