USE chits

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: petracelli

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: petracelli

Ah but I think it will make a big difference. Especially the effect of the chits for the pacts not coming out. It is often a factor a calculation as to the allies as to wether or not to enter the pact between Russia and Japan as it allows you to get through the 40 pot of Use quicker to allow the adding of the 41 chits.

A Russo-JP pact makes a difference of 3 chits per year. if you check RAW, you will see that Russia still only draws 1 chit per turn, not one for each pact she has.

You are correct about this but those 3 chits and the 40 pot never emptying irrespective of the Axis actions is a huge game changer and am just struggling to understand why it has been changed.

There are no countersheet limitations, which is why the USE chits were used for the Soviet-Nazi pact. And why they were used for the Russo-Japanese pact. Did you ever wonder why all the chits had USA flags on them?

As a simulation of world events, having a common pool of limited chits makes no sense. Russia, Germany, and/or Japan have peaceful intentions so the US gets more aggravated? That's hard for me to rationalize as historically reasonable.

Paul and Nils worked out that the probabilities are the same as in the board game for the most common cases of events. I trust their work.

[delatbabel]

The other thing that's been missed, apart from the probabilities, is the mongering of chits by the Soviets. If the Soviets are holding a large number of high numbered chits in their pool they can move them to the JP border and DOW Japan, thus releasing the chits to the USA for entry. Alternatively, low numbered chits can be moved to the JP border if the Soviet player thinks that there is no danger of a DOW from JP. None of this comes into play with an unlimited number of chits in the game.

[Extraneous]

I do apologize for unleashing this firestorm. I assure you It was not intentional. I only wanted to know if my values for the chits were correct.

As I have stated before I could care less how the chits are chosen. You can use statistics or odds it is all the same to me.

While I feel that "unlimited chits" are a good idea. There is a large disparity between the calculations for "limited chits" and "unlimited chits" after 1939. With special emphasis after 1941.

1939 ~ 2.33333 vs. 2.333
1940 ~ 1.90566 vs. 1.789
1941 ~ 2.7353 vs. 2.598
1942 ~ 2.23171 vs. 3.333
1943 ~ 2.32979 vs. 2.865


Drawing just the annual USE chits as a model.


Using "limited chits" by the end of:

1939 you will have drawn 5 chits with total chit values of between 4 and 21.

1940 you will have drawn 11 chits with total chit values of between 6 and 41.

1941 you will have drawn 17 chits with total chit values of between 12 and 59.

1942 you will have drawn 23 chits with total chit values of between 18 and 77.

1943 you will have drawn 29 chits with total chit values of between 28 and 95.



Using "unlimited chits" the minimum total chit values will always be Zero and by the end of:

1939 you will have drawn 5 chits with maximum total chit values of 25.

1940 you will have drawn 11 chits with maximum total chit values of 55.

1941 you will have drawn 17 chits with maximum total chit values of 85.

1942 you will have drawn 23 chits with maximum total chit values of 115.

1943 you will have drawn 29 chits with maximum total chit values of 145.

[celebrindal]

Well really I was more curious to see who was seeing what for USE more so than arguing one way or the other..

To be honest a bit of a moot point since that's the way it's coded now and it would be a fairly large undertaking to change it. Perhaps in a year or two when stuff has settled way down, AI is in, PBEM works etc etc.

My only curiosity was the original intent of the chit system implmented to faclitate a certain average in the USE? If so then there should have been something in place to offset a pile of 1's/4's being 'drawn' that might be doable in a short period of work... but just my 2c [8D]

[petracelli]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous

I do apologize for unleashing this firestorm. I assure you It was not intentional. I only wanted to know if my values for the chits were correct.

As I have stated before I could care less how the chits are chosen. You can use statistics or odds it is all the same to me.

While I feel that "unlimited chits" are a good idea. There is a large disparity between the calculations for "limited chits" and "unlimited chits" after 1939. With special emphasis after 1941.

1939 ~ 2.33333 vs. 2.333
1940 ~ 1.90566 vs. 1.789
1941 ~ 2.7353 vs. 2.598
1942 ~ 2.23171 vs. 3.333
1943 ~ 2.32979 vs. 2.865


Drawing just the annual USE chits as a model.


Using "limited chits" by the end of:

1939 you will have drawn 5 chits with total chit values of between 4 and 21.

1940 you will have drawn 11 chits with total chit values of between 6 and 41.

1941 you will have drawn 17 chits with total chit values of between 12 and 59.

1942 you will have drawn 23 chits with total chit values of between 18 and 77.

