+- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms)
+-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Aircraft (/showthread.php?tid=215)
RE: Aircraft - plloyd1010 - 08-25-2012
(08-23-2012, 08:57 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote:No, wargames, and indeed most strategy games, are an exercise in probability management. If it were not, there would be no functional difference between a DF of 4, and a DF of 16. Luck matters, but if luck decides the game, regardless of skill, it's only a dice rolling contest.(08-23-2012, 07:39 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: I don't really want to win on a die roll, I want to win because good tactics. If I lose, I want it to be because the other guy was better, not luckier, than I.
But doesn't this define PG?
My previous statement refers to single or limited number of overwhelming, unmanageable events. In the context of this thread, it would be having planes show up and cut a swath through your opponents position. Such "nuclear" events ruin any game.
RE: Aircraft - Poor Yorek - 08-25-2012
(08-25-2012, 12:06 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote:(08-23-2012, 08:57 AM)Poor Yorek Wrote:No, wargames, and indeed most strategy games, are an exercise in probability management. If it were not, there would be no functional difference between a DF of 4, and a DF of 16. Luck matters, but if luck decides the game, regardless of skill, it's only a dice rolling contest.(08-23-2012, 07:39 AM)plloyd1010 Wrote: I don't really want to win on a die roll, I want to win because good tactics. If I lose, I want it to be because the other guy was better, not luckier, than I.
But doesn't this define PG?
I think I said the same thing in the part of my post you did not quote: On average the better tactical player should win more often than the weaker one, but the variance in PG is fairly high .... My only claim was that variance in PG is an intrinsic part (therefore part of the definition) of PG (otherwise there would be no die rolls - there would just be a deterministic combat/morale table) and sufficiently high over the number of rolls of a typical scenario that luck not only matters, but can (not must) be a deciding factor (in a given scenario) particularly as the skill level of the two players becomes close. This is particularly true with scenarios with roll-dependent reinforcements or a hex control VC depending on a die roll on the last turn. I'm not sure I see the point of dispute here.
I might ask whether one of our Statistics faculty would be interested in this problem (perhaps as a student project) and work through an analysis of the combat tables vs. some likely number of combat/morale rolls.
RE: Aircraft - campsawyer - 08-25-2012
Ok, just tested out my thoughts on more realistic aircraft, but it seems to have had no effect. Although it was just one game there was 12 aircraft pulled off them 6 missed the target roll, of the other 6, only one would have been a miss for the Germans. In the 6 attacks, 4 generated results, 2 of which I rolled on the BF table instead of the DF. Again both were misses. So, not much of a change.
But in reading the rules, two points stand out. I aircraft can combined there attack, so if you have multiples you can attack them together for a higher column. Would be interesting to see what scenarios have multiples, but I do not believe this is captured in PG-HQ. Second, when a aircraft misses and you roll friendly fire it is always on the BF table. This makes sense, I just have never encountered that before.
Lastly for my little experiment, I did a little internet searches to figure out what aircraft should be DF v. BF for the aircraft of Kursk. I have attached the spreadsheet for others to muse over.
RE: Aircraft - J6A - 08-25-2012
I was reading a few scenarios (Leningrad, maybe?) where the Germans have restrictions like "7 aircraft during the scenario, no more than 2 during any turn" and IIRC, several Kursk scenarios have the possibility of multiple aircraft appearing in a turn.
RE: Aircraft - Matt W - 10-09-2012
So, I'm playing "Attack of the Lifeguards" (Kursk, South Flank, #3) and in the first five turns a series of strikes has destroyed one platoon of Grants, a platoon of infantry and a mortar section. As a result, I am reconsidering my thoughts that aircraft are without purpose except for strikes at artillery...
RE: Aircraft - campsawyer - 10-09-2012
(10-09-2012, 03:13 AM)Matt W Wrote: So, I'm playing "Attack of the Lifeguards" (Kursk, South Flank, #3) and in the first five turns a series of strikes has destroyed one platoon of Grants, a platoon of infantry and a mortar section. As a result, I am reconsidering my thoughts that aircraft are without purpose except for strikes at artillery...
You too were bitten by the "stellar effort after I a make a comment" bug too
