Additional Chinese cities option (Full Version)

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



Message

peskpesk -> Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 9:34:13 AM)

With the CWIF modification additional Chinese cities option
(16 cities extra in China) was there any debate on modifying
US ENTRY ACTIONS 10 Japan occupies Chinese city?
Currently a 4 Die roll to maybe a 3 or 2 Die if the option is used?
Else the US Entry against Japan might be massive if the Japanese has a land
offensive campaign against china which is not the case in “normal” WIF.

I know there was quite a bit of discussion over a period of months by WIF players
on the forum, but I can’t find any good summary on why/why not.



wosung -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 9:52:44 AM)

Good point



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 10:10:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

With the CWIF modification additional Chinese cities option
(16 cities extra in China) was there any debate on modifying
US ENTRY ACTIONS 10 Japan occupies Chinese city?
Currently a 4 Die roll to maybe a 3 or 2 Die if the option is used?
Else the US Entry against Japan might be massive if the Japanese has a land
offensive campaign against china which is not the case in “normal” WIF.

I know there was quite a bit of discussion over a period of months by WIF players
on the forum, but I can’t find any good summary on why/why not.


I would like to make this change. But only after there is a discussion as to whether it should be from 4 to 3 or to 2. Of course I would like to see some logic behind that choice too.

Being a statistician I can work out comparable probabilities (old versus new) if someone gathers the data: how many cities are typically taken by the Japanese in WIF FE and how many do we expect there to be taken in MWIF when the additional cities are being use? For instance, some of the new cities are pretty far off the beaten track, so maybe we shouldn't include them in the count.



Mitchellvitch -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 4:34:27 PM)

For what it is worth, I seem to remember that in standard WIF FE, Japan would conquer perhaps 2 - 3 Chinese cities before the US was in the war. Three was doing quite well, I think.

Now how would that correlate to the new map?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 5:33:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mitchellvitch

For what it is worth, I seem to remember that in standard WIF FE, Japan would conquer perhaps 2 - 3 Chinese cities before the US was in the war. Three was doing quite well, I think.

Now how would that correlate to the new map?

Using 3 as the 'old' number, the probability of drawing:
0 chits = .6 * .6 * .6 = .216
1 chit = .4 * .6 * .6 * 3 = .432
2 chits = .4 * .4 * .6 * 3 = .288
3 chits = .4 * .4 * .4 = .064

Mean (expected value) = 1.2 chits drawn.

That's the probability distribution and the expected value. I don't think a standard deviation is of any particular interest here.



Mitchellvitch -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 7:47:54 PM)

Ouch. My head hurts from the math...



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 9:03:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mitchellvitch

Ouch. My head hurts from the math...

Here's some more. I do these in my head by the way - it comes from teaching it for several years to college students.

If we assume, when using the additional Chinese cities, we expect 6 cities to be conquered by the Japanese and use .3 as the probability of the USA getting all excited, ...

0 chits = .7 ** 6 = .118
1 chit = .3 * (.7 ** 5) * 6 = .303
2 chits = .3 * .3 * (.7 ** 4) * 15 = .324
3 chits = (.3 ** 3) * (.7 ** 3) * 20 = .185
4 chits = .7 * .7 * (.3 ** 4) * 15 = .060
5 chits = .7 * (.3 ** 5) * 6 = .010
6 chits = .3 ** 6 = .001

Mean = expected value = 1.80

So even at 6 (with additional cities) versus 3 (without) captured cities, using .3 for US Entry is too much.



sajbalk -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 9:31:37 PM)

For a Japan hold the line in China, I would expect only Chang Chow (sp.) to fall --- 1 or .4 chits
For a Japan moderate offensive in China, I would expect the above plus Si-An (the E. Commie city) and the E. most nationalist factory --- 3 or 1.2 chits
For a Japan serious offensive, I would expect the above plus 2 more cities in S. China plus Chungking --- 6 cities or 2.4
To conquer China, you would need all of the above plus 3 more factory cities --- 9 or 3.6.

