quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

I have two major issues with the board game version of wif, these are:

1. US entry is much, much too random. Chit rolls + draws can easily mean several 100s of build points more or less for the US throughout the game. If the US can take option 34 in may/june of 1941 they should almost always win, unless one side is making huge strategical or tactical errors, while if they dont get it until may/june 1942, they are in deep trouble. The luck involved in US entry is probably larger than the accumulated luck of all land, air and naval battles combined.

2. Depending on rules being played. (Most importantly oil and city based volunteers), russia can hold the garrison vs Germany in 1941 in almosst all games. More importantly, if Russia appears to follow such a strategy, Germany is severely restricted in what he can build, if they are to have any chance whatsoever in beating the garrison. In particular, building ships, aircraft and synth oil plants in place of militia, mountain and mech, will almost guarantee that the USSR can hold the garrison.

My main issue here is, that in competitive play, Russia should ALWAYS start the game acting like they plan to hold the garrison. Their first few chits should be placed offensively, so that Germany is in the dark about their garrison level, and also for forcing the Germans into holding a sizable eastern garrison while fighting france (assuming a conventional France-40 strategy.). If Russia draws good chits, and/or if germany build anything that doesnt maximize their garrison, Russia should always avoid a 41 barbarossa, which makes the historical path quite rare.

Counter-arguments usually revolve around the risks of this strategy. In my opionion, these risks are too small, when Russia can hold the garrison almost 100% of the times they try (If they draw too many 0's as garrison chits, they just pull back in 1940.) Also, pulling back during the winter is quite doable. If the US is able take option 34 in nov/dec 41 or jan/feb 42, the USSR can even DOW italy or japan to become active, giving them a lot extra land moves they can use for pulling back quicker.

In our local games, we tend to houserule both these issues in one way or another, I wonder if there is any plan for house optional rules in MWIF that will limit these problems?

One solution for the first problem, is to keep the chit values of the US entry chits much closer to the average. For instance, if the average for a given year is 2.7, most chits drawn should be 2's or 3's, and only a few should be 1 or 4.

The simplest solution for the second problem, would be to just say that germany can DOW russia at will, regardless of garrison. Another way to solve this, for instance, is giving Germany 5 extra chits for conquering france.

Both would be optional rules.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

In friendly games, the players can always agree not to stuff the border with Russia. Having the opportunity to modify the CSV files for chit draws would also make it possible to make US entry somewhat less random in such games, provided both parties agree.

What I was looking for, was a standardized pair of options, that could be used in more competitive games, hoping that such these options could be accepted as some kind of standar play, which can only be achieved if these options are included in the options form during game startup.

quote:

Getting option 34 in mar/apr of 41 (which I have seen a few times)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
Jan:

The variance introduced from using fixed distributions really depends on those distributions. Particularily important is how/whether the distribution takes into account chits remaining in the pool from the year before. 1939 chits are way higher than 1940 chits, so creating a distribution for 1940 based solely on the 1940 chits will actually _reduce_ the variance by quite a bit during that critical year, and will also bias the total chit numbers, so that option 22 is likely to come late. The same goes in 1941 - the variance will be lower than when using mixed pools. Note that the BIAS in 1941 will point upwards a bit, so the total bias at the end of 1941 should be quite small.

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

Mziln I am not following what you are trying to say in your post.

For me it looks very unlikely that option 34 have been choosen by M/J '41.

With somewhat normal play you would have:
6 '39 chits(AVG 2.3) (1 chit from axis agression)
9 '40 chits (AVG1.3) (3 chits from axis agression)
5 '41 chits (AVG 3.5) (2 chits from axis agression)

A Total chit value of ~ 43.
You would need to have 51 in chit value optimally distributed to be able to take option 34, that would happen closer to ND '41 which is what it usually end up in the games I havbe been playing as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
Jan:

The variance introduced from using fixed distributions really depends on those distributions. Particularily important is how/whether the distribution takes into account chits remaining in the pool from the year before. 1939 chits are way higher than 1940 chits, so creating a distribution for 1940 based solely on the 1940 chits will actually _reduce_ the variance by quite a bit during that critical year, and will also bias the total chit numbers, so that option 22 is likely to come late. The same goes in 1941 - the variance will be lower than when using mixed pools. Note that the BIAS in 1941 will point upwards a bit, so the total bias at the end of 1941 should be quite small.

