Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

'stuffing' the border

 
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 >> 'stuffing' the border Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 7:55:35 AM   
trees

 

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline
Although I have had the following spreadsheets finished for some time, I wanted to get some new experience playing the Germans before commenting much on the Nazi-Soviet pact and the possibilities of breaking it in WiF, since my last several games have been as all or part of the Allies. I am now in the midst of a new game which has reached Jul/Aug '40 and I am more ready to fine tune these numbers.

An analysis of Russia's possibilities to 'stuff' the border depends on projected build plans for Germany and Russia. Of the two, Germany's is subject to more variables so I will start with that. The important optionals for this analysis include playing with Pilots, City-Based Volunteers, and Rules as Written 13.5.1 Oil, Option #48.

A big variable in breaking a Pact is the chits; all that can really be done here is to compute the average value of each chit as the turns move along and go with that. Perhaps there is a better analysis than that possible with statistical methods but I wouldn't know.

For purposes purely of creating Garrison points, some unit types are more efficient than others. Anything that creates one point for two BP is the best - MIL, GARR, MTN and Pilots; MECH at 2.5 BP/garrison point are next, followed by INF and ARM at 3/point. Yet some compromises have to be made from pure garrison efficiency. Both Germany and Russia start the game with 5 planes in the Reserve Pool and could thus add 5 garrison points by building 5 pilots. Although it wouldn't be a very good use of BPs, this possibility is part of the German analysis, but it is somewhat more feasible for the Russians. For the German build plan, this also has to create a force realistically capable of taking on the Russians, so it includes building both the Guderian and Rommel HQ-A's even though they are not 'garrison efficient' units; it also must be a build plan ready to take advantage of a Russian strategy that is not stuffing the border, so the long building armored forces must be built before the infantry. Another very desirable German unit for Barbarossa, the motorized '6th Pz' Engineers at 3 BP for .5 garrison is skipped, but all available MECH and ARM corps are built. By the fall of 1940, this build plan has built out the above mentioned pools, including the INF, so a few Mech divisions are built to give extra punch to the 2d10 tactics I prefer using, and to prepare the gearing limits for an important build of the new force pool additions in J/F '41. After that the plan abandons building for the sake of garrison points only as anything built in M/A '41 won't arrive in time to influence the garrison totals in the summer of 1941, which is when the Germans want to break the pact, however I left in some sample 1941 builds to illustrate what has not been built thus far.

The German build plan has to make some basic assumptions on what is happening in the game in order to think about how many BPs can be spent each turn. So I went with the vanilla assumption that Poland falls in S/O '39, and then nothing much else happens until M/J '40; in particular there are no political decisions made in the Balkans. A German 'No Bessarabia' decision (attacking Yugoslavia on impulse 3) can dramatically boost their economy through the addition of aligned factories and additional captured resources (although by also slightly increasing the Russian economy). However I stick with spending 14-15 BPs a turn through the end of 1940, despite probable captures of resources in the Low Countries and France in the summer of 40. You will notice that the plan includes building 5 new pilots in 1940 yet only one plane, which would make for a very antiquated Luftwaffe and takes no account for losses. So let's assume that any BPs available over the 116 spent in this plan through the end of 1940 get used to build a few new airplanes.

Here is the German plan and resulting maximum possible garrison points:

S/O 39 Reinforcements = at-start units = 53.5 garrison points
Chits = 0; avg value = 0; Max Garrison = 54

Builds = HQ-A, 3 MIL = 14 BP (+Vienna SS MIL free)

N/D 39 Reinforcements = 3 MIL, Vienna SS MIL, SS INF, Pilot, Armdiv, Gun = 9 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 2.33; total value = 4.66 Max Garrison = 67

Builds = ARM, MECH, 2 MIL = 15 BP

J/F 40 Reinforcements = 2 MIL = 2 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 2.33; total value = 9.32 Max Garrison = 74

Builds = ARM, MECH, 2 MIL = 15 BP

M/A 40 Reinforcements = 2 MIL, PARA = 3 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 1.91; total value = 13.14 Max Garrison = 81

