Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!A little bit of history with To End All WarsBattle Academy 2 gets a release date!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Play Balance in China

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Play Balance in China Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Play Balance in China - 11/14/2006 9:08:47 PM   
Larry Smith

 

Posts: 115
Joined: 4/14/2001
From: Williams Lake, BC, Canada
Status: offline
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. 

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 181
RE: Play Balance in China - 11/15/2006 4:21:23 AM   
cockney

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 11/15/2006
From: London
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Larry Smith)
Post #: 182
RE: Play Balance in China - 11/15/2006 5:09:43 AM   
Mziln


Posts: 1107
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Tulsa Oklahoma
Status: offline
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.



< Message edited by Mziln -- 11/15/2006 5:23:30 AM >

(in reply to cockney)
Post #: 183
RE: Play Balance in China - 11/15/2006 9:03:24 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 941
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 184
RE: Play Balance in China - 11/15/2006 10:35:11 AM   
wosung

 

Posts: 609
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 185
RE: Play Balance in China - 11/15/2006 11:41:37 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7898
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

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" : ????

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 186
RE: Play Balance in China - 11/15/2006 12:56:21 PM   
wosung

 

Posts: 609
Joined: 7/18/2005
Status: offline
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!
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1293655

PBEM AAR - Long Live the Union!
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/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.ibm.pc.games.war-historical/browse_frm/thread/a300bd77cd79f904/2b83f5a91bcd128f?hl=de#2b83f5a91bcd128f

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!

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 187
RE: Play Balance in China - 11/15/2006 2:57:15 PM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to wosung)
Post #: 188
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/9/2011 8:04:49 PM   
Dr Deo

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/8/2011
From: Landet Brunsås
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 189
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/9/2011 11:12:31 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18241
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: online

quote:

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.


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Dr Deo)
Post #: 190
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/10/2011 1:05:50 PM   
Dr Deo

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/8/2011
From: Landet Brunsås
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 191
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/10/2011 2:24:31 PM   
Orm


Posts: 5764
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
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.



Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Orm -- 9/10/2011 2:26:01 PM >


_____________________________

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress. - Captain Eric Moody

(in reply to Dr Deo)
Post #: 192
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/10/2011 7:36:21 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18241
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: online

quote:

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




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Dr Deo)
Post #: 193
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/10/2011 8:52:50 PM   
Orm


Posts: 5764
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is your Captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress. - Captain Eric Moody

(in reply to Dr Deo)
Post #: 194
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/10/2011 10:27:34 PM   
peskpesk


Posts: 1413
Joined: 7/17/2003
From: Stockholm, Sweden
Status: online
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.

_____________________________

"'Malta - The Thorn in Rommel's Side"

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 195
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/10/2011 10:56:06 PM   
Dr Deo

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/8/2011
From: Landet Brunsås
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by Dr Deo -- 9/11/2011 12:17:26 AM >

(in reply to peskpesk)
Post #: 196
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/11/2011 2:40:06 AM   
ullern


Posts: 1752
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Dr Deo)
Post #: 197
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/11/2011 12:08:12 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3572
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

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.

< Message edited by Red Prince -- 9/11/2011 12:26:22 PM >


_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 198
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/11/2011 12:53:37 PM   
Dr Deo

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/8/2011
From: Landet Brunsås
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 199
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/11/2011 1:26:39 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3572
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by Red Prince -- 9/11/2011 1:29:08 PM >


_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Dr Deo)
Post #: 200
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/11/2011 1:38:53 PM   
Dr Deo

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 7/8/2011
From: Landet Brunsås
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

It's been a long time since I took statistical analysis. Perhaps I need a refresher.


Wikipedia helps... it did for me!

The reason why the math is so simple is that each roll is independent, so the total mean is just the sum of the expected values of each roll.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 201
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/11/2011 2:41:18 PM   
Red Prince


Posts: 3572
Joined: 4/8/2011
From: Bangor, Maine, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Deo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

It's been a long time since I took statistical analysis. Perhaps I need a refresher.


Wikipedia helps... it did for me!

The reason why the math is so simple is that each roll is independent, so the total mean is just the sum of the expected values of each roll.

I'm trying to build an actual model using some program I just pulled off the net. Frankly, it would be easier and faster just to run the numbers in a spreadsheet to get the distribution, which is what I'm most interested in. Just the basics. I'll get back to you when I've run this correctly. I didn't intend to put a huge amount of time into this. I'll work on it some more later.

Thinking about it, I don't see why a Monte Carlo would be any better than pure number-crunching. The only uncertainty is in how many cities more than the minimum required to conquer China. All the chances are already defined: 20%, 30%, or 40% . . . depending on the cities chosen, and since all of the factory cities have to be taken, this creates no need for a range beyond total cities required.

At this point I'm not looking to find the "expected" value. Only the probability breakdowns.

_____________________________

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it!
-Lazarus Long, RAH

(in reply to Dr Deo)
Post #: 202
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/11/2011 6:08:52 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 4142
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
You don't need a program or simulation. It is a standard Binomial distribution. Define a success as a chit generated and you can produce the set of probabilities versus number of chits from an excel spreadsheet in about ten minutes.


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 203
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/11/2011 10:53:33 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 18241
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dr Deo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Prince

It's been a long time since I took statistical analysis. Perhaps I need a refresher.


Wikipedia helps... it did for me!

The reason why the math is so simple is that each roll is independent, so the total mean is just the sum of the expected values of each roll.

I'm trying to build an actual model using some program I just pulled off the net. Frankly, it would be easier and faster just to run the numbers in a spreadsheet to get the distribution, which is what I'm most interested in. Just the basics. I'll get back to you when I've run this correctly. I didn't intend to put a huge amount of time into this. I'll work on it some more later.

