+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Panzer Grenadier Rules (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Large Games and Fog of War (/showthread.php?tid=1944)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Large Games and Fog of War - t1M0t8yk - 11-02-2020
I am giving some thought myself to the shortcomings of the FoW rule in a somewhat large scenario I am currently soloing. Its counter tally is 177 and is subject to the demoralization problems noted.
I like the suggestion to compel all unactivated demoralized units to make a rally roll after FoW otherwise triggers the end of a turn. The deeper issue is that the FoW die roll is a geometric probability distribution with a predictable mean of 21.6. cjsiam says both sides typically get 11-14 activations. Statistically it's precisely three plus the mean of the FoW distribution divided by two, or about 14, and more for a side with a significant initiative advantage.
While the suggested house rule addresses the demoralization problem it doesn't address other shortcomings to the FoW rule. 10-out-of-216 can be modified depending on the scenario. A scenario half as large as the one I'm playing would need to be limited to 7 activations per side for a similar FoW effect. Subtracting out the three activations minimum per side before FoW rolls commence, this requires on average an additional four activations per side. This would occur for a geometric distribution with a mean of about 8. The mean of a geometric distribution is the reciprocal of the probability of success. Thus we would need an FoW with a 12.5% probability of success, or 27-out-of-216. FoW trigger of 15+ on three dice is 20-out-of-216; FoW trigger of 14+ is 35-out-of-216: FoW trigger on 13 or 16 only is precisely 27-out-of-216.
My point is to provide the mathematical foundation to make the FoW rule more consistent among scenario size. Such adjustments also provide flexibility, since the FoW trigger really shouldn't be 100% consistent anyway. I don't think there's any simple alternative, but for the math-inclined you may keep this post in mind if you're unsatisfied with FoW as it plays out in a particular scenario.
RE: Large Games and Fog of War - rerathbun - 11-02-2020
Very much appreciate your showing us the math.
I always assumed that it was a design feature for larger scenarios to be more affected by FOW, on the theory that the commander (the player) has less control over his individual platoons when he is commanding larger units.
RE: Large Games and Fog of War - saracv3 - 12-20-2020
(09-26-2019, 09:53 AM)cjsiam Wrote:The concept rocks, but the critique is valid. I have to make decisions when having a side w too many DM units. One can't just lose steps. Some reformation needs to take place in large formations in big games.(09-23-2019, 09:27 AM)dxdavieau Wrote: Fog of War rocks! It's not optional in my house. The sharp focus it brings to both sides is precious. Always, we're thinking; What is the most urgent activation, what MUST I get done before the turn ends...I think something along this line is appropriate.
That said, I've sometimes used a house-rule (heresy!) where after Fog' ends the turn & before marker removal, I'll have both sides roll recovery on all un-activated demoralized leaders/units AND activate all kommissars
The FOW focusing your attention and keeping you organized and in control is good---
The ability to play it to Game NOT having to roll demoralized units seems to me to defeat the "you lose control" mission....you are controlling the behavior of the demoralized
units by NOT being unable to prevent them from fleeing---you are effectively controlling them by removing the requirement by relying on FOW to end turn...
hmmmm....