Builds = ARM, MECH, MIL, Pilot = 15 BP

M/J 40 Reinforcements = HQ-A, MECH, MIL = 5 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 1.91; total value = 16.96 Max Garrison = 89

Builds = HQ-A, MTN, 2 Pilot = 16 BP (+Amsterdam SS GARR free)

J/A 40 Reinforcements = ARM, MECH = 4 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 1.91; total value = 20.78 Max Garrison = 97

Builds = MECH, MIL, GARR, 2 Pilot = 13 BP (+Paris SS MIL free)

S/O 40 Reinforcements = ARM, MECH, MIL, Pilot, SS GARR, SS MIL = 10 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 1.91; total value = 24.60 Max Garrison = 111

Builds = 3 INF, Mech division, LND-2 = 14 BP

N/D 40 Reinforcements = ARM, MTN, GARR, 2 Pilots = 7 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 1.91; total value = 28.4 Max Garrison = 122

Builds = 3 INF, 2 Mech division = 14 BP

J/F 41 Reinforcements = HQ-A, MECH, 3 INF, 2 Pilot = 9 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 1.91; total value = 32.24 Max Garrison = 135

Builds = HQ-A, ARM, MECH, 2 INF, GARR = 27 BP

M/A 41 Reinforcements = 3 INF, Mech division = 3.5 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 2.26; total value = 36.76 Max Garrison = 143

Builds = MECH, Offensive Chit, LND-3, SUB, MOT = 28 BP

M/J 41 Reinforcements = 2 INF, GARR, 2 Mech divisions = 4 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 2.26; total value = 41.28 Max Garrison = 151

Builds = LND-2, FTR-2, 2 MOT, 2 SUB, Pilot, Gun, Armor division = 24~26 BP

J/A 41 Reinforcements = MECH = 2 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 2.26; total value = 45.80 Max Garrison = 158

Builds = LND-3, LND-2, FTR-2, 2 Pilot, 3 SUB, 3 MOT = 26 BP

S/O 41 Reinforcements = HQ-A, ARM, MECH, MOT, Offensive Chit = 7 garrison points
Chits = 2; avg value = 2.26; total value = 50.32 Max Garrison = 169

You will soon notice that this is a theoretical garrison total only, since it puts EVERYTHING on the Eastern Front to generate garrison points, leaving nothing to help Italy in the Med, no BPs for even one U-Boat to pressure the Commonwealth, assumes ZERO losses in combat, and most glaring, doesn't include any garrison units in France! These completely unrealistic assumptions are necessary once you start to see the garrison numbers the Russians can generate, in a far more realistic fashion. One last wildcard is the addition of the Axis minor allies in the Balkans, but since these can only be activated by messing around in the land of Tito, this may or may not produce very much of a net gain in garrison available for the Soviet border zone.

The Russian build plan also needs some basic assumptions made, albeit fewer than the German one, are also easier decisions to make during the game, and, in my opinion, result in the best Russian strategy anyway. The basic one is that Russia does nothing outside of her own borders. No conquest of Iraq nor Persia, no meddling in Balkan affairs, and definitely no war with Japan. In my opinion none of these are worth delaying the entry of 'Uncle Sugar' and his pipelines of goodies that can be vital during an all-out Barbarossa campaign, activated by entry options 19 & 30, not to mention the Allies' long-term prospects tied to the timing of US War Appropriations. I've long thought too many players just simply get bored playing Russia and launch foreign adventures out of boredom more than anything else. The Pacific need not be completely emptied until the beginning of '41 and after that this plan could allow the Japanese to cause some economic damage of course, which is not for the faint of heart. As for the Balkans, the easiest and safest place to 'stuff' the border is in southwest Ukraine, so if this is your goal you are better off not demanding Bessarabia, hoping the Germans activate it themselves via attacking Yugoslavia — though you may want to threaten to do this, and you might as well deploy for it.

