[Fog of War] - Large Scenarios

[campsawyer]

As a comment on large scenarios, I have played many that have left units back at the starting gate even at the end of the game. Large scenarios need a good amount of time to get any units moving with FoW. Given I have an average of about 22 turns before FoW this does not give a lot of time to get units move large amounts of units. Longer scenarios are needed with large games and FoW.

[vince hughes]

What Peter is saying in terms of probability can be described as follows:

FoW: 15
You will roll 14 or lower 9.8 times on average before you roll a 15+ and cause FoW

FoW: 16
You will roll 15 or lower 20.6 times on average before you roll a 16+ and cause FoW

FoW: 17
You will roll 16 or lower 53 times on average before you roll a 17+ and cause FoW

Increasing the expected extra activation (those past the first 3 for both sides) from 20.6 to 53 is just too drastic a solution from my perspective.

That's why upstream I suggested perhaps 4 x d6 would be preferable. So instead of going from a roll of 16 (1 in 20) to 17 (1 in 53) on 3 dice, a more intermediate ratio could be found on 4 dice ?

[Michael Murphy]

All I'm suggesting is the addition of additional pre-FOW activations based on the total number of units in play. Both sides play the same number of activations; 3 for up to 149 units, 4 for 150 to 199 units, 5 for 200 to 249 units, etc. Initiative has no bearing on this calculation whatsoever. The whole point is simply to provide sufficient activations to move the increased number of units before beginning the normal FOW process.

[Shad]

I think this is a simple, effective method to address this problem.

[plloyd1010]

How about these, possibly over complicated, ideas?

• A sliding FoW modifier: Start with a modifier, like -1 for every 50 units over 50-75. Every x (8 or 10?) activation rounds add 1 to the dice roll. Max modifier of +1, natural 18 always ends the turn. Might be the simplest. Problem is we tend to lose track of activation rounds.
  
• A modifier based on the number of enemy units. -1 for every 25 units your opponent has over 25-30. This may give an advantage to the smaller/losing side. Smooths the overall chances, would end more often after the larger side's activation. Also makes recombining a bit of a strategic question.
  
• Have FoW cancellations: Each side may cancel a FoW result a specified number of times. Perhaps 1 for every 50 units over 50 in the game. Either side may cancel a FoW roll, but inactive player gets first dibs. Cancellations available reset, perhaps every 3-6 tuns. Could make for some bluffing. Would you ant to cancel? Would you try to maneuver you opponent into canceling?
  

[campsawyer]

I will be honest, I am not seeing the need for a change. FoW is suppose to be a variable to the length of the turn. It is an optional rule and if you think it doesn't work for large scenarios, don't use it. It seems by the postings everyone wants to use it but does not want to be burned by it, but that is not what it is suppose to be. It is a fate and it will hit you at anytime which sounds like real life to me. With more units to more there is a good chance that they won't activate, but that is reality of trying to move large groups, they never do what you want them to do.

I think a better use of though is how can strategies be developed to overcome this, not change the rules. After playing a few large games these are some of the ideas to help minimize the activations of unit and but get the most out of the units. First, small key groups of units. Never have more units strung out that require for that 2-3 activations to move together. Use leader chaining to the maximum to accomplish this as well as don't let the units get out of command. Second, realize some units will not move. Find a position that they can do the maximum amount of work for the there capabilities. The lowly German 75mm IG is a good example. Given its firepower it is not going to do much damage, but it's range is useful to push demoralized units out of the way. Third, don't worry about rallying all units. With large games there will be plenty of reserves. Let these guys sit as long as they are safely out of range. If you do some of these ideas you can cut the amount of activations per turn and hence reduce the chances of FoW and still get enough units moving to win. Is this guaranteed, no, but that is FoW.

[plloyd1010]

FoW also restricts functional scenario size. It is also largely irrelevant in small scenarios. That is the issue. What strategy changes the average of 16 activation cycles?

[Hugmenot]

Assuming both sides could use an infinite number of activation, you will roll under 15 or lower on three dice 20.6 times on average before you roll 16 or higher. This means the attacker should average 13.6 activation segments (3 standard + 10.6 extra for the failed FoW rolls) per turn.

I played 3 large scenarios in the past few weeks: 276, 242 and 186 pieces respectively. They are time consuming (12-18 hours) but find them very enjoyable.

In all three scenario, I reached a situation where almost every turn thereafter had between 8 to 15 assaults on the board. That's a lot of activation needed just for the assaults. The attacker must also move other troops forward and attempt recovery of the disrupted and demoralized units. The attacker typically needs 20+ activation to activate all units he want to activate this turn. Demoralized units who fall behind - say it failed two MC while the bulk of the troops move forward - are typically very low on the activation priority list and some will not attempt a recovery for 6+ turns despite not receiving fire the whole time.

For the defender, he will average 13 activation segments per turn. The implication is the defender is unlikely to have to perform undesirable recovery attempts (demoralized units which would have to flee an assault hex) if he has enough useful activation segments before he is forced to perform the recovery attempts. The defender is usually happy with an early FoW roll because his demoralized units will tie up the attackers for at least another turn.

My experience is the bigger the scenario, the more Fog of War favors the defender and I'd like to smooth that curve before I try something more drastic.

Thank you all for the suggestions. I will compute the 4d6 probabilities - it's just a slight change to the spreadsheet I posted some time ago - and sliding probabilities. I will also try to estimate how many activation segments typically want per scenario size and see if there is a simple function that approximates the results.

[campsawyer]

I do understand the statistical numbers for large and small scenario's, but it is my belief that FoW is suppose to be a cruel fate rather than a statistical normal. I fully understand that statistically defenders in large scenarios benefit a little more than attackers as well as FoW may not be relevant in small ones, but rather than try to smooth the curve, just don't use FoW in those situations if you feel it is too overwhelming to the scenario. Several years ago I had played the last scenario, the last on in Aachen. As usual I used FoW and the battle was severally limited by FoW. The average for the FoW was 10 activations. The Germans barely could get there troops moving, but I keep them going and surprisingly the did make it interesting but in the end did lose. I went back and played it a second time this time without FoW. The result was still an American win, but now the Germans could launch more assaults and get troops into battle, but the dice still had a cruel fate for the Germans and they still lost. Point being fate still rules in the game and FoW adds more of it.

[plloyd1010]

Well Dan, at least we are getting similar results. I've worked the successive probability to 50%, then added 3 to the number of iterations, but I cheated and used the Windows calculator to do it. I think I had hit the enter key 12 times when the number had dropped to 50.9%. The formula I've been using is probability = (1-chance) ^ # iterations, stop at approximately 50%.

For us, we don't use FoW in large scenarios. As PG seems to be designed for a regimental sized fight, we consider large as bigger than that. A squishy definition, I know.