A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. A Fun Rabbit Hole.
(1) I went down a fun rabbit hole today and though I'd share a summary of that adventure with you.
(2) In solitary play I have perfect knowledge of US entry and tension pool levels.
(3) Thus, I have perfect knowledge of US entry option status; e.g., does the US have the necessary entry and tension to pass gear up 22(11), and US DOW chance vs Ge & Jp .
(4) I spent today building a tool (actual a sheet in my AAR EXCEL spreadsheet) that provides expected and sigma entry levels based on the number of chits in the 4 pools (i.e., Ge/It entry, tension, Jp entry & tension).
(5) This tool is not only useful for solitary play but would be of benefit in face to face play where the actual chit values are hidden from the axis players and (possibly) non-US players.
(6) I'm not sure what the protocol is for face-to-face games on whether or not the US player shares these values for his allied side players?
(7) I digress ... for solitary play I wanted develop US entry chit statistics in order to make, or support, axis reactions to US entry possibilities.
(8) I started with US chit distributions in the table below; specifically, average and sigma chit value per year.
(9) I then developed a table where the only input is number of chits by year in the 4 pools (i.e., Ge/It entry, tension, Jp entry, tension).
(10) Now, once chits are move from entry to tension and/or removed (lost) from entry the player will have to make a educated guess on from what "year" those chits were.
(11) Or, one could just average and use fractional chits with the constraint that the total across years must equal the actual total number of chits in the pool(s).
(12) Below is the actual US entry and tension pools.
(13) Next is my estimate ... note that I use fractional chits for chit move from entry to tension and correspondingly left in entry.
(14) I also have two slots to compare the estimates to one or two cases.
(15) The estimate below shows a comparison to actual.
(16) # sigs < 0 indicate that the estimate (in this case vs the actual) exceeds the case.
(17) # sigs >= 0 indicate that the estimate is less that the case under consideration. (18) For example, the axis player wishes to know how close the allies are to 22(11) Gear up production and (Jp 31) Oil Embargo for the end of this coming turn.
(19) This projection assumes that the all player will elect to put another chit in the Japanese entry pool.
(20) With respect to 22(11) Gear Up Production, the axis player can concluded that the US likely has more than enough entry in both Ge/It and Jp entry pools; and also is very close to the tension needed.
(21) The axis player can also conclude that the US has, or is close to having, enough entry for Jp 31 Oil embargo.
(22) Just curious, would you as the Japanese player fear that a US oil embargo is imminent? What about Gear Up production?
(1) I went down a fun rabbit hole today and though I'd share a summary of that adventure with you.
(2) In solitary play I have perfect knowledge of US entry and tension pool levels.
(3) Thus, I have perfect knowledge of US entry option status; e.g., does the US have the necessary entry and tension to pass gear up 22(11), and US DOW chance vs Ge & Jp .
(4) I spent today building a tool (actual a sheet in my AAR EXCEL spreadsheet) that provides expected and sigma entry levels based on the number of chits in the 4 pools (i.e., Ge/It entry, tension, Jp entry & tension).
(5) This tool is not only useful for solitary play but would be of benefit in face to face play where the actual chit values are hidden from the axis players and (possibly) non-US players.
(6) I'm not sure what the protocol is for face-to-face games on whether or not the US player shares these values for his allied side players?
(7) I digress ... for solitary play I wanted develop US entry chit statistics in order to make, or support, axis reactions to US entry possibilities.
(8) I started with US chit distributions in the table below; specifically, average and sigma chit value per year.
(9) I then developed a table where the only input is number of chits by year in the 4 pools (i.e., Ge/It entry, tension, Jp entry, tension).
(10) Now, once chits are move from entry to tension and/or removed (lost) from entry the player will have to make a educated guess on from what "year" those chits were.
(11) Or, one could just average and use fractional chits with the constraint that the total across years must equal the actual total number of chits in the pool(s).
(12) Below is the actual US entry and tension pools.
(13) Next is my estimate ... note that I use fractional chits for chit move from entry to tension and correspondingly left in entry.
(14) I also have two slots to compare the estimates to one or two cases.
(15) The estimate below shows a comparison to actual.
(16) # sigs < 0 indicate that the estimate (in this case vs the actual) exceeds the case.
(17) # sigs >= 0 indicate that the estimate is less that the case under consideration. (18) For example, the axis player wishes to know how close the allies are to 22(11) Gear up production and (Jp 31) Oil Embargo for the end of this coming turn.
(19) This projection assumes that the all player will elect to put another chit in the Japanese entry pool.
(20) With respect to 22(11) Gear Up Production, the axis player can concluded that the US likely has more than enough entry in both Ge/It and Jp entry pools; and also is very close to the tension needed.
(21) The axis player can also conclude that the US has, or is close to having, enough entry for Jp 31 Oil embargo.
(22) Just curious, would you as the Japanese player fear that a US oil embargo is imminent? What about Gear Up production?
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Protocol towards other Allied players? That's up to the US player. He decides what he will tell the other Allied players on the situation regarding US entry. Tell, not show the actual chits in the pools.
Once I've seen a US player moaning and telling the other two Allied (me among them) players things were really, really bad. And than: in two turns: gear up, War appropriations Bill and a succesfull DoW on Japan. A deliberate play on his end...
Once I've seen a US player moaning and telling the other two Allied (me among them) players things were really, really bad. And than: in two turns: gear up, War appropriations Bill and a succesfull DoW on Japan. A deliberate play on his end...
Peter
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Centuur wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:47 pm Protocol towards other Allied players? That's up to the US player. He decides what he will tell the other Allied players on the situation regarding US entry. Tell, not show the actual chits in the pools.
