Fog of War

[KirkH]

Fog of War is an optional rule I've been using in all my PG games because I like the concept, but I'm thinking of not doing so anymore.  It seems the majority of turns (especially for larger scenarios) end prior to a significant percentage of units having activated, which can be a real advantage for the side who has demoralized units in assault hexes they don't want to make recovery rolls for.  Do other players use the fog of war rule?

[cjsiam]

We use it with the proviso that ALL DEMORALIZED UNITS MUST ROLL after the turn ends.
Point being your exact observations...it gets gamed to leave units in hexes...
Demoralization -- you've lost control of the Unit...it is going to behave as it wishes, not patiently wait there as you would like.

So once the FOW (I think it should be call "Friction of War"...Fog would be hidden units...just saying...) is rolled...both players
then have to roll for all Demoralized units that have not been activated...WITHOUT the help of officers....(if you wanted help, you 
should have tasked the officers during your turn cupcake...)
As well...OFFICERS are NOT units...they don't get to roll (see advice to cupcake above)....

This way---if he's gonna flee---he's gonna flee.....
You do NOT have control over the behavior of the demoralized unit.

I play by VASSAL (being in Thailand...), once FOW is rolled, and after we advance the turn marker---AND BEFORE WE CLEAR MARKERS---we go over
battle field to assure Demoralizations are rolled...
I find this a more palatable approach to simulating the "Friction" of war which seems appropriate---enforces organization and prioritization of attention...
things commanders DID have to deal with.

[treadasaurusrex]

Fog of War is an optional rule I've been using in all my PG games because I like the concept, but I'm thinking of not doing so anymore.  It seems the majority of turns (especially for larger scenarios) end prior to a significant percentage of units having activated, which can be a real advantage for the side who has demoralized units in assault hexes they don't want to make recovery rolls for.  Do other players use the fog of war rule?

I do my best to avoid using the -- as written -- Fog of War (FOW) optional rule in scenarios of less than 20 or so turns. This is especially important when playing opponents that are new to the game and to Vassal, since using it makes it difficult to properly sequence attacks. This rule only benefits the side playing defense in PG. I think that the FOW rule should be an optional choice for individual players. However, this game is supposed to be fun, not tedious, overly gamey and excessively bureaucratic. I agree with Cjsiam's described procedure requiring that all demoralizations be immediately resolved if one must play with this poorly-conceived rule.

The requirement to always us the flawed FOW rule in the Infantry Attacks series of APL games, almost makes the majority of the scenarios unwinnable for the attacking side -- and tedious -- for both players, given the many other defense-favoring factors at play in this conflict simulation series. Its too bad, but making FOW mandatory, makes the WWI Infantry Attacks series a nonstarter for me and others. There are better ways to simulate the "Friction of War" as is done in the block game series produced by Columbia Games.

[KirkH]

I agree.  Fog of War only benefits the defending side because it slows everything down.  In the past I've used a couple house rules to mitigate FOW.  The first was games with 60+ units require a 17+ for FOW to take effect and the second was the side with the higher initiative can subtract one from the FOW roll) but now I'm also going to use another house rule that says if the FOW roll ends the turn, all demoralized units that have yet to activate must make recovery rolls.

I like the idea behind the Fog of War rule, but unfortunately it wasn't thoroughly thought out enough.

[triangular_cube]

I agree.  Fog of War only benefits the defending side because it slows everything down.  In the past I've used a couple house rules to mitigate FOW.  The first was games with 60+ units require a 17+ for FOW to take effect and the second was the side with the higher initiative can subtract one from the FOW roll) but now I'm also going to use another house rule that says if the FOW roll ends the turn, all demoralized units that have yet to activate must make recovery rolls.

I like the idea behind the Fog of War rule, but unfortunately it wasn't thoroughly thought out enough.

I think the problem is less that Fog of War as written isn't thought out, but more that Fog of War was written at a time when scenario turn counts were much higher. As an attacker you either fizzled out or not, very rarely was it a matter of one or two turns making a difference like it is in the more up tempo new stuff. It generally made the players be more thoughtful of activation order, while cutting out a lot of the faff 1 and 2 column shots that rarely had any impact. 

Playing without it would really distort much of the old stuff, as much so as playing with it distorts the new stuff. Jungle Fighting for example had an even more aggressive FoW rule rolling after 2 activations per and cutting off at 15. (actual text even called for six dice in the roll but most considered this to be... incorrectly worded). Pair this with very few adjacent activations due to the original jungle rules meant that activation choice was very important. Take those bigger brigade level actions in that module and play them without FoW and tell me how different those scenarios now are from the original intense decisions about which sector of the line was most critical  

[leonard]

Most of my PG plays are face-to-face : we are playing competitively and we always use FOW. The idea is to enforce leader control to obtain larger activations (in terms of units) and to increase incertitude at the same time. For us, it's more fun (and realistic ?) having to fight against unpredictable timing as well as against each other. Moreover, most scenarios do have a confortable number of turns.
Yes, the delaying use of FOW with demoralized units is quite gamey but we stick to the rule. It can be frustating but as we say in French : "c'est de bonne guerre".

[KirkH]

I agree the FOW rule prioritizes organizing ones leaders/units so activations can cover more units, but it also introduces gameyness that wouldn't be present otherwise.  It trades one issue for another, which is why I decided to adopt the house rule saying whenever a turns ends due to the FOW rule that all unactivated demoralized units still need to make their recovery rolls.  In that way the original concept for the rule isn't lost but the gameyness associated with it is.

[waynebaumber]

Interesting views, I agree FOW makes it more gamey, usually helps the defense and can be very frustrating. However long scenario's without FOW can be tedious, but the best thing about FOW, and it should be a compulsory rule IMHO and no matter what Treadhead says, it makes you think about doing bigger  better and more realistic activations using the command chain.

[treadasaurusrex]

Alas, my distinguished colleague, ignores that fact that the FOW forces also premature OBA bombardments and also air strikes.

[waynebaumber]

Alas, my distinguished colleague, ignores that fact that the FOW forces also premature OBA bombardments and also air strikes.

Nonsense COVID appears to have overheated his brain.     Actually, he makes a good point but I still believe that FOW is a good rule.