Play Balance in China

[Larry Smith]

In the thread on map changes, I read a comment that Chaing had kept his best troops facing the communists.  I've been playing WiF since 5th ed. in 1991, and I've never read (in the rules) any provisions about either Chaing or Mao having to maintain a force to stare each other down.  Perhaps, and this is ony a guess on my part, the original game designers removed said force from the game to save space, printing costs, avoid unneccessary clutter, and to prevent gamey events whereby the Nationalists and Communists suddenly trust each other wholeheartedly, and toss ALL their forces against the Japanese.  If this was the case, then, in the name of "Play Balance", the destruction of one (Nat'l or Comm) would suddenly release the other's extra forces for anti-Japanese duty.  Imagine - the Japanese player concentrates against the Communists, and destroys them, only to have a sizeable Nationalist force materialize on their shoulder. 

[cockney]

what are the odd's on the Japanese being able to make a treaty with either coms or the nats?
 
make peace with the nats, wipe out the coms then have the nats take on russia?

[Mziln]

Since "China may not declare war." (That means nationalists and communists) if you declare peace you cannot go to war until the Japanese declare war on you.

Both the Nationalist and Communist Chinese must agree before China can enter into a neutrality pact.

[Zorachus99]

I've held off asking because of confidentiality and NDA's, but can we potentially get more information on a current war in china?
 
Screen shots of someone currently fighting that war, the changes to the front, and flow can benefit the observers in more than one way.
 
We can see strategies, flaws, potential issues, and more.
 
So... Is this a possibility?

[wosung]

In WIF Chinese OOB isn’t really consistent:

Some of the units, which, besides defending against Japanese Army, were also involved in inter-Chinese fighting/maneuvering during WW2 are in the game (like the CCP New 4th Army), some aren’t (like Nationalist 34th Army under Hu Zongnan in Sian).

Some WIF field units IRL were most of the time acting as Partisans (like the CCP New 4th Army).

Probably, it’s a myth, that the Nationalist unit, which was to guard Mao’s Yennan Soviet (Nationalist 34th Army under Hu Zongnan in Sian) was the best equipped and trained Nationalist unit.

This elite thought (see: Tuchman’s book about Stillwell, p 384) is doubted (Sheng Ch’I, The Military Dimension 1942-1945, in James C. Hsiung and Steven Levine, Chinas Bitter Victory, p. 175: There were other Nationalist anti-Yennan forces, their task was also to monitor the Chinese Muslim armies in Kansu Province, and of course the Japanese).

I checked infos about General Hu Zongnan:
Absolvent of first class of Nationalist elite Huangpu Military Academy, Guardian of Chiang Kaisheks son Weiguo, Commander of 1st Div, in WW2 of 34th Army and Vice CiC 1st War Zone, in Civil War conqueror of Yennan (March 1947), fled to Taiwan, vainly impeachement because of fatally weakening Middle China for his Northern strategy in the Civil War. (Ci Hai, Bd. 3, p. 3949. Jung Chang, Mao: The unkown story, p. 367-374.) Jung also speculates that from the mid twenties on he was a communist defector.

Bottom line
We should wait for the play testers’ impressions. Probably it’s all a question of fine-tuning before it comes to fiddling around with game rules. (Remember the warlord units, which also come to play).

That said I strongly recommend, before finally launching MWIF, to post an AAR report in this forum:
Every player gets his own thread and is forbidden to read all the other threads. All of them describe what they are planning and doing. Plus there’s a meta-thread for everybody for asking questions without giving away players’ internas. Exactly this is done around the corner in the Forge of Freedom forum. It’s enormously popular and is attracting potential buyers.

Regards

[Froonp]

That said I strongly recommend, before finally launching MWIF, to post an AAR report in this forum:
Every player gets his own thread and is forbidden to read all the other threads. All of them describe what they are planning and doing. Plus there’s a meta-thread for everybody for asking questions without giving away players’ internas. Exactly this is done around the corner in the Forge of Freedom forum. It’s enormously popular and is attracting potential buyers.

I do no understand this part.
"launching MWiF" : Do you mean publishing MWiF, or launching the MWiF program (run it).
"his own thread", "forbidden to read all the other threads" : ????

[wosung]

No no, I meant publishing, Patrice.