You bring up a good point - namely which fixed distribution to use in years after 1939. Knowing how much Steve already posted I have a feeling he may have revealed that already but I do not recall seeing it. Maybe someone can point to the post is one exists - or deny that it has been posted yet in which case Steve might be pursuaded to do so.

Once the exact details are known I would like to run some simulations (millions atleast) to determine what the difference between the finite pool given by the chits and the infinite pool will be for various important thresholds both for mean and variance. I have a gut feeling that the variance will still be somewhat larger with the infinite pools nomatter which way earlier years are included (or not included). Its definitely not given that the variance will be lower - but only simulations (or closed form calculation) of the statistics will tell.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
Jan:

The variance introduced from using fixed distributions really depends on those distributions. Particularily important is how/whether the distribution takes into account chits remaining in the pool from the year before. 1939 chits are way higher than 1940 chits, so creating a distribution for 1940 based solely on the 1940 chits will actually _reduce_ the variance by quite a bit during that critical year, and will also bias the total chit numbers, so that option 22 is likely to come late. The same goes in 1941 - the variance will be lower than when using mixed pools. Note that the BIAS in 1941 will point upwards a bit, so the total bias at the end of 1941 should be quite small.

You bring up a good point - namely which fixed distribution to use in years after 1939. Knowing how much Steve already posted I have a feeling he may have revealed that already but I do not recall seeing it. Maybe someone can point to the post is one exists - or deny that it has been posted yet in which case Steve might be pursuaded to do so.

Once the exact details are known I would like to run some simulations (millions atleast) to determine what the difference between the finite pool given by the chits and the infinite pool will be for various important thresholds both for mean and variance. I have a gut feeling that the variance will still be somewhat larger with the infinite pools nomatter which way earlier years are included (or not included). Its definitely not given that the variance will be lower - but only simulations (or closed form calculation) of the statistics will tell.

else Result := 5; // 2 1 (52)

	{6,				// 1941 chits
	 5,5,5,			
	 4,4,4,
	 3,3,3,3,
	 2,2,2,1,
	 5,				// 1940 chits, the 5 is suspect
	 4,
	 3,3,3,
	 2,2,2,2,2,
	 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
	 0,0,0,0,0,0,
	 5,				// 1939 chits
	 4,4,4,4,4,4,
	 3,3,3,3,3,3,
	 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,
	 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
	 0,0,0};

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
Steve,

Should the '1' not be a '0' in this line? Otherwise the rest does not make sense.

else Result := 5; // 2 1 (52)

I would probably have used an array rather than the case structure as I find that easier to adjust as well as verify but thats obviously a matter of personal taste. Something like:

	{6,				// 1941 chits
	 5,5,5,			
	 4,4,4,
	 3,3,3,3,
	 2,2,2,1,
	 5,				// 1940 chits, the 5 is suspect
	 4,
	 3,3,3,
	 2,2,2,2,2,
	 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
	 0,0,0,0,0,0,
	 5,				// 1939 chits
	 4,4,4,4,4,4,
	 3,3,3,3,3,3,
	 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,
	 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,
	 0,0,0};

Maybe someone with the counters can confirm or deny the '5' in 1940.

Sum	Infinite	Finite
11	1	0
12	0	0
13	6	0
14	7	0
15	34	0
16	42	0
17	97	0
18	223	2
19	515	16
20	1042	39
21	1946	136
22	3591	338
23	6262	823
24	10688	1802
25	17186	3901
26	27476	7615
27	41598	14529
28	61456	25951
29	87400	43921
30	120128	69969
31	162099	107449
32	210665	157835
33	265637	220362
34	325944	296546
35	389533	382864
36	451042	472133
37	509378	561550
38	560771	641518
39	600623	707812
40	627526	749960
41	636507	767915
42	632374	756646
43	613818	720676
44	578649	660081
45	532386	583324
46	477171	498752
47	418864	411131
48	358794	325421
49	298407	250690
50	243863	185473
51	193415	131654
52	150468	89809
53	114225	59640
54	83884	38273
55	60448	23283
56	42359	13857
57	29108	7845
58	19388	4294
59	12845	2208
60	7981	1061
61	5035	500
62	3067	248
63	1814	91
64	1028	36
65	580	11
66	287	3
67	152	2
68	92	3
69	41	0
70	25	2
71	4	0
72	3	0
73	0	0
74	1	0
75	1	0

