RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

hakon -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/24/2006 9:23:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.


I believe that the range of when the US enters the war (and gears up) is dependent on 2 factors: (1) the luck of the draw, and the (2) the skill of the players.

When new comers (or experienced, poor players) play the game, it is #2 that dominates when the US enters the war. When good players play against each other, then the role of #1 becomes more important. As Mziln points out, there are many different controls available to both sides. However, skilled players assume that those controls are all being handled correctly to maximize the outcome in their favor. They therefore reduce the time of US entry and gear up to #1 exclusively.

That is the point where most of you start this discussion. I am comfortable with leaving the rules (and distributions) as they are for the default settings. It might be worthwhile to develop a 'standard' variation of the distributions for experienced players to use when they compete against each other.

But I am not in charge of that![;)]

quote:

the time of US entry and gear up to #1 exclusively.

That is the point where most of you start this discussion. I am comfortable with leaving the rules (and distributions) as they are for the default settings. It might be worthwhile to develop a 'standard' variation of the distributions for experienced players to use when they compete against each other.

But I am not in charge of that!


There is not much skill connected to US entry, except for one effect (which I will come back to).

EVERYTHING revolves around option 34, and most players are aware of that, at least if they have played the US at least once with the current entry system. ALL other options are taken to maximize when you can pick option 34.

So for the skill part: There is an asymmetry for when it is a good idea to make actions thay may cause chits. The most important assymmetry, is that if US entry is already late, actions matter much less, since the US can pick 2 chits per turn in 42, anyway. (The 1942 probability curve is half as wide as 1941 probability curve, so a chit to or from matters much less).

On the other hand, if US entry is just a little bit early, every chit counts A LOT. In that case, neither side should make _any_ actions that affect US entry. In particular, Japan needs to be careful in china in this case, and Germany can try to avoid being agressive in the balkans, and can delay aligning finland.

But the effect of this is pretty minor, partly because the cost of not taking those countries when you can, and partly because of the net effect is rarely more than 1 chit, assuming that both sides are aware of the effect.



hakon -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/24/2006 9:30:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

But I am not in charge of that!


I am sure we all respect your position on this, and as long as the distributions are easily moddable, it doesnt matter much. And IF the wif community (or Harry) can come up a "standard" reduced variance distribution, this could easily be included as an official option in some patch, since it will in no way affect the main game engine.



c92nichj -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/24/2006 11:04:05 PM)

quote:


In every game I have seen, there are more than the minimum number of chits. A typical game for us, runs something like this:

What is typical can always be discussed, I think you have outlined a fairly agressive Euroaxis combined with a passive wallies.
DOW Yugo and align Rumania in '39
DOW on Greece.
No DOW on Italy.
No DOW of Portugal.



Mziln -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/25/2006 7:09:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

Now, the total needed (MINIMUM) for option 34, is a total of 17/17 entry and 9/8 tension, or 51 total.


From the RAW FE (Rules As Wriiten Final Eddition)
you have 2 tension pools - a Japanese tension pool and a Germany/Italy tension pool. Your tension level against a major power equals 1.5 times the value of the markers you have in its tension pool plus half the value of the markers in the other tension pool.


If you have 4 tensions chits in each pool with an average of 2.3 per chit:

((4 chits x 2.3) x 1.5) + ((4 chits x 2.3) x .5) = 18.4 tension points in each tension pool.

Since you only need 34 entry points in a single pool to choose option 34:

(10 chits x 2.3) x 1.5 = 34.5 USA entry points

MINIMUM Toal Chits 18.


You guys are supposed to tell me when I make a mistake [8|]

Saving my spread sheet this time.




JanSorensen -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/25/2006 7:31:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mziln
...
Since you only need 34 entry points in a single pool to choose option 34:
...
You guys are supposed to tell me when I make a mistake [8|]


I havent played WiF in ages so I am slowly reading up on the rules. I am confused by your statement here though.

From the rule set I am reading (which may be the wrong one):

quote:

13.3.2 US entry options
The US entry options chart lists political choices available to you. Each option is targeted against Japan (Ja), Germany/Italy (Ge/It), or all three (if neither is specified).
If you want to choose an entry option, you must be at a high enough entry level to pick it. The entry level is marked on the left hand side of the entry options.
...
When picking an option, you must turn over enough markers to prove that you have reached the required entry level.


Admittingly it does not specifically state that you have to show the required entry level in both pools - but it certainly does not say that you only need to do so for one of the pools.

I am probably just overlooking something - so by all means please point me in the direction where I can see the rule you base your statement on.

Thanks



Mziln -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/25/2006 7:47:00 PM)

From the RAW FE

13.3.2 US entry options

The US entry options chart lists political choices available to you. Each option is targeted against Japan (Ja), Germany/Italy (Ge/It), or all three (if neither is specified).

