Which CRT to Use? Or, 1D10 vs 2D10?

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: brian brian
I've never known any player who goes back to 1d10 later.

Well you've just met one now.

[TeaLeaf]

Good post, brian brian.

I find that the 1D10 has it's own strengths and weaknesses, just like the 2D10.
Like you said, it is not about saying that a _D10 table is better/worse than another _D10 table.
In general I find the 2D10 favors offensives more because odds-levels are less important (note: I'm not saying they don't matter at all anymore).
And on the other hand, the 1D10 offers better defensive options, exactly because odds-levels are more important for this table.

As for combined arms, defensive ground support has more effect on the 1D10. Can be quite dramatic even, but if playing fractional odds, the sharp edges of defensive ground support can be softened.
Defensive GS is much less effective for the 2D10, but that table has other means to promote combined arms (i.e. defending with ARM/MECH/AT).

I'd say it really is a matter of personal preference what CRT is used, and I am not so sure about if one CRT is more 'correct' than the other.
I know this for sure: if you are used to a CRT, starting with the other one requires quite some unlearning and learning anew. Defending 1D10-style when 2D10 offensives are used against you results in a disaster unless you are a quicker learner than I am .
When I first played 2D10, I played Russia in an eastfront-only scenario ('41-'45) against the designer of the 'Master-edition', who also designed this particular scenario. So not only did I pay against a WIF-crack, I also started at a serious disadvantage not knowing the 2D10 at all/thinking too much in 1D10 terms still.
I had only fully adapted to that CRT by the end of '44. But it was too late by then, as I only controlled two pockets around Moscow and Stalingrad [:D].

[Orm]

I've never known any player who goes back to 1d10 later.

I played two variants of the two die table and both times I gladly went back to the one die table.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

I've never known any player who goes back to 1d10 later.

I played two variants of the two die table and both times I gladly went back to the one die table.

warspite1

I played 2d10 once - and went very gladly back to 1d10!

[Jagdtiger14]

Good post Brian! That is exactly how I look at it too.

Tealeaf: Was that Rader you played?

I think MWiF should have settled on one die roll method, and that this might separate us into two camps that will probably never play each other. The only way I would ever play someone with 1d10 is if they agree to also play a following game with 2d10 (same sides). I remember talk of a dedicated MWiF website that would include ladder tournaments...would that mean two different ladder tournaments for each die roll method? With all my WiFcon experiences (Michigan and Germany) I thought no one ever looks at 1d10...I'm very surprised to see this here.

[TeaLeaf]

'Twas Herr Rüdiger.

I'm not too surprised to see more people prefer 1D10 (or have no preference regarding the CRT). Different people like different styles.
Without tagging any of the CRTs, they just play differently.

[Orm]

It is common to mention the many modifiers used with the 2d10 table; this is frequently with an unspoken context that it is some sort of cheat to use these modifiers in a key battle.

I am not sure what you are saying. [:(][&:]

[brian brian]

ORIGINAL: Orm

It is common to mention the many modifiers used with the 2d10 table; this is frequently with an unspoken context that it is some sort of cheat to use these modifiers in a key battle.

I am not sure what you are saying. [:(][&:]

That is just an unspoken inference I take away from commentary from 1d10 players on the 2d10 table, as for example in this thread. They seem a little incredulous that the die modifiers can add up the way they do. Maybe I just project that on to what they are saying,but I have heard similar comments over the years.


I also wanted to mention that I don't find the tables all that different, really. The 1d10 just has a few less die modifiers for specialty units, but instead uses column shifts that are the exact same thing as a +/- 2 on the 2d10 calculation.

The trickiest one to realize is the 1d10 +1 for a flipped / dis-organized unit, which is +2 on the 2d10. So +2 on 2d10 is one exact odds column, as I just mentioned = more powerful to flip units on 2d10? No, not really. If you look at the 1d10, a +1 to the die, giving results of 2-11, makes the vast majority of those results identical to the 1-10 results on the column to the right. There are occasional slight differences, sure, but a flipped corps/army size unit basically costs the defender an odds column on either table.

I just happen to prefer the 2d10 system of a few more variables for a given land combat; I like detail in wargaming. Perhaps 2d10 is slightly more attacker-friendly; I'm not that worried about that. I also do like the bell curve of results better than the linear results of 1d10. And I like the way the city bonuses work. Assaulting a city was a big deal in WWII. And using anti-tank guns... etc.


TeaLeaf mentioned something that is a much bigger difference (to me) than picking the 1d10 or 2d10 table. And that is using Fractional Odds. I think in my next face-to-face game, hopefully later this summer, finally, I might try the idea of subtracting 0.5 from 2d10 calculations with Fractionals, because that is attacker friendly and seems like a good idea to slow down the offense a little and thus lower the counter density from the middle of the game onwards. (I'll never be able to turn down any kit of more counters aside from the Light Cruisers).