Perhaps the best way is to assume that Japan is going to conquer China. On MWiF, how many cites would Japan need to take the factories assuming it cleared the rear of its supply lines? Divide 9 by that and make calculations accordingly.

9 x .4 = cities needed to conquer x new die roll




Orm -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 11:13:11 PM)

We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.

-Orm



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/16/2008 11:49:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.

-Orm

Easy enough to code but this would be very confusing to new players. And even experienced players would be hard pressed to know which are which after playing a few games.



lomyrin -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 12:00:09 AM)

I suppose one might also have a 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.

If CWiF experiences turn out to be true for MWiF as well, then quite a few Chinese cities will be taken.

The optional additional Chinese cities in use ought to be a requirement for any modified entry rolls to take effect.

Lars






Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 12:15:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I suppose one might also have a 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.

If CWiF experiences turn out to be true for MWiF as well, then quite a few Chinese cities will be taken.

The optional additional Chinese cities in use ought to be a requirement for any modified entry rolls to take effect.

Lars

I can code your suggestion easily enough.

Of course. I have been assuming that there would be zero changes to the US Entry values unless the optional rule for Additional Chinese Cities was in use.



Taxman66 -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 1:51:51 AM)

The whole Chinese theatre is going to need in depth play testing due to the change in scale.  For example, you may find it's too easy for Japan to out flank the slower and fewer Chinese, thus meaning a higher chit chance to encourage a slow down.



Orm -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 12:27:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.

-Orm

Easy enough to code but this would be very confusing to new players. And even experienced players would be hard pressed to know which are which after playing a few games.


I wouldn't be to worried that players wouldnt remember which cities that requires a dieroll. Since it is the same cities all the time that gets the roll you get the hang of it after a few games. And the computer reminds you after you capture a city.

For newbies it is just the same as it is with all other US entry rolls. They have to constantly look it up.

I think there may be lots of reasons to roll for all cities instead of just the old ones but I do not belive that confusing is one of them.

Regards,

Orm



Sewerlobster -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 2:25:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.
-Orm


The obvious "cheat" would be to bypass some of the original cites and then finish off China with a coordinated assault.



Orm -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 3:38:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

The obvious "cheat" would be to bypass some of the original cites and then finish off China with a coordinated assault.


That would work in the same way as it does without the optional cities. The extra cities gives no advantage to the japanese except better AC-stacking (when captured). If the japanese want to leave a supply- and reinforcement-place behind their lines they are free to do so without the extra cities as well.

-Orm



Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 4:29:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

The obvious "cheat" would be to bypass some of the original cites and then finish off China with a coordinated assault.


That would work in the same way as it does without the optional cities. The extra cities gives no advantage to the japanese except better AC-stacking (when captured). If the japanese want to leave a supply- and reinforcement-place behind their lines they are free to do so without the extra cities as well.

-Orm

[Just poping up for a few minutes before loosing access to Internet for today]
The bypassed cities would enable the Chinese to call in reinforcements here, and a fast CAV deep behind the Japanese lines can be very dangerous for the Japanese.



composer99 -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 5:50:21 PM)

My own impression is that in tabletop WiF the Japanese can reasonably expect to take 4 Chinese cities:
- Chengchow
- Sian
- Changsha
- Kweiyang

Wether they take fewer or more cities depends on the skill of the opposing [Japan vs. China] players and on the Japanese player's land combat dice rolling.

Therefore, in MWiF it seems to me that the extra cities in and around these ones will probably be seized.

But I think Steve [Balk]'s suggestion is the simplest and most elegant solution to altering the chit values.



YohanTM2 -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/17/2008 6:43:02 PM)

Even as an experienced player I would not like to see just the original cities, I would go with Steve's math at this point. I agree that once game hits and a few hundred games have been played there will likely need to be mods as a result of the new map size.



Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/18/2008 10:14:41 PM)

Pesk Pesk, here is a Royal Guard Swedish ARM with the corners clean.
Keep it GIF, of the transparency will disappear.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/238E5EBB6BC34044AF952DE7775B7011.gif[/image]



Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/18/2008 10:17:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I suppose one might also have a 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.


Good idea IMO, to keep in mind.



Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/18/2008 10:24:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

The whole Chinese theatre is going to need in depth play testing due to the change in scale.  For example, you may find it's too easy for Japan to out flank the slower and fewer Chinese, thus meaning a higher chit chance to encourage a slow down.

Wholeheartly and completely agreed by me.



Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/18/2008 10:40:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

For a Japan hold the line in China, I would expect only Chang Chow (sp.) to fall --- 1 or .4 chits

With the additional cities, the same line means that Japan has to take :
- Chengchow.
No more cities.

quote:

For a Japan moderate offensive in China, I would expect the above plus Si-An (the E. Commie city) and the E. most nationalist factory --- 3 or 1.2 chits

With the additional cities, the same line (E. most nationalist factory is Changsha) means that Japan has to take :
- Sian.
- Tungkwan.
- Chengchow.
- Nanyang (to secure flank).
- Changsha.
- Maybe Hengyang (to clear the way to Canton).
That's 6 cities instead of 3.


quote:

For a Japan serious offensive, I would expect the above plus 2 more cities in S. China plus Chungking --- 6 cities or 2.4

With the additional cities, the same line (the 2 more cities in S. China are Kweiyang and Nanning) means that Japan has to take :
- Same as above (6 cities), plus
- Kweiyang
- Nanning
- Kweilin
- Chihkiang (to allow supply to Kweiyang).
If the Japanese go as far as Chungking, that's an extra city.
This makes 11 cities (instead of 6).

quote:

To conquer China, you would need all of the above plus 3 more factory cities --- 9 or 3.6.

With the additional cities, the same objective (conquer China) means that Japan has to take :
- 3 additional factory cities as well (Lanchow, Chengtu & Kunming), plus perhaps :
- Tianshui (on the road to Lanchow)
- Ankang (to protect the Sian - Lanchow supply route)
- Yennan (to protect the Sian - Lanchow supply route)

Thats 6 extra cities to conquer, which comes to a total of 17 if I count correctly.

So, as a rule of thumb, it looks like that if Japan want's to achieve the same advance in China, it has to conquer twice the number of cities that are necessary in WiF FE.

So maybe simply halving the US Entry cost (to 2) would even the US Entry cost of the operation.

This said, I think that keeping the US Entry cost quite high (say 3) should be considered because it is a quite realistic way to achieve a realisitic China War.

The reality of the War in China was that neither the Japanese nor the Chinese really tried to take ground to the enemy. This is achieved in WiF for the Chinese side by the Chinese attack weakness, and for the Japanese side by US Entry and Partisans (Partisans that become a really bigger threat in MWiF than in WiF for the Japanese).


quote:

Perhaps the best way is to assume that Japan is going to conquer China. On MWiF, how many cites would Japan need to take the factories assuming it cleared the rear of its supply lines? Divide 9 by that and make calculations accordingly.

9 x .4 = cities needed to conquer x new die roll




Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/18/2008 10:41:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm
We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.

Easy enough to code but this would be very confusing to new players. And even experienced players would be hard pressed to know which are which after playing a few games.

Agreed. It would seem non consistent.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/18/2008 11:38:00 PM)

I like the analysis of twice as many cities needing to be taken for the same penetration into China. And I would recomend 2 instead of 4 for the US Entry die roll.

This gives Japan a slightly easier time of it at the start (i.e., taking just 1 city). On the other hand, it appears that Japan is going to have to ferret out the Chinese from twice as many cities as previously. That Land CRT Assault table can be rather unpleasant for taking all those cities. The mountains are also tough to take but if the Japanese can isolate Chinese units in the mountains, they become easy targets. In the cities, the Chinese are always in supply and can potentially bring in reinforcements every turn.