Short before publishing, some of the betatesters could make an extensive report of an ongoing PBEM 1939-1945 game with segmented threads for each player with screenshots. Each player describes his moves and strategic thoughts without reading the other players' threads. And the whole thing is illustrated with screenshots.

Basically like the after action reports you did on your WIF-site. But now multiple perspectives of an ongoing game. Just for advertising MWIF.

For the old WIFFers, the AAR itself wouldn't be a new thing. But they can see MWIF PBEM works, and they can see the screenshots.

Newbees and potential customers could get lively introduced in the whole thing.

For the idea, just check out this two threads:

PBEM AAR - It Ain't a Lost Cause Yet!
tm.asp?m=1293655

PBEM AAR - Long Live the Union!
tm.asp?m=1293605

In just a few days they got 2,500 and 4,000 hits. They even were recommended in other wargamers' forums.

http://groups.google.de/group/comp.sys. ... a91bcd128f

Thing is, because of the players different perspectives and thoughts it really captures you, even if you aren't interested in the topic itself.

And that's just another way of saying:

It's good advertising!

[trees]

the coolest thing about MWiF is that in the long-term I think it will kick-start interest in post-"Final" editions of the game.

because of playing WiF I have read the Tuchman book three times in the last ten years. watching the cardboard pieces do things you don't know much about in history has always led me towards filling in my gaps in WWII history.

[Dr Deo]

After reading through this thread, it seems to me that the Chinese Warlords option is a must in order to have play balance in China. My question is about supply; are Warlords from Japanese-controlled cities considered Japanese units (like most CBV) or are they more like TERRs from conquered countries? This is very important for the supply situation; can they trace supply from their home cities, or do they need a Japanese HQ close by?

Another question; the new (optional) Chinese cities, mean many more US entry rolls when Japan is on the offensive. This seriously affects play balance. Will the US entry effect of Japanese capture of Chinese cities be reduced or maybe there will only be a roll for the "original" cities?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Dr Deo

After reading through this thread, it seems to me that the Chinese Warlords option is a must in order to have play balance in China. My question is about supply; are Warlords from Japanese-controlled cities considered Japanese units (like most CBV) or are they more like TERRs from conquered countries? This is very important for the supply situation; can they trace supply from their home cities, or do they need a Japanese HQ close by?

Another question; the new (optional) Chinese cities, mean many more US entry rolls when Japan is on the offensive. This seriously affects play balance. Will the US entry effect of Japanese capture of Chinese cities be reduced or maybe there will only be a roll for the "original" cities?

From the Players Manual:
===
9.8.11 Additional Chinese Cities
This optional rule adds more cities and minor ports in China. The purpose behind adding the cities was to provide Chinese units with (primarily) more supply sources and (secondarily) better defensive terrain. The defensive bonus from the cities is also of benefit to the Japanese at times. The minor ports provide supply to Japanese units moving a short distance inland from the coast, without the need for an HQ to remain in supply.

Although the changes were made reluctantly and with quite a bit of discussion over a period of months by WIF players, I feel this option should be used to accommodate the increased number of hexes the Chinese player has to defend because of the European map scale for China. Numerous other terrain changes were made in combination with these city and port additions, since the sheer number of hexes in China increased by times 6.

Using this optional rule adds 16 cities in China. Under control of the Communist Chinese are: Ningsia,, Sining, Tianshui, Tungkwan, and Yenan. Under control of the Nationalist Chinese are: Nanyang, Ankang, Ichang, Nanchang, Chihkiang, Hengyang, and Kweilin. Under control of the Japanese are: Kaifeng, Suchow, Paoting, and Soochow. There are also 6 minor ports added along the Chinese coast: Chefoo, Haichow, Wenchow, Amoy, Swatow, and Pakhoi. These ports are all controlled by the Japanese at the start of almost every scenario.

US Entry Action die rolls for capturing Chinese cities are also affected. Instead of the normal 1 to 4 (i.e., 40%) it is 1 to 2 + the number of factories in the hex. This means that a city without a factory has a 20% chance of causing a US Entry chit to be drawn, while Sian (with 1 factory) has a 30% chance and Chungking (with 2 factories) has a 40% chance.