I think this is a very good Russian build plan to prepare for a 1941 Barbarossa in general, although I like to alter it slightly to add a few Forts here and there, but then I'm not afraid of a '41 Barbarossa and I might use this build plan to sucker in the Axis to their doomed historical strategy by not stuffing the border at all. It does purchase a few extras such as the Ski divisions for use in Leningrad, as well as a Mountain division for the same purpose, but at the expense of skipping the Red Air Force's FTR development program. Also note that the total garrison number could be increased slightly by building 5 Pilots as the German plan does, but planes aren't all that useful for the Russians in 1941, so that idea is not included. I also can't quite bring myself to go all-out on this plan and leave one good unit in Leningrad as well, though that is not reflected in the Max #. Here are the Russian numbers:

S/O 39 Reinforcements = at-start units = 23.5 garrison points
Chits = 0; avg value = 0; Max Garrison = 24

Builds = ARM, GARR = 8 BP

N/D 39 Reinforcements = - = 0 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 2.33; total value = 2.33 Max Garrison = 26

Builds = ARM, GARR = 8 BP

J/F 40 Reinforcements = GARR = 1 garrison point
Chits = 1; avg value = 2.33; total value = 4.66 Max Garrison = 29

Builds = ARM, MECH, INF = 14 BP

M/A 40 Reinforcements = GARR = 1 garrison point
Chits = 1; avg value = 1.91; total value = 6.57 Max Garrison = 32

Builds = MECH, MTN, GARR, CAV = 13 BP, save 1 = 14 BP

M/J 40 Reinforcements = ARM, INF = 3 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 1.91; total value = 8.48 Max Garrison = 37

Builds = 2 INF, GARR, save 6 = 14 BP (7 total saved)

J/A 40 Reinforcements = ARM, MECH, GARR = 5 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 1.91; total value = 10.39 Max Garrison = 44

Builds = 4 INF, save 2 = 14 BP (9 total saved)

S/O 40 Reinforcements = ARM, MECH, MTN, GARR, 2 INF, CAV = 10 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 1.91; total value = 12.30 Max Garrison = 56

Builds = 5 INF = 15 BP (use 1 saved, 8 total saved left)

N/D 40 Reinforcements = 4 INF = 4 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 1.91; total value = 14.21 Max Garrison = 62

Builds = HQ-I, INF, Ski division, Mtn division, save 2 = 14 BP (10 total saved)

J/F 41 Reinforcements = 5 INF = 5 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 1.91; total value = 16.12 Max Garrison = 69

Builds = MECH, HQ-I, 2 INF, GARR, Engineer, 2 Tankers = 23 BP (use 9 saved, 1 total saved left)

M/A 41 Reinforcements = INF = 1 garrison point
Chits = 1; avg value = 2.26; total value = 18.38 Max Garrison = 72

Builds = ARM, Ski division, Advance build GARR, 2 Tankers = 14 BP (1 total saved left)

M/J 41 Reinforcements = HQ-I, 2 INF, GARR, Ski div, Mtn div = 5 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 2.26; total value = 20.64 Max Garrison = 79

Builds = gun, pilot, aircraft, save, etc.

J/A 41 Reinforcements = HQ-I, MECH = 3 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 2.26; total value = 22.90 Max Garrison = 84

Builds = 2 guns, 2 pilots, 2 aircraft, etc.

S/O 41 Reinforcements = GARR, Ski = 1.5 garrison points
Chits = 1; avg value = 2.26; total value = 25.1 Max Garrison = 88

So in summary it is my opinion that the Russians can prevent a Summer 1941 Barbarossa if they so desire. By the late fall of 1941 this begins to be in doubt, but by then the point is moot. Even without becoming an active major power via a DoW on Italy or Japan, the Russians can retreat somewhat safely via combineds under the cover of General Mud and proper rearguard ZoCs; nor do the Germans have much incentive to occupy any Russian home country hexes in such weather, inflating Russian production. It is even easier to retreat from the Ukraine if the Germans have activated Rumania early.

