Logistic shortfall shit

[leonard]

Most of the time, I'm playing PG with a friend, face to face. We especially appreciate Hidden Units, Fog of War, Random Events, Mired Units, Smoke, Move and Fire and we are usually using every optional rule possible.
However we have decided that the "Logistic shortfall" rule is not well done at all. 

The rules suggest to use it whenever you want and not only when it is included in the scenario special rules (because one side should be affected by low ammo, low fuel, as historically). So the rules provide a random system : whenever you roll for Fog of war (3 dice) and obtain a result <5, your side becomes affected by logistic shortfall.

We have tried repetitively : in 5 or 6 scenarios in a row, it happened to at least one of us in every scenario. In some scenarios, it happened to the two of us and sometimes with critical shortfall. And this for no historical reason at all and even when just starting a scenario, on the first turn of a huge pre-planned assault. The probability that it would happen is clearly too high. It has no sense, sorry.

Is anybody else using it ?

[larry marak]

It definitely sounds like this rule shouldn't apply to the side conducting a prepared assault.. Might make more sense if applied only to forces defending in place, during a prolonged assault. Think the Italian border forts, Tobruk, Kursk,Cassino, Bastogne.

[Coniglius]

I would agree with Larry. If either side is preparing for a long battle, whether on the attack or defense, I would think they would both be amply supplied. Defenders preparing for the coming assault would be bringing in every box of ammo they could get their hands on. The attackers would in turn ensure that every man had extra magazines, and that the artillery batteries were well stocked for the preparatory bombardment as well as follow on FFE.
I think the logistics shortfall should be used in scenarios based on hasty assaults or breakthrough/exploitation assaults when the forces outrun their supply chain (think Patton's 3rd Army), or in scenarios where a unit is conducting a rear guard action, forlorn hope situation, or extremely long sieges, as Larry suggested.

[vince hughes]

Hated that rule from its very inception.

My view was always that such variables if needed can always be penned in the 'SSR' section very simply if they were needed. As far I'm concerned there is no need for their chance to appear in every scenario. Let's face it, if you are going to play a biggie, then it is going to happen thus making it NOT variable at all.

[Matt W]

I have never used it. I expect never to use it. It is simply too destabilizing.

In development we couldn't use a rule like this unless, as Vince mentioned, it is included in the SSRs as reflective of a situational reality. The mere existence of such a possibility means that the side suffering the shortfall is likely to lose and that is way too much weight on a single die roll.

[richvalle]

I would think there are too many dice rolls for FOW. Make it a single die roll at the end/beginning of each turn. Either 3d6 < 5 triggers or 1d6 on a 1 (someone feel free to do the math).

[leonard]

In development we couldn't use a rule like this unless, as Vince mentioned, it is included in the SSRs as reflective of a situational reality.  The mere existence of such a possibility means that the side suffering the shortfall is likely to lose and that is way too much weight on a single die roll.

The rule is indeed quite handy to include as a scenario special rule when history calls for short ammunition or logistic problems. Not in every scenario !
Vince: it is true that it seems completely silly to use"logistic shortfall" in the big scenarios but even in medium size scenarios, it is far too present.
Among the set of Optional rules, it is unfortunately the only one to be out of scope.

[Schoenwulf]

My view was always that such variables if needed can always be penned in the 'SSR' section very simply if they were needed. As far I'm concerned there is no need for their chance to appear in every scenario.

Having given this optional rule a couple of tries, I have to agree. It would be ideal for the scenario designers to insert this rule in scenarios where its use is consistent with some historical context. It came into play in both games. once for one side, but in the 2nd game, both sides had shortfalls. One experienced shortfall on the first turn (!), but since this was a defender posture, it's possible that they could have been undersupplied and caught off guard. However, the attacker had a shortfall on Turn 5, and it went "critical" on Turn 7, which is inconsistent with the concept of a planned assault. This just appears too gamey unless both sides agree to it for the thrill (?) of gambling on the outcome, as it is pretty crippling, particularly if it becomes critical.
Actually, there is also a somewhat random component to the optional fog of war rule as well, since that came into play on 64% of the turns in one game. This significantly limited the attacking side's opportunities for a coordinated assault. However, that rule deserves a few more tries to see if it will skew game results significantly.

[larry marak]

Since fog of war is optional, it can always be ignored. You can also decide that you want it to occur less frequently. Just start checking for it later in your series of activations.

(my first post retirement post)

[J6A]

I'm curious for those who have played PG Modern. Logistics Shortfall seems to be a regular occurrence there. Has it been found to be a major pain in the butt?

My thought is that I probably won't play with the rule. I can see its impact in a long scenario being huge. I mean, if there was a way to cure a logistics shortfall, that would be fine, basically a resupply. That would have no place in a 12 turn scenario, it would make some sense to me in a 40 turn scenario. One could make a case that units cannot fight continually for that long. However, the blanket effect seems extreme.