'stuffing' the border

[dale1066]

Cheers

I really should go through the rules more carefully though it is better to hear the latest interpretations from the experts. I guess after playing CWif and not playing FTF recently (last one must have been eigth years ago) I've relied on the PCs interpretation too much and that looses a little of the subleties (not to mention arguments [:)])

Post release will there scope for game upgrades? could these have revised rules or is the plan for MWiF to freeze the rules at the date of release?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel

Printing counters is expensive. Compromising from a desired probability distribution to one limited by physical counters is a lot easier than running up the cost of product sold. Especially since ADG could not use a infinite probability distribution and had to use a counter mix to get the desired result of hidden results, known only to certain players.

I respectfully disagree:

1. ADG could have used 2 series of chit, one for USE, another for Pact garrison, in order to make sure one dynamic would not affect the other. This would have meant less than 60 additionnal counters, so that cost cannot be the decision driver here.

2. Rolling dice and recording results instead of drawing counters would have been pretty similar to an infinite pool. In other words, it was not difficult to simulate the 'infinite counters' on a boardgame.

I do not think the issue with Partisans is the same. I have never seen the partisan counter pool exhausted in any game. The number of partisans is structurally too important, so that replacing this with an infinite pool has a marginal effect. On the other hand, the number of chit counters is structurally too small.

In the end, we'll have to ask Harry.

Cheers,

Daniel

If I counted right, there are 84 US Entry chit counters. That's a lot. Probably about the same as the total number of minor country units(?) To achieve the same distribution for neutrality pact chits, and keep them separate from the US Entry chits, would require another 84 counters.

Rolling dice and recording results assumes the player doing the recording is honest.

Chits in a cup is a good solution, used in many other board games, and I have absolutely no argument with that solution for the board game. Indeed, it is my preferred solution.

One of my problems with using the finite chits solution for MWIF is explaining it to a new player who has never seen the board game. The only rationale I can come up with is to say that "the board game did it this way". If asked "why did the board game intermix the US Entry chits with Neutrality Pact chits?" Well, either because:
1 - the designers wanted the two systems to interact though they never explained why, or
2 - they didn't want to have a game that contained 150 counters that were simply chits.

I still come back to probabilty distributions being a solid simulation tool used throughout the programming industry, beyond the field of board games. Substituting finite draw probability distributions is rarely used and then only when there is something in the real world that has a direct correspondence.

[WiFDaniel]

1 - the designers wanted the two systems to interact though they never explained why, or
2 - they didn't want to have a game that contained 150 counters that were simply chits.

This is spot on.
Hence it's time to ask Harry

[WiFDaniel]

I still come back to probabilty distributions being a solid simulation tool used throughout the programming industry, beyond the field of board games. Substituting finite draw probability distributions is rarely used and then only when there is something in the real world that has a direct correspondence.

I am curious what probability distribution you plan to use. Could you give us a hint?

Daniel

[WiFDaniel]

If I counted right, there are 84 US Entry chit counters. That's a lot. Probably about the same as the total number of minor country units(?) To achieve the same distribution for neutrality pact chits, and keep them separate from the US Entry chits, would require another 84 counters.

Let's stop counting counters: I believe this is not where we'll find an answer.

(That said, there are 84 counters for USE+Pact. If you decide to have separate counters for Pact, well, you don't need to keep 84 for USE[:)]
Back of the enveloppe calculation:
Pact is drawing 3 counters per turn. Let's have the pact hold until JA42, ie 18 turns, ie 18x3=54 counters.
USE is 1 chit / turn + approx 1 chit/turn linked to actions, ie 2 chits/ turn. More from 42 certainly. About 50 chits would make it.
Total: approx 100 chits.
Throw in 20% to ensure variability. That's 120, ie no more than 40 extra from current status.
Now count how many 45 CVs you have.
I still argue you can't incriminate printing cost here)

Daniel

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel

I still come back to probabilty distributions being a solid simulation tool used throughout the programming industry, beyond the field of board games. Substituting finite draw probability distributions is rarely used and then only when there is something in the real world that has a direct correspondence.

I am curious what probability distribution you plan to use. Could you give us a hint?

Daniel

No secrets there. The code is already written. It is the same as from CWIF but modified to reflect the changes in counters ADG made most recently (within the last year?). The only difference from the board game probabilities is that the pool is infinite so drawing a counter (regardless of what counter's number is) does not change the probability for the next draw. Each year the probability changes to match the chits from WIFFE.