Well there you have it. I have worked these plans out over several years; in the winter I run a business that consumes 80+ hours a week and the only way I can participate in WiF is either through this forum (thank y'all very much for putting up with me) or through theoretical exercises such as this one. The chit values do reflect the current entry chits on CS 24 ©2007, and I'm fairly sure I have the correct amount of corps units in the German and Russian force pools (perhaps the German Mech division pool is slightly different with the new Mech in Flames sheet). If you can find any mistake in these build plans please let me know right away. Whether to stuff the border is up to each Russian player, but it is definitely a viable choice.
Post #: 1
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 12:39:34 PM   
Droop21


Posts: 115
Joined: 7/19/2002
Status: offline
Impressive analysis
Just spotted a small mistake (does not change the picture), you advance build a Gar with the SU, but the SU being neutral can not
13.6.5 Production " Neutral major powers may not build ahead (exception: US Entry Option 46 ~ see 13.3.2)."
An aggressive player can add a few Gar points by declaring war on Yugoslavia in early 41 (to benefit from the 41 force pool of minors) and align Hungary (DOW impulse), Rumania (following impulse) and Bulgaria (turn before SU DOW). This brings 13 Gar points (2 for Bulgaria - 2/4 units, 3 for Hungary 3/5 units and 8 for Rumania 7/7 units including a MTN). Your ratios in J/A 41 (a good Barbarossa month ) become:
25 (s) + 63 (u) = 88 for the SU
46 (s) + 125 (u) = 171 for Ge
This holds but it is not a strategy for the faint hearted (at least not for me ). If the hidden Ge offensive sheets are slightly higher, he will be able to DOW while all your army is concentrated on the border. This would spell disaster for the SU . The Northern front would implose : Leningrad, Murmansk and Archangel would most probably fall rapidely to the Finn (making Lend Lease complicated once Japan is at war with the WAllies), most of the SU army risks being destroyed at the border and the Japanese could get more Siberian resources than necessary (I tend to consider Vlad a goner when facing a 41 Barbarossa).
 

(in reply to trees)
Post #: 2
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 4:10:42 PM   
dale1066


Posts: 108
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline
Just a quick question could units from an active Italy count to the garrison total if they are railed/rebased to the garrison areas?

(in reply to Droop21)
Post #: 3
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 5:05:34 PM   
Mziln


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just a quick question could units from an active Italy count to the garrison total if they are railed/rebased to the garrison areas?



This is a very interesting question because the RaW has 2 uses for Garrison values:

quote:

9.5 Neutrality pacts

Garrison values

‘You only count the garrison values of your land and aircraft units (including those of your aligned minors) on the common border with the other major power.
If you don’t have a common border, you can’t use garrison ratios to break the pact.


quote:

13.1 Partisans (option 46)

Getting partisans


A unit has a garrison value only if it is face-up and not in the ZOC of an enemy unit. The unit must also be on the opposite side to the major power that will control the partisan.

Note that, unlike neutrality pact garrison values, anti-partisan garrison values are never doubled, halved, or modified by entry markers.


We need a rule interpretation: Can Neutrality pact garrisons include active allies?

(in reply to dale1066)
Post #: 4
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 6:27:49 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066

Just a quick question could units from an active Italy count to the garrison total if they are railed/rebased to the garrison areas?


As Mzlin quotes, 9.5 says :
*************************
You only count the garrison values of your land and aircraft units (including those of your aligned minors) on the common border with the other major power.
*************************
13.1 is irrelevant, as it deals with Anti Partisan's Garrison values.
So Italian units railed / rebased on the Russian border are not counted in the German garrison value.

(in reply to dale1066)
Post #: 5
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 7:59:29 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
Hi Trees,

Excellent analysis of the stuffing dynamics. I have little to add to your maths. Conclusion is unsurprising: on average, the USSR can hold the Pact until end of 1941.

