Direct fire table using a D12 ?

[davep]

Hi guys, nice to be here. I’m collecting PG games, I have yet to even punch one though, let alone play. BUT, after watching numerous play throughs on youtube, I had one thought regarding the outcome of combat. Has anyone tried using one D12 instead of two D6 for direct fire? The odds of getting a 1 or a 12 are so much greater. I really like the game as is, but I think I want to see some more bloodshed. Anyone use this house rule? Can you see any unseen side effects. Thanks

[Schoenwulf]

You're spot on if more step losses are what is desired. Those 2,3,4 & 10,11,12 rolls will be killers. Normal odds of rolling a 7, the safest roll in the game, will drop from 16.6% to 9.1% (assuming that die rolls of "1" on the D12 will be thrown out), but taking "3" (or "11"), the odds will increase from 5.5% to 9.1%. While this will achieve a goal of increasing unit elimination, it will disrupt a number of play-tested scenarios and probably throw balance (if there was any to begin with) out the window. That having been said, the great thing about these games we play is that they're ours, so we can experiment however we'd like.

[plloyd1010]

Hi guys, nice to be here. I’m collecting PG games, I have yet to even punch one though, let alone play. BUT, after watching numerous play throughs on youtube, I had one thought regarding the outcome of combat. Has anyone tried using one D12 instead of two D6 for direct fire? The odds of getting a 1 or a 12 are so much greater. I really like the game as is, but I think I want to see some more bloodshed. Anyone use this house rule? Can you see any unseen side effects. Thanks

Generally I think, games would become much shorter. Delay, exit, breakthrough victory conditions will become much more difficult. Overall,  scenarios would be more brittle. There are some brittle PG scenarios, but most allow some recovery from mistakes or a couple bad rolls, using a 1D12 would likely do away with that.

A D12 roll spreads the probabilities over a flat 8.5% probability, 9.1 % if you disregard the "1" to conform to the results on the combat tables. 2D6 has probabilities of 2.8% to 16.7% across a bell curve, the combat tables put most of the worst outcomes in the lower probabilities (AT is sort of an exception).

No making the combat bloodier would change the character of the game more that most players would want.

[davep]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I need to play a number of scenarios before trying to fix something that “ain’t broke”. I’m really drawn to this series. Can’t wait to start clipping some counters.

[Blackcloud6]

No making the combat bloodier would change the character of the game more that most players would want.

I fully agree.  PG's fundamental combat basis is "fire superiority."  You have to build up combat power over time to bring down the enemy.  The combat table facilitates this concept.  Originally the game had a D6 table but it was changed to 2D^ to give a better representation of how to build up fire superiority.  The whole movement combat and command subsystems f the game ae built on the fire superiority concept.  Changing it to a "bloodier" system unhinges the entire game and would wreck every scenario.

The current combat system works well and replicates the pace of combat and the resultant casualties of the period very well.

[davep]

I see now that this idea could skew results across the board. I don’t have the play experience to have seen this. You guys are all so dedicated and generous with your time here I hope my question wasn’t too insulting. And thanks for reminding me that this is a time tested system. As a kid I loved panzer blitz/leader.

[Schoenwulf]

No problem and glad to help out. We all started playing this game from scratch once upon a time and always found help on this forum, one of the best gaming forums online!