Playing with Fractionals does have a radical effect on Defensive support - getting a Fighter-Bomber through with a single point of Defensive Ground Support (generally lowering the odds column by one) doesn't basically compensate for a flipped unit on defense. So there is less need for flying a lot of small air missions to change odds columns. I like Fractional Odds a lot. When a hex is important to take, you prioritize using all of your best military assets to take it, and everything you add to a key combat helps that combat. This mirrors how the 2d10 table works, with partial bonuses for your division sized units, etc. 2d10 automatically incorporates half-odds levels, so 4.5 : 1 = +9, whereas there is no 4.5 : 1 nor rounding up to 5 : 1 on 1d10; so the same effect happens on 2d10, but only to half a degree as not using Fractionals in the first place.


I guess I can understand a desire to use 1d10 for a little bit of a simpler game. The Blitz Bonus optional with 1d10 makes most things the same as 2d10 after all. I know a gamer in my home state who insists that if you really want a simpler game of World in Flames, you should play without the division sized units at all (AKA WiF Classic), and he is basically right. But not many players want to give up the chrome of individual armor and especially marine divisions....

[Jagdtiger14]

Brian...how does the 1d10 table handle flipped divisions? On the 2d10 its a +1. I don't think I ever played without fractional odds...I consider that mandatory.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

With 1D10 you get +1 from each flipped unit, no matter is it army/corps or division.

[paulderynck]

Another difference between the two is Jungle. The Japanese lose a lot of their advantages in 2D10 and the Allies pick up some.

[paulderynck]

Likewise with winterized units. The Russians are much better off with 2D10.

[TeaLeaf]

I keep saying it: IMO it is a matter of playstyle what CRT you prefer.
It's been a while since I played WIF regularly, but I remember it well: with 1D10 I felt almost too comfortable defending Russia against Barbarossa, with the German 30-50% chance to not get completely disorganized for a lot of their attacks (effectively reducing their success during Barbarossa to their degree of luck). With the 2D10 I suddenly had a lot of problems defending Russia using the same tactics as with the 1D10. I needed to change Russian tactics quite a bit with the 2D10! Even after adapting I never felt as comfortable defending Russia with 2D10 as I did with 1D10.

[Centuur]

I don't agree that defending in the USSR is different, depending on what CRT is used. It all comes back to the same thing: you have to try to minimise the number of hexes you can be attacked from. IMHO that's the most important thing when defending (on any front). The 2D10 tends to see more casualties on the attacker and gives the "half disorganised" in return. Those two even out, I believe...

Personally, I prefer the 2D10, since this is a little more balancing towards the avarage result (but beware of the dreaded 14...). However, if anyone wants to play me with 1D10, I won't object if the Blitz bonus is used too. Without that one, I don't like 1D10 at all...

[TeaLeaf]

Okay then, good enough.
I honestly can't see why there supposedly is no real difference between the two CRTs.
I see the differences in quite a few individual cases and I am extrapolating those into the CRTs in general. Maybe that isn't how it should be done, but I just miss why. So I should take my hat off and agree to disagree [8D].

I find it far more important that people won't exclude each other because different CRTs are preferred.
For me it is the other way around: I prefer the 1D10 with blitz, but won't object the 2D10. If I were to play the allies, I would simply ask for some other options in return.

[juntoalmar]

Personally I find 1D10 table easier to understand and base my strategy upon it (coming from games like Third Reich). But I find too often with an attack 7:1 with a dice result of 1 that kills my offensive.

2D10 offers (IMO) statistically more balanced results, but I can't see that well what my chances are. I try to attack when I have +10 modifiers to have good chances. What is your strategy?

I may try to throw two 10 sides dices, divide by two and use 1D10 table. Best of both worlds?

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar
I may try to throw two 10 sides dices, divide by two and use 1D10 table. Best of both worlds?

No. You'll roll a lot of 4s, 5s and 6s and about once in fifty you'll roll a 1 or a 10.

Any 2D10 attack of +10 or more is a pretty good attack since it is the rough equivalent of 5 to 1 or more on 1D10. So roughly in 2D10 if you take your calculated die roll modifier and divide it by 2 then you've got about what the 1D10 odds column would be for that combat. That's your best way to judge if it's a reasonable or a risky attack.

[AlbertN]

I like the 2D10 in general - I've not made comparisons if it favors the attacker or the defender, nor odd math of sort.

My concept is very simple. Given a determined odd (The + / - you could get) you have somehow a projection of outcome (The most average results you may get).
Which means for the major cases the attacks will go roughly as planned - but you'll never have such certainness (unless you've a +21!)

Also I feel the 1D10 more like an "all or nothing" result. Since either all units flip, or none.

But generally the fact I can perspect the range of results, and usually refer to 11 (Average 2D10 roll) + the modifier as the average result helps me a lot evaluate how my attack or the enemy attack can go.
Sure I can still roll badly (Heck I rolled a 2 on a +18 attack and ended up in a disaster, Blitz table, Mech corp lost, and there was under it a Lnd3 grounded already so that another enemy unit marched into it in the next impulse).
But these cases are rather remote.
And some attacks would hardly if not ever be made in the 1D10 table (Best of luck taking Gibraltar without Airborne, Disrupted, HQ support - that in the 1D10 is random so...)

[rkr1958]

FYI: Here's a graphic that I captured from the game of the 2D10 CRT. Maybe I've missed it, but I couldn't find a good graphic in the player's manuals for this table. I thought I'd share for those who may wish to have it to.

[Mayhemizer_slith]

In book "The rules as coded" page 173-175 you can find same table. Or at least same information.