A DoW of Japan against the USSR would make it even easier. An empty Siberia is tempting to Japan. Should Japan attack the USSR, and the USSR refuse to surrender, you would add cheap MILs to the garrison. That would be a pretty nice boost. (Losing the 3 Siberian resources and Vladivostok factory would not decrease Russia's production more than 1BP).

A side but too often neglected effect of stuffing the border is the boost in USE. Should 3 chits/turn be left on the German/USSR border, USE average chit value significantly increases. As a matter of fact, the US may even start picking 1942 chits from ND41 or earlier. (I've seen it happen more than once)

Per RaW, major powers may but do not have to pick garrison chits. When Germany understands that she cannot break the pact, she should stop drawing chits.

Pushing the analysis one step further would require adding the chits' variance to their mean. Current analysis takes as an assumption that chits' variance is pretty low - i.e. average value is highly probable.

As far as I remember the simulations seen on the WiFFE mailing list, holding the pact is more a 75% than a sure win.

Daniel

*** Gosh, this is my first contribution to this forum ***
*** Could not believe I would ever find time to post !***

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 6
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 8:45:33 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21904
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel
Hi Trees,

Excellent analysis of the stuffing dynamics. I have little to add to your maths. Conclusion is unsurprising: on average, the USSR can hold the Pact until end of 1941.

A DoW of Japan against the USSR would make it even easier. An empty Siberia is tempting to Japan. Should Japan attack the USSR, and the USSR refuse to surrender, you would add cheap MILs to the garrison. That would be a pretty nice boost. (Losing the 3 Siberian resources and Vladivostok factory would not decrease Russia's production more than 1BP).

A side but too often neglected effect of stuffing the border is the boost in USE. Should 3 chits/turn be left on the German/USSR border, USE average chit value significantly increases. As a matter of fact, the US may even start picking 1942 chits from ND41 or earlier. (I've seen it happen more than once)

Per RaW, major powers may but do not have to pick garrison chits. When Germany understands that she cannot break the pact, she should stop drawing chits.

Pushing the analysis one step further would require adding the chits' variance to their mean. Current analysis takes as an assumption that chits' variance is pretty low - i.e. average value is highly probable.

As far as I remember the simulations seen on the WiFFE mailing list, holding the pact is more a 75% than a sure win.

Daniel

*** Gosh, this is my first contribution to this forum ***
*** Could not believe I would ever find time to post !***

Welcome. More minds are better than fewer.

If the USSR is at war with Japan don't some of its reserve units come onto the map? Not those solely for Germany, but others?

MWIF uses an infinite chit pool, drawing chits based on a probability distribution rather than from a limited pool.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 7
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 8:51:07 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

MWIF uses an infinite chit pool, drawing chits based on a probability distribution rather than from a limited pool.

The mecanism of running out of the current's year chits and picking in the next year chits should however be implemented, because as Daniel said, non agression pacts help US entry in this regard, and if you draw from infinite pools, this interaction will be out of the MWiF game, which is bad IMO.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 8
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 10:49:27 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21904
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

MWIF uses an infinite chit pool, drawing chits based on a probability distribution rather than from a limited pool.

The mecanism of running out of the current's year chits and picking in the next year chits should however be implemented, because as Daniel said, non agression pacts help US entry in this regard, and if you draw from infinite pools, this interaction will be out of the MWiF game, which is bad IMO.

I disagree.

Why Germany and the USSR staying at peace and deploying massive troops to their common border should affect US entry into the war escapes me. A far more likely reason for this rule is the counter limitation due to printing the physical counters. If the effect of a German-Soviet buildup should impact US entry, then it would be best if that were a separate rule rather than an effect that comes out of a counter mix consequence.

Yes, it changes the game from the board version. But for the better I would say, since it removes a 'gamey' strategy related to a finite # of counters.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 9
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 11:09:00 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

If the USSR is at war with Japan don't some of its reserve units come onto the map? Not those solely for Germany, but others?


That's right.