1943 you will have drawn 29 chits with total chit values of between 28 and 95.



Using "unlimited chits" the minimum total chit values will always be Zero and by the end of:

1939 you will have drawn 5 chits with maximum total chit values of 25.

1940 you will have drawn 11 chits with maximum total chit values of 55.

1941 you will have drawn 17 chits with maximum total chit values of 85.

1942 you will have drawn 23 chits with maximum total chit values of 115.

1943 you will have drawn 29 chits with maximum total chit values of 145.

I understand what you are saying about mean value but have you factored in that in 1940 the Germans/axis regularly do the following causing chit rolls:

Dow Iwith Italy on cw/France 1 chit ( all possibles accepted)
Dow Netherlands (1)
Dow Belguim (1)
Put a Vichy govt in place (2)
Collapse Vichy (2)
Dow Spain (2)
Dow Portugal (1)
Long shot but seen it happen once capture gib (1)
Jap align Vichy Indo china (2)
Close Burma road (1)

If the axis know that the only pool of chits the Us can draw from is the lower 40s they might even consider
Dow Norway(1)

With their being 14 chits to remove the possibility of them coming from the 41 pool is what balances the aggression of the Axis. Have you factored this into your calculations.

I love the game and want a wif to work as a ll of my opponents live quite a distance away so this would make it so much easier but by playing with unlimited 40 chits thee is no downside for Axis to bo very aggressive. Please don't take this the wrong way it is not criticism I can see from a certain point of view it makes sense but it rally does effect balance which is IMO the beauty of wif and why it is so repayable.

No doubt will get myself kicked of the list but am trying to assist am not looking to troll or anything else.

Phil

[etsadler]

The pool of different people I have played WiF with is rather small, which prompts my interest. In the games I have played I can't recall the Axis declining to take aggressive actions because of the state of the USE pool. I'm sure there are a lot of great strategies that I have never encountered, so I'm just wondering, how common it is for Axis players to take the USE pool into account when taking offensive actions?

[Numdydar]

While an interesting discussion, a) the distribution model is NOT going to change and b) I really cannot imagine this is a major issue. Especially since the designer of WiF agreed to let the computer version use this modelling. So if the Harry said it was ok to use this type of system, who are we to argue about its use?

[Numdydar]

double post

[rogerdubbs]

The group I play with face to face goes to extremes to delay or speed up US Entry. For example, in my current game, The CW and Italy were at peace for all of 1941 - the Italians were waiting for the US to come in to join the war. This isn't my style - just how my group plays.

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

The pool of different people I have played WiF with is rather small, which prompts my interest. In the games I have played I can't recall the Axis declining to take aggressive actions because of the state of the USE pool. I'm sure there are a lot of great strategies that I have never encountered, so I'm just wondering, how common it is for Axis players to take the USE pool into account when taking offensive actions?

[vonpaul]

never seen a 0 chit (drawn about 50)

[vonpaul]

WIF rules have changed alot of the years as exploits are found. never say never

[Extraneous]

[

ORIGINAL: petracelli
I understand what you are saying about mean value but have you factored in that in 1940 the Germans/axis regularly do the following causing chit rolls:

Dow Iwith Italy on cw/France 1 chit ( all possibles accepted)
Dow Netherlands (1)
Dow Belguim (1)
Put a Vichy govt in place (2)
Collapse Vichy (2)
Dow Spain (2)
Dow Portugal (1)
Long shot but seen it happen once capture gib (1)
Jap align Vichy Indo china (2)
Close Burma road (1)

If the axis know that the only pool of chits the Us can draw from is the lower 40s they might even consider
Dow Norway(1)

With their being 14 chits to remove the possibility of them coming from the 41 pool is what balances the aggression of the Axis. Have you factored this into your calculations.

I love the game and want a wif to work as a ll of my opponents live quite a distance away so this would make it so much easier but by playing with unlimited 40 chits thee is no downside for Axis to bo very aggressive. Please don't take this the wrong way it is not criticism I can see from a certain point of view it makes sense but it rally does effect balance which is IMO the beauty of wif and why it is so repayable.

No doubt will get myself kicked of the list but am trying to assist am not looking to troll or anything else.

Phil

You have a good point. So I will clarify the description of my model.

Regular entry markers
Each turn randomly choose 1 entry marker from the common entry marker pool. From Jan/Feb 1942 onwards, draw an extra marker. Each marker you pick may go into either the Japan entry pool or the Germany/Italy entry pool (your choice).

(Chits = Markers)

The calculations are only based on the bold portion of the RAW that I have shown above.

