Additional Chinese cities option

[peskpesk]

With the CWIF modification additional Chinese cities option
(16 cities extra in China) was there any debate on modifying
US ENTRY ACTIONS 10 Japan occupies Chinese city?
Currently a 4 Die roll to maybe a 3 or 2 Die if the option is used?
Else the US Entry against Japan might be massive if the Japanese has a land
offensive campaign against china which is not the case in “normal” WIF.

I know there was quite a bit of discussion over a period of months by WIF players
on the forum, but I can’t find any good summary on why/why not.

[wosung]

Good point

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

With the CWIF modification additional Chinese cities option
(16 cities extra in China) was there any debate on modifying
US ENTRY ACTIONS 10 Japan occupies Chinese city?
Currently a 4 Die roll to maybe a 3 or 2 Die if the option is used?
Else the US Entry against Japan might be massive if the Japanese has a land
offensive campaign against china which is not the case in “normal” WIF.

I know there was quite a bit of discussion over a period of months by WIF players
on the forum, but I can’t find any good summary on why/why not.

I would like to make this change. But only after there is a discussion as to whether it should be from 4 to 3 or to 2. Of course I would like to see some logic behind that choice too.

Being a statistician I can work out comparable probabilities (old versus new) if someone gathers the data: how many cities are typically taken by the Japanese in WIF FE and how many do we expect there to be taken in MWIF when the additional cities are being use? For instance, some of the new cities are pretty far off the beaten track, so maybe we shouldn't include them in the count.

[Mitchellvitch]

For what it is worth, I seem to remember that in standard WIF FE, Japan would conquer perhaps 2 - 3 Chinese cities before the US was in the war. Three was doing quite well, I think.

Now how would that correlate to the new map?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mitchellvitch

For what it is worth, I seem to remember that in standard WIF FE, Japan would conquer perhaps 2 - 3 Chinese cities before the US was in the war. Three was doing quite well, I think.

Now how would that correlate to the new map?

Using 3 as the 'old' number, the probability of drawing:
0 chits = .6 * .6 * .6 = .216
1 chit = .4 * .6 * .6 * 3 = .432
2 chits = .4 * .4 * .6 * 3 = .288
3 chits = .4 * .4 * .4 = .064

Mean (expected value) = 1.2 chits drawn.

That's the probability distribution and the expected value. I don't think a standard deviation is of any particular interest here.

[Mitchellvitch]

Ouch. My head hurts from the math...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mitchellvitch

Ouch. My head hurts from the math...

Here's some more. I do these in my head by the way - it comes from teaching it for several years to college students.

If we assume, when using the additional Chinese cities, we expect 6 cities to be conquered by the Japanese and use .3 as the probability of the USA getting all excited, ...

0 chits = .7 ** 6 = .118
1 chit = .3 * (.7 ** 5) * 6 = .303
2 chits = .3 * .3 * (.7 ** 4) * 15 = .324
3 chits = (.3 ** 3) * (.7 ** 3) * 20 = .185
4 chits = .7 * .7 * (.3 ** 4) * 15 = .060
5 chits = .7 * (.3 ** 5) * 6 = .010
6 chits = .3 ** 6 = .001

Mean = expected value = 1.80

So even at 6 (with additional cities) versus 3 (without) captured cities, using .3 for US Entry is too much.

[sajbalk]

For a Japan hold the line in China, I would expect only Chang Chow (sp.) to fall --- 1 or .4 chits
For a Japan moderate offensive in China, I would expect the above plus Si-An (the E. Commie city) and the E. most nationalist factory --- 3 or 1.2 chits
For a Japan serious offensive, I would expect the above plus 2 more cities in S. China plus Chungking --- 6 cities or 2.4
To conquer China, you would need all of the above plus 3 more factory cities --- 9 or 3.6.

Perhaps the best way is to assume that Japan is going to conquer China. On MWiF, how many cites would Japan need to take the factories assuming it cleared the rear of its supply lines? Divide 9 by that and make calculations accordingly.

9 x .4 = cities needed to conquer x new die roll

[Orm]

We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.

-Orm

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.

-Orm

Easy enough to code but this would be very confusing to new players. And even experienced players would be hard pressed to know which are which after playing a few games.

[lomyrin]

I suppose one might also have a 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.
 
If CWiF experiences turn out to be true for MWiF as well, then quite a few Chinese cities will be taken.
 
The optional additional Chinese cities in use ought to be a requirement for any modified entry rolls to take effect.
 
Lars
 
 
 
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I suppose one might also have a 4 roll for the first 2 cities taken and 3 for the next 2 and then 2 for the remainder.

If CWiF experiences turn out to be true for MWiF as well, then quite a few Chinese cities will be taken.

The optional additional Chinese cities in use ought to be a requirement for any modified entry rolls to take effect.

Lars

I can code your suggestion easily enough.

Of course. I have been assuming that there would be zero changes to the US Entry values unless the optional rule for Additional Chinese Cities was in use.

[Taxman66]

The whole Chinese theatre is going to need in depth play testing due to the change in scale.  For example, you may find it's too easy for Japan to out flank the slower and fewer Chinese, thus meaning a higher chit chance to encourage a slow down.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Orm

We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.

-Orm

Easy enough to code but this would be very confusing to new players. And even experienced players would be hard pressed to know which are which after playing a few games.

I wouldn't be to worried that players wouldnt remember which cities that requires a dieroll. Since it is the same cities all the time that gets the roll you get the hang of it after a few games. And the computer reminds you after you capture a city.

For newbies it is just the same as it is with all other US entry rolls. They have to constantly look it up.

I think there may be lots of reasons to roll for all cities instead of just the old ones but I do not belive that confusing is one of them.

Regards,

Orm

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Orm
We could also make a change on the US entry to only apply to the original chinese cities. Maybe not the best solution but the easiest way to see that US entry stay the same.
-Orm

The obvious "cheat" would be to bypass some of the original cites and then finish off China with a coordinated assault.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

The obvious "cheat" would be to bypass some of the original cites and then finish off China with a coordinated assault.

That would work in the same way as it does without the optional cities. The extra cities gives no advantage to the japanese except better AC-stacking (when captured). If the japanese want to leave a supply- and reinforcement-place behind their lines they are free to do so without the extra cities as well.

-Orm

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

The obvious "cheat" would be to bypass some of the original cites and then finish off China with a coordinated assault.

That would work in the same way as it does without the optional cities. The extra cities gives no advantage to the japanese except better AC-stacking (when captured). If the japanese want to leave a supply- and reinforcement-place behind their lines they are free to do so without the extra cities as well.

-Orm

[Just poping up for a few minutes before loosing access to Internet for today]
The bypassed cities would enable the Chinese to call in reinforcements here, and a fast CAV deep behind the Japanese lines can be very dangerous for the Japanese.

[composer99]

My own impression is that in tabletop WiF the Japanese can reasonably expect to take 4 Chinese cities:
- Chengchow
- Sian
- Changsha
- Kweiyang

Wether they take fewer or more cities depends on the skill of the opposing [Japan vs. China] players and on the Japanese player's land combat dice rolling.

Therefore, in MWiF it seems to me that the extra cities in and around these ones will probably be seized.

But I think Steve [Balk]'s suggestion is the simplest and most elegant solution to altering the chit values.

[YohanTM2]

Even as an experienced player I would not like to see just the original cities, I would go with Steve's math at this point. I agree that once game hits and a few hundred games have been played there will likely need to be mods as a result of the new map size.

[Froonp]

Pesk Pesk, here is a Royal Guard Swedish ARM with the corners clean.
Keep it GIF, of the transparency will disappear.