But we are only talking about a handful of units here: 4 corps (5 if playing Siberians, AFAIR). These include the Vladivostok MIL which is doomed to stay in Siberia. As Russia, you would usually keep a couple of these units in Chita just to make sure the Japanese don't try to go further East than that. Thus these units weight little in the total Pact garrison.

Daniel

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 10
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 11:19:12 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

MWIF uses an infinite chit pool, drawing chits based on a probability distribution rather than from a limited pool.

The mecanism of running out of the current's year chits and picking in the next year chits should however be implemented, because as Daniel said, non agression pacts help US entry in this regard, and if you draw from infinite pools, this interaction will be out of the MWiF game, which is bad IMO.

I disagree.

Why Germany and the USSR staying at peace and deploying massive troops to their common border should affect US entry into the war escapes me. A far more likely reason for this rule is the counter limitation due to printing the physical counters. If the effect of a German-Soviet buildup should impact US entry, then it would be best if that were a separate rule rather than an effect that comes out of a counter mix consequence.

Yes, it changes the game from the board version. But for the better I would say, since it removes a 'gamey' strategy related to a finite # of counters.

Well, I can wifzen this by saying that the chits represents political manoeuvers (and not militayr buildup as you are saying, because the military buildup is represented by the real actual counters that are on the border), and those political manoeuvers can upset the US politicians, hasting their will to go to war (picking bigger chits).

I do not believe that this is the result of limited countermix, because I do not think that Harry would let this biais enter his game. I believe that this is done on purpose, and I encourage you to ask him (I did not). Maybe I'm dreaming , but best to ask him, isn't it ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 11
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 11:21:28 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

Why Germany and the USSR staying at peace and deploying massive troops to their common border should affect US entry into the war escapes me. A far more likely reason for this rule is the counter limitation due to printing the physical counters. If the effect of a German-Soviet buildup should impact US entry, then it would be best if that were a separate rule rather than an effect that comes out of a counter mix consequence.

Yes, it changes the game from the board version. But for the better I would say, since it removes a 'gamey' strategy related to a finite # of counters.


This is a topic for discussion. In the end, we'll have to ask Harry.

I cannot understand why Germany and the USSR staying at peace (or going at war) should have any effect on USE either more than rolling USSR/Germany DoW or not. And I've never heard a satisfactory explaination of the fact.

However, I cannot buy the argument about the limitation due to physical printing of counters. Harry could have designed 2 different types of chits, some for USE, other for Pact purposes. WiFFE includes lots of useless counters (e.g., 1945 ships) you could have dropped to print those chits.

I do not agree with the "gamey" comment, since rules allow not to pick Pact chits - which is common play among experienced players.

It is a fact, though, that when playing Classic, that is without the AfA USE chits, you definitively lack chits too early in the game...

Daniel

< Message edited by WiFDaniel -- 7/11/2007 11:24:53 PM >

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 12
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 11:24:20 PM   
dale1066


Posts: 108
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline
Seems a little unfair active major powers units don't count but aligned minor allies do.

How about if the ussr has declared war on italy or vice versa?

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 13
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 11:35:34 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:


I do not agree with the "gamey" comment, since rules allow not to pick Pact chits - which is common play among experienced players.

Very true. Not picking chits allow to keep US Entry pickings normal.

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 14
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 11:37:16 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dale1066
Seems a little unfair active major powers units don't count but aligned minor allies do.
How about if the ussr has declared war on italy or vice versa?

Then Italy cannot even come near to the German-USSR border, as 9.5 says :
*************************************
After you enter into a neutrality pact with a major power, units controlled by other major powers on your side cannot enter hexes that are part of your common border with that major power if they are at war with that other major power.
*************************************

(in reply to dale1066)
Post #: 15
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 11:37:38 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:


MWIF uses an infinite chit pool, drawing chits based on a probability distribution rather than from a limited pool.


Quick question: what probability distribution will you use?

***

Let's imagine that I draw 4 '0' chits. If we use an infinite chit pool, the probability to get a 5th one will be independent from the chits I have already drawn.
With a finite pool of chits, I would have increased probability to get something different than a '0' after getting lots of those.