If you want to choose an entry option, you must be at a high enough entry level to pick it. The entry level is marked on the left hand side of the entry options.

If the entry option is not aimed at any particular major power, you must move a randomly chosen marker from an entry pool of your choice to its corresponding tension pool.

Example the entry level is in red:

34. The USA Passes a War Appropriations Bill (13) ~ this can only be chosen after USA entry option: “22. Gear up production (9)” was chosen in a previous turn and have a tension level of at least 17 against all Major Powers on the other side. The USA production multiple increases by 0.25. Selecting option 34 removes the +3 penalty when the USA is rolling for a DoW.




JanSorensen -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/25/2006 7:56:53 PM)

Yes, I am with you that far.

But where does it say that you only need 34 in one of the two entry pools? When I am reading that passage I am reading that you need 34 toward both Japan and Germany/Italy.

Thats the part of your post that I do not follow.



Mziln -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/25/2006 8:11:15 PM)

Your right it should be 8 for tension and 16 for entry [:D]

4 in each tension pool and 8 in each entry pool.

Total 18.4 in each tension pool and 36.8 in each entry pool.

Total chits 24.


Thanks, this is why I need the game on the computer. [;)]



JanSorensen -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/26/2006 12:05:19 AM)

Its puzzling though.

In my WIFFE 1996 manual 13.3.2 includes this sentence: "If an entry option is not aimed at any particular major power, you have to show that your entry level against both major powers is high enough".

In the 2004 manual I am looking at, however, this particular sentence is missing - infact, there is no absolutely clear indication that its the case.

Maybe I am just overlooking something - but if someone with more recent experience with the rules could point to the exact sentence is the newest manual that covers this exact point clearly I would appreciate it. Ofcourse it may just the be the manual I am viewing in which case the mistake is all mine.



dhatchen -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/26/2006 1:02:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its puzzling though.

In my WIFFE 1996 manual 13.3.2 includes this sentence: "If an entry option is not aimed at any particular major power, you have to show that your entry level against both major powers is high enough".

In the 2004 manual I am looking at, however, this particular sentence is missing - infact, there is no absolutely clear indication that its the case.

Maybe I am just overlooking something - but if someone with more recent experience with the rules could point to the exact sentence is the newest manual that covers this exact point clearly I would appreciate it. Ofcourse it may just the be the manual I am viewing in which case the mistake is all mine.


The 1996 manual should not be used for MWiF. There was a major change to the USE in 2000 and a smaller one in 2003. ADG's official is RAW7m, I believe published in Jan 2005. It is available on their web site.

I have a 2003 manual updated to the latest official rules. That sentence is not in the rules anymore. RAW7m changed the 8th paragraph:

"If the entry option is aimed at a particular major power, you must move a randomly chosen marker from an entry pool of your choice to any tension pool"

now reads

"If the entry option is aimed at a particular major power, you must move a randomly chosen marker from an entry pool of your choice to its corresponding tension pool"

With this paragraph and the 4th paragraph that states simply that you have to show the required entry level, I would say that you choose a pool, reveal enough entry, and then move a marker from THAT pool to its tension pool if required. This is an opinion, of course, but is how I see it making sense.



Froonp -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/26/2006 1:05:33 PM)

Hello,

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

Its puzzling though.

In my WIFFE 1996 manual 13.3.2 includes this sentence: "If an entry option is not aimed at any particular major power, you have to show that your entry level against both major powers is high enough".

In the 2004 manual I am looking at, however, this particular sentence is missing - infact, there is no absolutely clear indication that its the case.

Maybe I am just overlooking something - but if someone with more recent experience with the rules could point to the exact sentence is the newest manual that covers this exact point clearly I would appreciate it. Ofcourse it may just the be the manual I am viewing in which case the mistake is all mine.

I did not follow this discussion closely (the statistic seemed very interesting, but I had not enough time to digest it), but I can chime in here. When it is about the rule, I know a little how to deal with it.

It is true that the rule do not have this sentence anymore.