[Dr Deo]

This means a higher US entry hit for conquering China. In a 1939 campaign there would on average be 3.6 chits drawn before a Chinese surrender (0.4 x 9 cities, assuming Kashgar and Urumchi aren't taken until China surrenders).

There are now 12 new optional cities under Chinese control. I'm not sure where all are located on the map, but let's say 11 of them lie between the 1939 front and the most westward factory. Then there will on average 4.8 chits drawn (0.2 x 20 cities + 0.1 x 8 factories).

I think the additional cities are good for play balance, but I'm not so sure about the additional US entry hit. Wouldn't it be better to simply have a 0.2 hit regardless of factories? It would still give more chits than WIFFE.

[Orm]

You do not need to capture that many of the optional cities to conquer China. Maybe you can do it without capturing more than 4 of the optional cities. Here is a picture of China with the optional cities.

Edit: 3 of the cities are North, or north west, of this area.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Dr Deo

This means a higher US entry hit for conquering China. In a 1939 campaign there would on average be 3.6 chits drawn before a Chinese surrender (0.4 x 9 cities, assuming Kashgar and Urumchi aren't taken until China surrenders).

There are now 12 new optional cities under Chinese control. I'm not sure where all are located on the map, but let's say 11 of them lie between the 1939 front and the most westward factory. Then there will on average 4.8 chits drawn (0.2 x 20 cities + 0.1 x 8 factories).

I think the additional cities are good for play balance, but I'm not so sure about the additional US entry hit. Wouldn't it be better to simply have a 0.2 hit regardless of factories? It would still give more chits than WIFFE.

Your analysis seems mostly correct to me.

This screenshot shows all the new cities and all but 1 of the new ports. There is another port, Pakhoi, off the bottom of the screen, 2 hexes SE of Naning. You can see it in Bjorn's screenshot.

Taking Nangsia and Sining isn't necessary for conquering China, but the other 10 new cities probably are. If you bypass them, then there is a significant risk of enemy reinforcements arriving in your rear.

So, realistically, the expected US chit draws are 3.6 (WIF FE) versus 4.6 (3.8 + .8) for MWIF. Note that if you throw in Urumchi and Kashgar, the calculations are still 4.4 versus 5.4, or a +1 on expected US Entry markers increase.

I have no real strong emotional attachement to the US Entry cost for conquering Chinese cities. It is a single line of code and trivial to modify. It would also require a quick edit of the optional rule in the Players Manual and a couple of other places where it is mentioned.

Adding or subtracting cities is a completely different story[:-]; I am not going to mess around with that any more. An enormous amount of effort was put into deciding which cities would be added and people much more knowledgable than I arrived at a consensus on that topic [non-trivial to accomplish, as you can imagine].

Steve

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Dr Deo

This means a higher US entry hit for conquering China. In a 1939 campaign there would on average be 3.6 chits drawn before a Chinese surrender (0.4 x 9 cities, assuming Kashgar and Urumchi aren't taken until China surrenders).

There are now 12 new optional cities under Chinese control. I'm not sure where all are located on the map, but let's say 11 of them lie between the 1939 front and the most westward factory. Then there will on average 4.8 chits drawn (0.2 x 20 cities + 0.1 x 8 factories).

I think the additional cities are good for play balance, but I'm not so sure about the additional US entry hit. Wouldn't it be better to simply have a 0.2 hit regardless of factories? It would still give more chits than WIFFE.

The play testers had a long debate some time ago on what the US entry should be with the extra optional cities. In the end we had a vote and the current US entry action die rolls for Chinese cities won big time. But it was also decided that this needed alot of play testing to see if and how it needed changing. Some testing has been done on this but not enough.

[peskpesk]

The situation in Far East and in particular China / Manchuria has changed with the European sized map hexes and that can be an issue for game balance.

Simplified:

Early war
China
- Supply trouble
- Limited number of units (to have a solid line, counter out flanking, envelop moves etc.)

Later war
Japan
- Limited number of units (to have a solid line, counter out flanking, envelop moves etc.).
- Action limits for land moves (Japan could be to hard pressed to do combined actions since situation in China/Manchuria is more open).

To counter the above there are two optional that could help:
- The unlimited break down of divisions
- The extra Chinese cites

The warlords, city base voluntaries and territorials could also affect the situation.

My personal concern is for Japan during later part of the war, they could even need a new strategy or hopefully not a new extra optional rule.

