Partisans Deployemnt

[brian brian]

I posed the question on BoardGameGeek. They suggested what dies change is the distribution of results, not the quantity of results. Basically higher chances of more partisans than the WiF method - and higher chances of no partisans. Along with obliterating the dustribution of the groups of countries.

The first die selects a group of countries, thus every country is tested every turn. But in MWiF, the first die roll is re-rolled for every country - a change.

I posed the question as a generic one, using 'provinces' and 'rebellions'. Here is the most applicable response:


Edit: in a moment. X here you go, couldn't risk browser erasing post:




If we assume 50 provinces, from wich 30 are twice in the grid (thus have a 20% chance to test) and 20 are once in the grid (10% chance to test), and give all those provinces a 30% chance to rebel if tested, you get:

Scheme 1:

You test 8 provinces, with a 30% chance to rebel: Expected value: 2.4 rebellions, variance: 1.29. Die rolls: 9

Scheme 2:

You test 20 provinces with 3% chance to rebel, 30 provinces with 6% chance to rebel: Expected value: 2.4 rebellions, variance: 1.82. Die rolls: 50 rolls of two dice.

*************

Bottom line: You definitively don't change the total number of rebellions in the long run, but you do create a higher chance to have many rebellions in a single turn and then many turns of nothing happening.

[brian brian]

Though I would imagine that across an 80 entry matrix with very different test thresholds on the second die, the variance could go down some. Re-rolling the first die is still a methodology change from WiF ... for what gain? The pool of PART counters is not inherently linked to using the table as per RaW.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: brian brian

Though I would imagine that across an 80 entry matrix with very different test thresholds on the second die, the variance could go down some. Re-rolling the first die is still a methodology change from WiF ... for what gain? The pool of PART counters is not inherently linked to using the table as per RaW.

The gain is the removal of the interdependency and mutual exclusion in the WIFFE table.

In the WIFFE table you will never see partisans appearing in Belgium, Norway, Sweden, or Greece in the same turn. That is an impossibility. Why? Because it is simpler to roll one die then 8 dice instead of 39 (the number of possible countries). Also MWIF breaks down Central America and South America into separate countries - because those countries are now shown separately in the map.

[juntoalmar]

I love this thread (partially, because I'm taking a course in statistics now). It seems that WiF solution for partisan creation was one that make easier to implement when rolling dice manually. As MWiF doesn't have the same restrictions (roll 39 times? no problem!) it seems reasonable that it can have a different way to create partisans if the results are more desirable. There is no reason for mutual exclusion of partisans from different countries, if we think of MWiF as a simulation of WWII.