The model doesn't add an extra chit from Jan/Feb 1942 onward. It doesn't consider the Compulsory declarations, any US entry actions, or any US entry options. It is basically just a base line to highlight the differences between "limited chits" and "unlimited chits".

This all rests on the assumption that the values of the available chits in MWiF are the same as in WiF.

What really worries me is the disparity between the calculations for "limited chits" and "unlimited chits". Why are the percentages different? Shouldn't they be the same?

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: vonpaul

WIF rules have changed alot of the years as exploits are found. never say never

This is true, but given the programming cost to change this, again especially since this was discussed extensively back at that time AND had Harry's OK, I feel pretty safe with my never comment. Unlike the board game where changing a few lines of text is all that is needed to modify something, changing operational coding is a whole different issue. Especially for something that is working and is not 'broken' other than in the possible perceptions of players.

[petracelli]

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


[

ORIGINAL: petracelli
I understand what you are saying about mean value but have you factored in that in 1940 the Germans/axis regularly do the following causing chit rolls:

Dow Iwith Italy on cw/France 1 chit ( all possibles accepted)
Dow Netherlands (1)
Dow Belguim (1)
Put a Vichy govt in place (2)
Collapse Vichy (2)
Dow Spain (2)
Dow Portugal (1)
Long shot but seen it happen once capture gib (1)
Jap align Vichy Indo china (2)
Close Burma road (1)

If the axis know that the only pool of chits the Us can draw from is the lower 40s they might even consider
Dow Norway(1)

With their being 14 chits to remove the possibility of them coming from the 41 pool is what balances the aggression of the Axis. Have you factored this into your calculations.

I love the game and want a wif to work as a ll of my opponents live quite a distance away so this would make it so much easier but by playing with unlimited 40 chits thee is no downside for Axis to bo very aggressive. Please don't take this the wrong way it is not criticism I can see from a certain point of view it makes sense but it rally does effect balance which is IMO the beauty of wif and why it is so repayable.

No doubt will get myself kicked of the list but am trying to assist am not looking to troll or anything else.

Phil

You have a good point. So I will clarify the description of my model.

Regular entry markers
Each turn randomly choose 1 entry marker from the common entry marker pool. From Jan/Feb 1942 onwards, draw an extra marker. Each marker you pick may go into either the Japan entry pool or the Germany/Italy entry pool (your choice).

(Chits = Markers)

The calculations are only based on the bold portion of the RAW that I have shown above.

The model doesn't add an extra chit from Jan/Feb 1942 onward. It doesn't consider the Compulsory declarations, any US entry actions, or any US entry options. It is basically just a base line to highlight the differences between "limited chits" and "unlimited chits".

This all rests on the assumption that the values of the available chits in MWiF are the same as in WiF.

What really worries me is the disparity between the calculations for "limited chits" and "unlimited chits". Why are the percentages different? Shouldn't they be the same?

Thanks for that.

Could I suggest a counter be introduced into the programme with regard to the number of chits each year so that when the pot is empty next years are added in though it will also be necessary to allow for what happens when the following year had been used up as well.

It might be because it is valentine's day but do feel passionately that this need to be looked so as to represent this system around which the rest of the game works, because if US regularly gears up late the axis will have a much earlier time of it in the later war.

Cheers

Phil

[petracelli]

Ps also think the values should be the same as in Wif

[Orm]

So far I am very happy with the new chit system in MWIF. [:)]

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Orm

So far I am very happy with the new chit system in MWIF. [:)]

+1, since this system avoids all kind of "gamey" tactics using the same counters for neutrality pacts....

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Orm

So far I am very happy with the new chit system in MWIF. [:)]

+1, since this system avoids all kind of "gamey" tactics using the same counters for neutrality pacts....

Indeed, number crunchers even would get reliable estimates of US entry, and offensive border garrison values.

To me, that is very gamey.

[Mike Parker]

Just to make the comment, not that I would do this.

But you can FORCE whatever chit you want in MWIF. So the purists that want the limited chits could put all those chits in a coffee can or what have you and draw them manually then force MWIF to whatever you drew. Sure its not secret but most folks are playing solitaire now anyway, and if you want it to be secret you could set that up with a third party if you really wanted to do so.

[petracelli]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

Just to make the comment, not that I would do this.

But you can FORCE whatever chit you want in MWIF. So the purists that want the limited chits could put all those chits in a coffee can or what have you and draw them manually then force MWIF to whatever you drew. Sure its not secret but most folks are playing solitaire now anyway, and if you want it to be secret you could set that up with a third party if you really wanted to do so.

Sounds like some sort of solution.