Once I've seen a US player moaning and telling the other two Allied (me among them) players things were really, really bad. And than: in two turns: gear up, War appropriations Bill and a succesfull DoW on Japan halfway 1941. Only high chits in the Japan pools... A deliberate play on his end...
Peter
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Interesting. Was your allied partner gaming you or was he using "disinformation" to deceive your axis opponents?Centuur wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:47 pm Protocol towards other Allied players? That's up to the US player. He decides what he will tell the other Allied players on the situation regarding US entry. Tell, not show the actual chits in the pools.
Once I've seen a US player moaning and telling the other two Allied (me among them) players things were really, really bad. And than: in two turns: gear up, War appropriations Bill and a succesfull DoW on Japan. A deliberate play on his end...
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Impulse Planning.
Active Axis War Directives & US Entry Estimates. BRIEF. Weather & Actions.
Active Axis War Directives & US Entry Estimates. BRIEF. Weather & Actions.
Ronnie
- Joseignacio
- Posts: 3004
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:25 am
- Location: Madrid, Spain
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Probably both. But he didnt need to do it with his allies.rkr1958 wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:43 pmInteresting. Was your allied partner gaming you or was he using "disinformation" to deceive your axis opponents?Centuur wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:47 pm Protocol towards other Allied players? That's up to the US player. He decides what he will tell the other Allied players on the situation regarding US entry. Tell, not show the actual chits in the pools.
Once I've seen a US player moaning and telling the other two Allied (me among them) players things were really, really bad. And than: in two turns: gear up, War appropriations Bill and a succesfull DoW on Japan. A deliberate play on his end...
And I think it is a terrible tactic. On one side he individually gets better chances to sneak one or two more victory points from his allies (possible obtention) but on the other side risks the game for all his side by not coordinating with his allies.
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Asian & Pacific Theaters.
Combat Logs. Japanese Coast. Land Combat.
Combat Logs. Japanese Coast. Land Combat.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Asian & Pacific Theaters. Southern China. South China Sea.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Asian & Pacific Theaters. Northern China.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Asian & Pacific Theaters. Manchuria. Japanese Home Islands.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Med.
Combat Logs. West Med.
Combat Logs. West Med.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Atlantic & West Africa.
Combat Logs. Cape St. Vincent. North Atlantic. Morocco. CSV.
Combat Logs. Cape St. Vincent. North Atlantic. Morocco. CSV.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Western Front.
Combat Logs. France.
Combat Logs. France.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Axis #3. Impulse Assessment.
Briefs. Grades.
Briefs. Grades.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
I was playing the CW and another guy was playing the USSR, who was known in our group for taking chances with US entry by being a little reckless (it didn't matter if he was playing on the Allied or the Axis side). And it turned out to be a good decision for our game. He was suddenly not reckless when the US player announced to him (and the Axis players were not present at that time) that he wasn't going to tell us what the US chits would be, to prevent him from being to aggressive.Joseignacio wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 8:12 pmProbably both. But he didnt need to do it with his allies.rkr1958 wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:43 pmInteresting. Was your allied partner gaming you or was he using "disinformation" to deceive your axis opponents?Centuur wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 12:47 pm Protocol towards other Allied players? That's up to the US player. He decides what he will tell the other Allied players on the situation regarding US entry. Tell, not show the actual chits in the pools.
Once I've seen a US player moaning and telling the other two Allied (me among them) players things were really, really bad. And than: in two turns: gear up, War appropriations Bill and a succesfull DoW on Japan. A deliberate play on his end...
And I think it is a terrible tactic. On one side he individually gets better chances to sneak one or two more victory points from his allies (possible obtention) but on the other side risks the game for all his side by not coordinating with his allies.
Peter
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Wow ... intrigue among allies! Sounds fun.Centuur wrote: Tue Jul 08, 2025 7:18 pmI was playing the CW and another guy was playing the USSR, who was known in our group for taking chances with US entry by being a little reckless (it didn't matter if he was playing on the Allied or the Axis side). And it turned out to be a good decision for our game. He was suddenly not reckless when the US player announced to him (and the Axis players were not present at that time) that he wasn't going to tell us what the US chits would be, to prevent him from being to aggressive.Joseignacio wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 8:12 pmProbably both. But he didnt need to do it with his allies.rkr1958 wrote: Mon Jul 07, 2025 4:43 pm Interesting. Was your allied partner gaming you or was he using "disinformation" to deceive your axis opponents?
And I think it is a terrible tactic. On one side he individually gets better chances to sneak one or two more victory points from his allies (possible obtention) but on the other side risks the game for all his side by not coordinating with his allies.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Allied #5. Impulse Planning.
Open Allied War Directives. CW Production & "Manual" Trade to France.
(1) Note: I "pulled" (i.e., removed) 2 CPs from Bay of Biscay, put them in Cardiff to "transport" the 2 traded (i.e; actually idled) UK RPs to the 2 French factories in Bordeaux. BRIEF. Weather & Actions Map.
Open Allied War Directives. CW Production & "Manual" Trade to France.
(1) Note: I "pulled" (i.e., removed) 2 CPs from Bay of Biscay, put them in Cardiff to "transport" the 2 traded (i.e; actually idled) UK RPs to the 2 French factories in Bordeaux. BRIEF. Weather & Actions Map.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Allied #5. Asian & Pacific Theaters.
Combat Logs. Sea of Japan. Japanese Home Islands. Sea of Japan. Japanese Coast. China Sea.
Combat Logs. Sea of Japan. Japanese Home Islands. Sea of Japan. Japanese Coast. China Sea.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Allied #5. Eastern Front.
Combat Logs.
Combat Logs.
Ronnie
Re: A Competitive GW (Solo) Scenario by the Numbers.
Turn 8. Nov/Dec 1940. Allied #5. East Africa.
Combat Logs. Map.
Combat Logs. Map.
Ronnie