MWiF Charts

[Mayhemizer_slith]

Here are charts needed to respond when playing using email. Sometimes you are not home when you need to spend surprise points etc.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

2D10 combat table

[Mayhemizer_slith]

Steve promised to pin this to the top.

Thank you very much! [&o]

Edit: Here are remaining charts asked below

[Orm]

Maybe the other side of the WIF charts as well? With US entry and weather.

And here is a table helping with the partisans.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

I can add that one also. I added those we need to react as non-phasing players.

[michaelbaldur]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Maybe the other side of the WIF charts as well? With US entry and weather.

And here is a table helping with the partisans.

why do you show the partisan chart, Mwif basicly don use that

[Orm]

You may very well be right. But it can not hurt to add it. If it is ever needed then it would be practical to have it added already.

Besides, it might help with planning.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

why do you show the partisan chart, Mwif basicly don use that

MWIF very much uses the values in the partisan chart. MWIF has just compromised the two rolls into one. And I find the partisan value very helpful. It tells you how much in garrison value needed to avoid partisans altogether.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

why do you show the partisan chart, Mwif basicly don use that

MWIF very much uses the values in the partisan chart. MWIF has just compromised the two rolls into one. And I find the partisan value very helpful. It tells you how much in garrison value needed to avoid partisans altogether.

That's not entirely true. For example: in WiF you cannot create a partisan in both the Netherlands and Belgium at the same time. In MWIF you can...

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Centuur

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

why do you show the partisan chart, Mwif basicly don use that

MWIF very much uses the values in the partisan chart. MWIF has just compromised the two rolls into one. And I find the partisan value very helpful. It tells you how much in garrison value needed to avoid partisans altogether.

That's not entirely true. For example: in WiF you cannot create a partisan in both the Netherlands and Belgium at the same time. In MWIF you can...

The math that MWIF uses for the rolls still comes from that chart. If I want to know what the chances there are that a partisan appears in Belgium and another Netherlands I can find that out by looking at the chart. The point, I believe, was to have the information available when you do not have access to MWIF.

I even use that chart when I do have access to MWIF.

[brian brian]

I have a paper (well, glossy cardboard stock) copy of the charts in my laptop bag. And the .pdf image of both sides stored in my photo libraries.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

I posted others charts too to post #3 so that they all are up there and easy to find.

[Orm]

Bump.

[brian brian]

MWiF "uses" the math in a basic sense. The % chance of a PARTisan appearing in any given country is the same. But MWiF tests every country every turn, rather than just 8 of them per turn. I fail to see how this would not inevitably result in more PARTisans overall. Maybe I am missing something.

[Courtenay]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

MWiF "uses" the math in a basic sense. The % chance of a PARTisan appearing in any given country is the same. But MWiF tests every country every turn, rather than just 8 of them per turn. I fail to see how this would not inevitably result in more PARTisans overall. Maybe I am missing something.

You are. The odds of a partisan appearing in a country in WiF is 1/10 (ten rows to the partisan matrix) * # of times a country appears in the table * (Partisan number - garrison + existing partisans)/10. The fact that you check eight countries at a time does not affect the odds of a partisan appearing in any one country. The chance of a partisan appearing in MWiF is exactly the same; it is just no longer correlated with the chance of a partisan appearing in another country.

[Centuur]

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

ORIGINAL: brian brian

MWiF "uses" the math in a basic sense. The % chance of a PARTisan appearing in any given country is the same. But MWiF tests every country every turn, rather than just 8 of them per turn. I fail to see how this would not inevitably result in more PARTisans overall. Maybe I am missing something.

You are. The odds of a partisan appearing in a country in WiF is 1/10 (ten rows to the partisan matrix) * # of times a country appears in the table * (Partisan number - garrison + existing partisans)/10. The fact that you check eight countries at a time does not affect the odds of a partisan appearing in any one country. The chance of a partisan appearing in MWiF is exactly the same; it is just no longer correlated with the chance of a partisan appearing in another country.

It's mathematically sound, there's no doubt about that part. The only thing it doesn't take into account is the fact that the developers made the game, excluding the chance that a partisan appears f.e. in both the Netherlands and Belgium at the same time.
During the development of MWIF, questions were asked. On the partisan issue ADG made it clear that they were restricted by the fact that they had to put in a system which relied on the use of the 1D10 die and the counter sheets which were provided with the board game. Thus it was decided that MWIF would lift those restrictions and a system was put in where the chance of partisans appearing was exactly the same as in the board game, but without the restrictions of which country gets a partisan roll. Also, the partisan force pool isn't restricted with the number of counters as were provided in the board game anymore.

[brian brian]

I still can't wrap my mind around it. Korea has only one entry on the table and a Partisan # of 3. So if there is no Japanese garrison, there is a total of a 3% chance that a Partisan appears on any given turn.

But if that 3% chance is tested every single turn, is that really the same as a 10% chance of then triggering a 30% chance on only some turns? It feels like the the Partisan table was changed from a 2d10 system to a 1d100 system, simultaneously with a more "d" (as in die rolls) system. Was this "Monte Carlo'd" across a million reps like the US Entry system?


Edit to add: and leave aside the results in any given country. Perhaps those remain the same. But what about the resulting total of partisans created across all countries, as a total, across an entire game? Does more 1d100 rolls create the same result as some 2d10 rolls, where the second d10 is not even rolled for most countries, most turns. One die depending on another doesn't feel the same to me as a single, independent die roll.

To me, a 1d100 result on the land combat table would obviously not be the same as the 1d10+1d10 system, even though two ten sided dice always create a result of 01-100.

[Courtenay]

Yes. .03 = .1 * .3. The two probabilities are the same. It was not Monte-Carloed, because it is basic math.

It is not a 1d10+1d10 system; it is a 1d10*1d10 system, which is the same as a 1d100 system. Consider the first 1d10 to be the 10s digit, and the second as the ones digit. Exactly the same.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

.

[AllenK]

Bump