However, the example stills show that you need to have the entry and tension level required against all axis powers to choose an unaligned option.
Download the latest rulebook at ADG's website, you should see it.
http://www.a-d-g.com.au/

****************************
Example: The US entry level against Japan is 23 and against Germany/Italy is 25. The US cannot repair Western Allies ships as Jay doesn't have an entry level of 25 against all three Axis major powers.
However, in a previous turn, the US has embargoed strategic materials (US entry option 13) and thus can now Freeze Japanese assets (US entry option 23). Jay rolls a 9. No marker is moved from the Ja entry pool to their tension pool and thus the US can pick another option against the Japanese.
Jay decides to gear up production (US entry option 22) and so checks US tension against all three major powers. Luckily for the US, it has a tension of 12 against Japan and 11 against Germany/Italy and so may choose this option (only 11 is required against each major power).
Jay rolls a 5 which requires him to move an entry marker from the Ge/It or Ja entry pool into the corresponding tension pool. Jay cannot pick another option as two options have been chosen against Japan and the first option chosen against Germany/Italy resulted in a marker being moved from the entry pool to the tension pool.
****************************

Moreover, the introduction of 13.3.2 seems clear to me, it says :

****************************
The US entry options chart lists political choices available to you. Each option is targeted against Japan (Ja), Germany/Italy (Ge/It), or all three (if neither is specified).
If you want to choose an entry option, you must be at a high enough entry level to pick it. The entry level is marked on the left hand side of the entry options.
****************************

It says that it is targeted against all three axis powers if none are specified.
And it say you must be at a high enough entry level, so I conclude it is a high enough entry level against the axis power against whom the option is targeted.
In the case of the option targeted at all axis powers, you need to be high enough against all axis powers.

Patrice.



Froonp -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/26/2006 1:15:59 PM)

quote:

The 1996 manual should not be used for MWiF. There was a major change to the USE in 2000 and a smaller one in 2003.

True. The 1996 manual is RAW1, and was modified very heavily during the years.
I managed to keep files showing the changes between the rules on my website, so everything can be tracked down.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/froon/WiF/wif.htm

quote:

ADG's official is RAW7m, I believe published in Jan 2005. It is available on their web site.

The latest is RAW7-august-04, it was published earlier, august 2004 I think.
RAW7m was published on 8th May 2003.

I have the list of changes if needed here http://perso.wanadoo.fr/froon/WiF/wif.htm.



JanSorensen -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/26/2006 1:23:28 PM)

I am well aware that my 1996 rules book is not current and I am not basing anything on that. I am reading the 2004 edition but because I recalled something being more clear 10 years ago I checked my old rule book. So, I merely referenced that it DID infact clearly state how to handle the case back in 1996 while the newer edition does a rather poor job.

I agree that the intention of the new edition seems to be the same - but from a rules lawyer point of view its not stated clearly enough. I would call that rewrite a mistake. Infact, the very fact that the sentence in question was removed would give a lawyer reason to speculate that it no longer applied. In terms of rules logic that would be the only reason to remove the otherwise very clear sentence from the rules. The rules lawyer would simply ask "If that still applies then why was the reference stating it removing?" and you would have no way to counter that beyond doubt.



dhatchen -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/26/2006 2:37:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I am well aware that my 1996 rules book is not current and I am not basing anything on that. I am reading the 2004 edition but because I recalled something being more clear 10 years ago I checked my old rule book. So, I merely referenced that it DID infact clearly state how to handle the case back in 1996 while the newer edition does a rather poor job.

I agree that the intention of the new edition seems to be the same - but from a rules lawyer point of view its not stated clearly enough. I would call that rewrite a mistake. Infact, the very fact that the sentence in question was removed would give a lawyer reason to speculate that it no longer applied. In terms of rules logic that would be the only reason to remove the otherwise very clear sentence from the rules. The rules lawyer would simply ask "If that still applies then why was the reference stating it removing?" and you would have no way to counter that beyond doubt.


You are absolutely right, this might be one for Harry.



Froonp -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/26/2006 2:47:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dhatchen
quote:

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen
I agree that the intention of the new edition seems to be the same - but from a rules lawyer point of view its not stated clearly enough. I would call that rewrite a mistake. Infact, the very fact that the sentence in question was removed would give a lawyer reason to speculate that it no longer applied. In terms of rules logic that would be the only reason to remove the otherwise very clear sentence from the rules. The rules lawyer would simply ask "If that still applies then why was the reference stating it removing?" and you would have no way to counter that beyond doubt.

You are absolutely right, this might be one for Harry.

Harry's goal is to eliminate unnecessary sentences and to make the rulebook as short as possible.
The sentences as they are now make the point clearly that you need the level against all Axis powers.



JanSorensen -> RE: US entry and 1941 Barbarossa (1/26/2006 3:24:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Harry's goal is to eliminate unnecessary sentences and to make the rulebook as short as possible.
The sentences as they are now make the point clearly that you need the level against all Axis powers.


I quite disagree. There are several unneeded sentences in the rulebook - but the one that was removed certainly did clarify an important issue which is not 100% clear otherwise. Not that it matters - there are plenty of unclear passages in any rulebook and what one group of players agree is clear might be interpreted differently by another group. Thats quite natural. Atleast we agree on how to interpret this one so its not a major problem.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125