Here's the code:

// ****************************************************************************
function PickEntryChit(Year: Integer = 0): Byte;
begin
if Year = 0 then Year := Game.Date.Year; // Default: use the current year

ChitYear := Year;

case Year of
1939:
begin
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0: Result := 0; // 4 3 1

1..9: Result := 1; // 6 7 9

10..16: Result := 2; // 6 7 7

17..22: Result := 3; // 7 6 6

23..28: Result := 4; // 5 6 6

else Result := 5; // 2 1 1 (29)
end;
end;

1940:
begin
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0..4: Result := 0; // 12 6 4 -> 5

5..23: Result := 1; // 12 8 10 -> 19

24..36: Result := 2; // 11 5 6 -> 13

37..45: Result := 3; // 10 3 3 -> 9

46..51: Result := 4; // 6 1 0 -> 6

else Result := 5; // 2 1 0 -> 1 (52)
end;
end;

1941:
begin
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0..4: Result := 0; // 12 0 0 -> 5

5..24: Result := 1; // 13 1 1 -> 20

25..40: Result := 2; // 14 3 3 -> 16

41..52: Result := 3; // 14 4 3 -> 12

53..62: Result := 4; // 9 3 4 -> 10

63..66: Result := 5; // 5 3 3 -> 4

else Result := 6; // 1 1 1 -> 1 (67)
end;
end;

1942:
begin
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0..4: Result := 0; // 12 0 0 -> 5

5..24: Result := 1; // 13 0 0 -> 20

25..41: Result := 2; // 15 1 1 -> 17

42..56: Result := 3; // 17 3 3 -> 15

57..70: Result := 4; // 13 4 4 -> 14

71..78: Result := 5; // 9 4 4 -> 8

else Result := 6; // 3 2 2 -> 3 (79..81)
end;
end;

else
begin // 1943 +
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0..4: Result := 0; // 12 0 0 -> 5

5..24: Result := 1; // 13 0 0 -> 20

25..41: Result := 2; // 15 0 0 -> 17

42..57: Result := 3; // 18 1 1 -> 16

58..73: Result := 4; // 15 2 2 -> 16

74..85: Result := 5; // 13 4 4 -> 12

else Result := 6; // 8 5 5 -> 8 (86..93)
end;
end;
end;
end;

[WiFDaniel]

Thanks for the code, Steve!

It is really an infinite distribution. E.g., you never get rid of 1939 chits.

I have built a short spreadsheet to see whether it matters.

Bottom line: major impact from end of 41 on.

Here are the results:

+ Value of USE average chit in MA41
Boardgame: 2.6
Current code: 2.3
=> not that big a difference

+ Value of USE average chit in JF42, assuming Pact holds and Japan does not declare war on CW
Boardgame: 3.6
Current code: 2.6
=> this is bigger, especially considering the US pick 2 chits from 1942 on. They lose average 2x(3.6-2.6)=2.0 value each turn.

+ Value of USE average chit in JF42, assuming Pact holds and Japan DoWs CW in ND41
Boardgame: 3.7
Current code: 2.6
=> this is bigger, especially considering the US pick 3 chits from 1942 on. They lose average 2x(3.7-2.6)=3.0 value each turn.
This cancels the additional USE chit for Japan's DoW.

****

Assumptions used in these scenarii
+ Value of USE average chit in MA41
1939:
- chits in USA Entry/tension pool: 4 (i.e. no specially nasty move from the allies).
- USSR/Ge border: 6 chits
Total drawn in 1939: 10 chits

Additional chits drawn in 1940
- USA Entry/tension pool: 8
(say 1/turn + 2 for Vichy. This is quite conservative: no Chinese city, no Belgium / Netherlands / Danemark)
- USSR/Ge border: 18 chits
Total drawn in 1940: 26 chits

Additional chits drawn in JF 1941
- USA Entry/tension pool: 1
- USSR/Ge border: 3 chits
Total drawn in JF 41: 4 chits

Total # chits drawn up to MA41 US Entry phase: 40.

Randomly remove 10 1939 chits, then 26 of (leftover 1939 + all 1940), then 4 of (leftover 39-60 + all 41). Average value of the next pick.

****

+ Value of USE average chit in JF42, assuming pact holds and Japan does not DoW CW.
Same assumptions for 1939 and 1940

Additional chits drawn in JF 1941
- USA Entry/tension pool: 8
- USSR/Ge border: 3x4+ 2x1= 14 chits
(i.e. Germany stops drawing chits in SO41 when she realizes she cannot break the pact)
Total drawn in 41: 22 chits

Total # chits drawn up to JF42 US Entry phase: 10+26+22=56

Randomly remove 10 1939 chits, then 26 of (leftover 1939 + all 1940), then 22 of (leftover 39-60 + all 41). Average value of the next pick.