I think the difficulties the Japanese will experience needing to capture double the number of cities justifies using 2 instead of 3 for the US Entry.



Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/18/2008 11:57:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I like the analysis of twice as many cities needing to be taken for the same penetration into China. And I would recomend 2 instead of 4 for the US Entry die roll.

This gives Japan a slightly easier time of it at the start (i.e., taking just 1 city). On the other hand, it appears that Japan is going to have to ferret out the Chinese from twice as many cities as previously. That Land CRT Assault table can be rather unpleasant for taking all those cities. The mountains are also tough to take but if the Japanese can isolate Chinese units in the mountains, they become easy targets. In the cities, the Chinese are always in supply and can potentially bring in reinforcements every turn.

This said, the Chinese reinforcements are scarse at best. Don't expect to fill in a city with troops in 1 turn [:D].

quote:

I think the difficulties the Japanese will experience needing to capture double the number of cities justifies using 2 instead of 3 for the US Entry.




peskpesk -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/26/2008 9:39:03 AM)


If I get it right, so far these are the solutions in the forum:

1) 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.
2) US entry to only apply to the original Chinese cities
3) Halving the US Entry cost (to 2)

I think all of the proposed fixed for US entry regarding Chinese cities are all good, interesting and solves the problem, all with there own drawbacks and advantages. My vote goes for option 3, since it’s these easiest to program.

In a dream world I would to see there US Entry cost for Chinese cities to be low for cites close to the border/cost and higher the more inland the Japanese gets. And of course higher if its a factory hex. I don’t have any good solution for it, just a basic one.

Type of city: US Entry cost

Normal city: 2
Factory city: 3
Double factory city: 4



Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/26/2008 10:25:37 AM)


peskpesk, you should use this (it has transparent corners) instead of yours.
Keep it GIF, or the white corners will appear.


[image]local://upfiles/10447/C858838508474F15B8DBC0F901DA53BC.gif[/image]



Froonp -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/26/2008 10:27:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
If I get it right, so far these are the solutions in the forum:

1) 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.
2) US entry to only apply to the original Chinese cities
3) Halving the US Entry cost (to 2)

I think all of the proposed fixed for US entry regarding Chinese cities are all good, interesting and solves the problem, all with there own drawbacks and advantages. My vote goes for option 3, since it’s these easiest to program.

In a dream world I would to see there US Entry cost for Chinese cities to be low for cites close to the border/cost and higher the more inland the Japanese gets. And of course higher if its a factory hex. I don’t have any good solution for it, just a basic one.

Type of city: US Entry cost

Normal city: 2
Factory city: 3
Double factory city: 4

I like 1), I like 3), and I like your last proposal, let's call it 4).
I don't like 2).



Orm -> RE: Additional Chinese cities option (7/26/2008 11:35:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk
If I get it right, so far these are the solutions in the forum:

1) 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.
2) US entry to only apply to the original Chinese cities
3) Halving the US Entry cost (to 2)

I think all of the proposed fixed for US entry regarding Chinese cities are all good, interesting and solves the problem, all with there own drawbacks and advantages. My vote goes for option 3, since it’s these easiest to program.

In a dream world I would to see there US Entry cost for Chinese cities to be low for cites close to the border/cost and higher the more inland the Japanese gets. And of course higher if its a factory hex. I don’t have any good solution for it, just a basic one.

Type of city: US Entry cost

Normal city: 2
Factory city: 3
Double factory city: 4

I like 1), I like 3), and I like your last proposal, let's call it 4).
I don't like 2).


I think that it is time to ask if there is enough proposals and try to come to an consensus and decide what to recommend to Steve.

Personally I like proposal 4 best.

It can also be written as this in the US entry actions:

Japan occupies Chinese city - 2*
Notes:
* +1 for each factory in the hex


-Orm




Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5625