[Dr Deo]

Fair enough everyone, if it were up to me I'd rather see a flat 2 entry hit for each city, in order to keep the total entry hit close to WIFFE, but I'll leave it to you guys with more insight to decide.

Anyway, peskpesk's mentioning of the extra units reminds of my other question; can warlords from Japanese-controlled cities trace supply to their home cities or do they need a Japanese HQ since they are on occupied territory?

[Ullern]

According to FAQ available on the ADG site (Q22.4-47) the Japanese controlled Warlords are major power units (Japanese) so would then not receive supply from their Chinese cities.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Dr Deo

This means a higher US entry hit for conquering China. In a 1939 campaign there would on average be 3.6 chits drawn before a Chinese surrender (0.4 x 9 cities, assuming Kashgar and Urumchi aren't taken until China surrenders).

There are now 12 new optional cities under Chinese control. I'm not sure where all are located on the map, but let's say 11 of them lie between the 1939 front and the most westward factory. Then there will on average 4.8 chits drawn (0.2 x 20 cities + 0.1 x 8 factories).

I think the additional cities are good for play balance, but I'm not so sure about the additional US entry hit. Wouldn't it be better to simply have a 0.2 hit regardless of factories? It would still give more chits than WIFFE.

The play testers had a long debate some time ago on what the US entry should be with the extra optional cities. In the end we had a vote and the current US entry action die rolls for Chinese cities won big time. But it was also decided that this needed alot of play testing to see if and how it needed changing. Some testing has been done on this but not enough.

I've actually done a lot of testing in China, and I never skip taking a city with the Japanese (I like to test so that the US enters early). The math is actually somewhat more complex than is stated on this thread, because the total increase is not truly something you can figure based on adding probabilities together.

You'd have to figure it based on the probable increase for 1 city taken (20% that 1 chit will be added), for 2 cities taken (4% that 2 chits will be added, 32% that 1 chit will be added, 64% that none will be added), etc.

This can be done for both the Optional Rule being used, and for it not being used. I'll do it if people think it is really necessary, but I have a hunch that we will discover that the actual result will show a descrease in the number of chits the US gets out of using the Optional Rule for extra cities.
-----
Edit: If you want me to do this, I'll figure it for all cities, but there should be an "optimal" number chosen and a "minimum" number chosen for each set of calculations.
-----
2nd Edit: Actually, this catches my interest as a thought problem, so I'm going to run the calculations anyway. I'll post the results here when I'm done.

[Dr Deo]

Actually, the math is as simple as stated in the thread, when looking at the expected value (mean), and it will definitely be higher (feel free to do a Monte Carlo experiment if you don't believe me). However, the tails of the distribution curve will be longer and thinner, i.e. the maximum number of possible entry chits drawn is increased, although it's extremely unlikely a chit will be drawn for each city.

All in all, the optional cities mean less variance in the number of chits drawn. This is because the greater number of rolls will mean high and low numbers will offset each other in the long run. Consequently, a cost-benefit analysis can be done by Japan with greater certainty, so perhaps that makes up for the higher mean at least partially.

[Red Prince]

ORIGINAL: Dr Deo

Actually, the math is as simple as stated in the thread, when looking at the expected value (mean), and it will definitely be higher (feel free to do a Monte Carlo experiment if you don't believe me). However, the tails of the distribution curve will be longer and thinner, i.e. the maximum number of possible entry chits drawn is increased, although it's extremely unlikely a chit will be drawn for each city.

All in all, the optional cities mean less variance in the number of chits drawn. This is because the greater number of rolls will mean high and low numbers will offset each other in the long run. Consequently, a cost-benefit analysis can be done by Japan with greater certainty, so perhaps that makes up for the higher mean at least partially.

Perhaps it's just that the die rolls during my testing have trended a certain way that makes me feel this way. Or, it could also be that because I do not always test all the way to conquest, I don't always get to the higher-roll Factory cities. Not to mention that I have an irrational dislike for "expected" values. I like to see the +/- associated with them in order to evaluate things.

The curve, to me is important. I was going to try to explain why, but my curiosity about this means I'm going to run it, so I'll just wait until I have the results.
-----
Edit: It's been a long time since I took statistical analysis. Perhaps I need a refresher. [:)]