+ Value of USE average chit in JF42, assuming pact holds and Japan DoWs CW in ND41.
Same assumptions as before. Add 4 USE chits drawn in ND41.

Total # chits drawn up to JF42 US Entry phase: 10+26+26=60

***

Daniel

[composer99]

I would just, on a point unrelated to the recent discussion on finite pool vs. infinite probability distribution of USE chits, say that I disagree with the notion that the USSR ought to confine its international adventurism. But that belongs more in the threat topic on the USSR AIO, of course.

[lomyrin]

Having played a substantial number of CWiF games, and still doing so, I have not found any reason to complain about the entry chit values. All the games have progressed in the US entry level in a fashion very comparable to the boardgame's levels and the US actions and entry into the war has been within the expected range in time.
 
Lars 

[WiFDaniel]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Having played a substantial number of CWiF games, and still doing so, I have not found any reason to complain about the entry chit values. All the games have progressed in the US entry level in a fashion very comparable to the boardgame's levels and the US actions and entry into the war has been within the expected range in time.

I'm sure you did but... have you played a successful stuff in CWiF?

Some groups/players just never try to stuff the border.

Daniel

[lomyrin]

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Having played a substantial number of CWiF games, and still doing so, I have not found any reason to complain about the entry chit values. All the games have progressed in the US entry level in a fashion very comparable to the boardgame's levels and the US actions and entry into the war has been within the expected range in time.

I'm sure you did but... have you played a successful stuff in CWiF?

Some groups/players just never try to stuff the border.

Daniel

Yes in some games stuffing has worked and in others not. No concerted effort to draw it to the ultimate end has been made in my experience. Our Russian has either had a pretty solid stuff situation or just left speedbumps by spring of 41.

Stuffing in the opposite direction has also occurred with the Germans busy in other areas and in those the Russians have not been able to DoW Germany until JF43.

Lars

[bredsjomagnus]

I have hardly played WIF at all, but if I understand things right the chance that US joins the war increase if the peace between Germany and Russia remains?!?! If that is the way it works in the boardgame, it just sounds strange. Why should USA be more and more motivated to declare war on Germany the longer the peace (non aggression pact) is in effect? If the peace or non aggression pact should influence at all I think it should be in the opposite way. What am I missing?
 
 
/Magnus

[WiFDaniel]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

I have hardly played WIF at all, but if I understand things right the chance that US joins the war increase if the peace between Germany and Russia remains?!?! If that is the way it works in the boardgame, it just sounds strange. Why should USA be more and more motivated to declare war on Germany the longer the peace (non aggression pact) is in effect? If the peace or non aggression pact should influence at all I think it should be in the opposite way. What am I missing?

Short answer is: it is the way it works but we do not have an explaination why.

I do not believe there is any "wifzen" here. However, the more I think of of it, the more I realize it works as a nice play balance.

One boring but winning strategy is for Germany to sitz on its Eastern border. Holding the pact until JF43 - like Lars mentioned - or even until 44 - I've seen it happen - is pretty efficient in terms of attrition and final objectives count. When Germans have a double line of triple stacks on the border, behind the Bug or the Vistula, believe me, Russians don't go very far.

All that to say that, in terms of game pleasure, it would not be a nonsense to speed up US Entry if Pact holds forever.

Daniel

[composer99]

You could "wifzen" it by suggesting that a continued non-aggression pact between Germany & USSR means that Britain is "standing alone" longer as the sole fighter against Germany, so the US is more motivated to get in to help the British.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

I have hardly played WIF at all, but if I understand things right the chance that US joins the war increase if the peace between Germany and Russia remains?!?! If that is the way it works in the boardgame, it just sounds strange. Why should USA be more and more motivated to declare war on Germany the longer the peace (non aggression pact) is in effect? If the peace or non aggression pact should influence at all I think it should be in the opposite way. What am I missing?


/Magnus

The USSR and Germany “peacefully” engaged in an arms race. While each are massing troops on each other’s borders. Sooner or later one side or the other is going to start something.

Its not that they are at peace but they are gearing up for war with each other.

[WiFDaniel]

Has anyone eventually asked Harry for his perspective on USE/Pact chits?