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Gotcha, thanks for the reply. The only reason I bothered mentioning the alternative approach was that you said you had checked this section 5 times :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I tend to check everything, including code I have written ("What was I thinking when I wrote that?").

quote:

I hear you. Maybe you could show the simulated data to Harry and ask him if he actually wants the infinite chit pool approach with its added variance. Maybe he will have a "What was I thinking when I said that?" moment as well :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I tend to check everything, including code I have written ("What was I thinking when I wrote that?").

I hear you. Maybe you could show the simulated data to Harry and ask him if he actually wants the infinite chit pool approach with its added variance. Maybe he will have a "What was I thinking when I said that?" moment as well :)

quote:

Getting option 34 in mar/apr of 41 (which I have seen a few times)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

quote:

Getting option 34 in mar/apr of 41 (which I have seen a few times)

In a game I'm currently playing I geared up in J/F 40 and passed War Appropriations in J/F 41. Extraordinary draws in the beginning of the game, and I rolled low on all the USE actions, getting chit draws for Ge DOW Denmark, 2 for Poland, and at least 2 for Ge Aligns minor Allies. I also got most of the rolls for Japan conquering Chinese cities. Very remarkable, and my opponents are being excellent sports about continuing the game even though they know they are doomed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

quote:

Getting option 34 in mar/apr of 41 (which I have seen a few times)

In a game I'm currently playing I geared up in J/F 40 and passed War Appropriations in J/F 41.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dhatchen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

quote:

Getting option 34 in mar/apr of 41 (which I have seen a few times)

In a game I'm currently playing I geared up in J/F 40 and passed War Appropriations in J/F 41. Extraordinary draws in the beginning of the game, and I rolled low on all the USE actions, getting chit draws for Ge DOW Denmark, 2 for Poland, and at least 2 for Ge Aligns minor Allies. I also got most of the rolls for Japan conquering Chinese cities. Very remarkable, and my opponents are being excellent sports about continuing the game even though they know they are doomed.

I would say that it is the variance that provides the spice in the game (any game). A good player adapts. My kids still talk about the Divine Right (TSR) game where I went into a game winning battle with a 3:1 advantage and with one of the most powerful magicians in the game. I lost, and my leader died. The power vacuum allowed my oldest son to sneak up the middle to win. I was only able to salvage third place.

As for the US, nobody at first including themselves really knew when or even if they would be in the war. I am not talking about total variance here, one should be able to make an intelligent assessment of their chances of success.

Critical Luck is a pain, but the war was full of it. Some historians assert that the Germans were very very lucky in Barbarossa.

The bottom line is that Steve is right. He just has to code this thing and he has met us more than half way with the CSV files. We can play with the numbers when we have it in our hot little hands.

Onward and upward Steve! I am dying to conquer the world!

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

Mziln:
Remeber that option 34 requires that both your entry/tension values are at least 34/17 IN BOTH POOLS. Since option 34 is the key to the US production gearing for the rest of the game, this is the number of critical importance. Most US players will aim at reaching this option as early as at all possible, and all other actions are taken primarlily to have JUST THE RIGHT tension level to take option 34 as early as possible. The exact turn that the US can declare war, matters much, much less.

Assuming an average value on the chits of 2.3, taking option 34 is optimized by having 8/8 chits int the entry pools and 4/4 in the tension pools, for a total of 24 chits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

quote:

Getting option 34 in mar/apr of 41 (which I have seen a few times)

In a game I'm currently playing I geared up in J/F 40 and passed War Appropriations in J/F 41.

I hear all the time about those extraordinary USE results, but in the games I play, War almost always break out close to the historic date(and close to the war option 34) with a variance of about two turns up or down. But maybe that's just what happens in my games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln

Which if no other chits are generated brings us into 1942 when you start drawing 2 USA entry chits per turn which would add 7 entry points (rounded) per turn to a entry pool.