Thinking about it, I don't see why a Monte Carlo would be any better than pure number-crunching. The only uncertainty is in how many cities more than the minimum required to conquer China. All the chances are already defined: 20%, 30%, or 40% . . . depending on the cities chosen, and since all of the factory cities have to be taken, this creates no need for a range beyond total cities required.

At this point I'm not looking to find the "expected" value. Only the probability breakdowns.

I taught college level statistics. I also have decades of experience with Monte Carlo simulation. Take it from me, Dr. Deo is correct in his posts. Paul is also very knowledgable about statistics and Monte Carlo simulations (and Nils knows theoretical statistics enough for this 'problem' should he add his opinion).



_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Red Prince)
Post #: 204
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/12/2011 4:59:17 PM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 1649
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
The issue with additional cities in China isn't the US Entry hits. For me at least, putting additional cities in China just continues to make the Chinese into the biggest 'fantasy' part of the game, far more than Italy. It doesn't affect play balance, to me.....WiF is the most perfectly balanced game ever with the bidding system for victory conditions. If you feel that the Axis is completely doomed and can't even hold a single victory city at the end of 36 turns, you could always bid how many turns it takes for the Allies to dismantle them completely and you still have a great WWII grand strategy game.

Anyway, China needs a large re-write in the game. In the interests of having the possibility of there being a Chinese player, the Chinese are outfitted with all of the fun pieces to build that everyone else gets, but are freed from the many historical & realism constraints that make many of China's achievements in many games more than a bit of a farce all too often. In the interests of keeping China from being conquered too easily in the unified global simulation of the rest of the game, their economy is jumped up too far (again more than Italy) and then they get to build all kinds of fantastical units that the real China could quite simply never ever have produced.

To give the Chinese additional cities is to give them additional bases and logistical capabilities; a city in WiF is a very powerful construct. The real Chinese were hobbled by the dominant fact that the Japanese were doomed to lose the war once they poked the USA into the war, and everyone is China was merely passing time until the real war started ... the Chinese Civil War. WiF players will never play the game the way Chiang made his decisions. No matter how much FDR poured over The Hump, his fantasy of a bottomless pool of Chinese manpower atttritioning down the Japanese to save American lives was just that, a fantasy, which was quickly shattered in 1944 when the Americans finally began using China as a base to bomb Japan and the Japanese promptly overran all of the bases despite four+ years of Allied military aid and training of various sorts. The Japanese were hobbled by their own very poor logistics system and their inability to well secure the parts of China they did conquer, due to their racism. WiF makes the situation in China into an OK game, but not a very good simulation, and there is a whole lot of room to improve the simulation of WWII in China in future editions of the game.

I am glad that the additional cities are optional, that is very good. I don't think playing without them will lead to an easy conquest of China at all as long as the Chinese 'player' has half a brain.....Chungking is a long, long way from the Japanese start lines. I would argue against the additional cities to help keep Japan in the game all the way to J/A 45, as the new map magnifies their U-boats-or-Barbarossa problem of dealing with a simultaneous Chinese land offensive and the USMC leaving port for a major invasion due to the action limits system. Giving the Chinese all those additional bases will just lead to more game misadventures such as Stilwell leading the Chinese Marines ashore in Japan and other such WiF only fantasies.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 205
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/12/2011 5:33:44 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3030
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: online
My past experiences with CWiF had China conquered or very severely mauled by Japan in most games. That is likely to be true in MWiF as well if the optional Chinese cities are not in use. WIth the extra cities, and modifed US entry rolls for entering the cities, the Chinese have been holding out better in my trials and the Japanese are likely to have more problems in the mid and late game than in either CWiF or the boardgame.

Lars

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 206
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/12/2011 6:45:27 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3022
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

My past experiences with CWiF had China conquered or very severely mauled by Japan in most games. That is likely to be true in MWiF as well if the optional Chinese cities are not in use. WIth the extra cities, and modifed US entry rolls for entering the cities, the Chinese have been holding out better in my trials and the Japanese are likely to have more problems in the mid and late game than in either CWiF or the boardgame.

Lars

If there are more problems for the Japanese than in the boardgame, then IMHO there is a problem. Japan can't have a more difficult job in China due to the addition of these cities, if you compare it with the boardgame, since that means that Japan will be in a more difficult position when the war with the Wallies starts...
If this is the result of play testing, than the extra Chinese cities balance the game to much towards the Allied side. That is not the way it should be.
The extra cities should compensate the unified map (since CWIF made conquest of China to easy) to get the balance back, not to unbalance the game towards the allied site...
If this is happening, than some of those extra Chinese cities should be erased from the map...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 207
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/12/2011 7:28:50 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3030
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: online
Keep in mind that the extra Chinese cities are an option that can be turned on or off when you decide on the game options to use.
When the option is off those cities are not there.

Lars

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 208
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/12/2011 9:06:34 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 3022
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Keep in mind that the extra Chinese cities are an option that can be turned on or off when you decide on the game options to use.
When the option is off those cities are not there.

Lars

But if that means a choice of two bad things, it isn't good. The conquest of China should be just as hard in the boardgame as in MWIF. If no cities means it is easier and with the cities it is harder than on the board (or gives the Chinese to much opportunities to gain terrain in the later years of the war), there is an imbalance eitherway. IMHO the extra cities should balance play back to the boardgame, not making things difficult for any side...

< Message edited by Centuur -- 9/12/2011 9:07:22 PM >


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 209
RE: Play Balance in China - 9/12/2011 10:17:03 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3030
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: online
I suppose only a lot of games played after MWiF is released will reflect the actual balance the players encounter in complete games.

Lars

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Play Balance in China Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.141