Daniel

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel
Has anyone eventually asked Harry for his perspective on USE/Pact chits?

Not yet, but if no one does, I'll do [:D].
Anyway, I'm sending him periodicaly the list of rules questions for rules clarifications, I can slip this into the lot.

[brian brian]

hi folks, somehow my connection timed out in the middle of a reply and when I refreshed I was logged in as guest and then my browser wouldn't load my cookie with my password and when I reset my password the forum software took my name information from my email account, where I accidentally typed my first name twice a long, long time ago and left it that way, and this forum software won't let me re-use the login trees or edit my login name, so I'm on a new name again. this is about the fifth time this has happened to me, I don't mean to change names like this but I can't help what software does. My name is Brian Jarvinen and I am from Michigan, perhaps I know some of you from WiFCon actually.

Anyhow, I have never seen the USSR/German use of chits impact US entry as I've never seen anyone try and stuff the border in a dozen+ games of WiF. Most people think it is impossible and/or too scary. When I have tried it it has become moot as the Axis selected a 1942 Barbarossa regardless of what the Russians were doing.

The change to unlimited chits with the same probability distribtution would be a definite change in the play of the game. Although the US can't reveal exact chit values, if they draw a lot of 0s and 1s it is quite common for them to suggest to the other Allies to play more aggressively (or more conservatively with high chits). The USSR with probably some face down defensive chits has their own information to make decisions on. With a lot of German offensive chits face-up, everyone can look at those for some more information, particularly the Japanese player. Changing to an infinite pool would change the tempo of the necessary Allied decisions - with a lot of low USE chits, the Allies need to make their decisions on DoWs on Itay or Persia (two most common examples) and perhaps some initial US Entry option decisions, based on the finite pool, i.e. make the decision before the US draws some better chits, which is increasingly likely in a finite pool. With an unlimited pool, a low or high chit could appear at any time and this is a big change to how the system works. It would also have quite an impact on how the Japanese view the face-up offensive entry chits and the chits revealed as entry options are selected. I can see Steve's point about no limit on electronic counters, but the best comparison I've seen above is the idea about the deck of cards. Changing the deck is a definite change to the game.


Going back to the 'stuff' question, I started working on those build plans a long time ago in response to the idea that Russia can't survive a full 1941 Barbarossa. I disagree on that, I think it is not a slam-dunk either way, it is nail-biting wargame action. If you don't think Russia can do it it is your choice to deny the option to the Axis, and that is a lot less nail-biting actually. I think that if the Germans don't launch some sort of Balkan campaign concurrent with a French campaign, the probability the Russians can deny it is higher than 75%. (If the Germans go into Yugoslavia and get the Italians to supply the bulk of the garrison they could boost their garrison number quite a bit, at the risk of probably speeding up the progress of the CW campaign against Italy, especially for a CW smart enough to build AMPHs early on). As the Germans draw twice as many chits (and are face-up), their chits should trend more towards the average than the Russians. So the bigger variable is the Russian chits and if they draw a lot of unlucky low ones they will know this by late 1940 and can act accordingly (in 1941 the odds of low chits decrease significantly). Remember that the maximum numbers the Germans can generate are drawn from the Germans putting perhaps 95% of their units and BPs on the eastern front, without losses in 39 & 40, and they still can't match the Russian numbers based on average chits.

I also posted that information so the 'stuff' can be a valid Russian AIO choice. Many players have never seen it done, or just house-rule the pact-breaking entry system out of existence, so it could be a good way for the AI to vary the human players WiF experience. It would probably draw some criticism when the AI does it succesfully; many WiF players feel nothing could have prevented Hitler from this decision, but Harry has made this part of the game and it is not even an optional rule.

[composer99]

Poster formerly known as trees... (sorry, couldn't resist) [:'(]
 
You've got your chits inverted: It's offensive pact chits that are face-down, and defensive chits that are face-up. So everyone can see what the USSR has when it's trying to hold the pact in 40-41, but not what Germany has.

[WiFDaniel]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
Anyhow, I have never seen the USSR/German use of chits impact US entry as I've never seen anyone try and stuff the border in a dozen+ games of WiF. Most people think it is impossible and/or too scary. When I have tried it it has become moot as the Axis selected a 1942 Barbarossa regardless of what the Russians were doing.

That's what I meant when I earlier said some players never stuff, or even try to stuff the border.

"most people think it is impossible" is relevant for those who never ever tried. Everytime I've stuffed the border (be it as Germany or Russia) it has worked.

Daniel