Do I get it right?

***

Would that lead to other 'gamey' behavior? Like I'm playing the US. Bad luck, I have 3 '0' chits in my Ge/It pool. In the 'real' game, I would at least know I'd had not chance to get these again. But if playing with an infinite pool, US behavior may be altered:

I have these 3 '0' chits. Well, I'm just gonna suggest the CW to DoW a minor. That will cost me a couple of chits, but who cares, I will just lose those '0'. And I'm not gonna have more chance to get these '0' back than anything else.

***

I can't say whether this change would have a meaningful effect. At the moment, we do not have a perspective on what consequences it'd bring.

Daniel

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 16
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/11/2007 11:43:16 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

Let's imagine that I draw 4 '0' chits. If we use an infinite chit pool, the probability to get a 5th one will be independent from the chits I have already drawn.
With a finite pool of chits, I would have increased probability to get something different than a '0' after getting lots of those.

Do I get it right?

***

Would that lead to other 'gamey' behavior? Like I'm playing the US. Bad luck, I have 3 '0' chits in my Ge/It pool. In the 'real' game, I would at least know I'd had not chance to get these again. But if playing with an infinite pool, US behavior may be altered:

I have these 3 '0' chits. Well, I'm just gonna suggest the CW to DoW a minor. That will cost me a couple of chits, but who cares, I will just lose those '0'. And I'm not gonna have more chance to get these '0' back than anything else.

Well....
This is an ugly perspective to have the MWiF game geared this way with infinite pool of US Entry Chit.
Given these, I think that the pool should not be infinite, and mirror the cardboard US Entry Chits. Too much possible difference there, and US Entry has an enormous importance, too much to play with it wildely in MWiF.

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 17
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 12:52:20 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21904
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
You guys are going to have a hard time convincing me that a finite pool is better than a infinite probability distribution.

We had a similar discussion concerning partisans as I recall (a probability distribution is used by MWIF to generate partisan units instead of drawing from a finite pool of printed counters).

Printing counters is expensive. Compromising from a desired probability distribution to one limited by physical counters is a lot easier than running up the cost of product sold. Especially since ADG could not use a infinite probability distribution and had to use a counter mix to get the desired result of hidden results, known only to certain players.

The point that having a lot of zero chits affects how you play could also be argued in reverse, where having all the good chits changes your decision making too.

Yes, I understand that good players take advantage of all the rules, including changing odds as a result of previously drawn chits. If they didn't, I would think less of them. However, that doesn't motivate me to incorporate finite chits counts in MWIF.

Why previous chits drawn should affect US Entry probability (historical perspective) eludes me. Political manuevering? That's the first I have heard of that.

US Entry is crucial to the game. No argument there. However, if German political manuevering vis-a-vis the USSR is suppose to impact US Entry, then I would prefer it be explicit in the rules, and not something worked out by experienced players as a subtle way to influence the outcome by deft handling of neutrality pact chits.



_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 18
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 9:13:23 AM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

Printing counters is expensive. Compromising from a desired probability distribution to one limited by physical counters is a lot easier than running up the cost of product sold. Especially since ADG could not use a infinite probability distribution and had to use a counter mix to get the desired result of hidden results, known only to certain players.


I respectfully disagree:

1. ADG could have used 2 series of chit, one for USE, another for Pact garrison, in order to make sure one dynamic would not affect the other. This would have meant less than 60 additionnal counters, so that cost cannot be the decision driver here.

2. Rolling dice and recording results instead of drawing counters would have been pretty similar to an infinite pool. In other words, it was not difficult to simulate the 'infinite counters' on a boardgame.

I do not think the issue with Partisans is the same. I have never seen the partisan counter pool exhausted in any game. The number of partisans is structurally too important, so that replacing this with an infinite pool has a marginal effect. On the other hand, the number of chit counters is structurally too small.

In the end, we'll have to ask Harry.

Cheers,

Daniel

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 19
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 9:18:01 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

You guys are going to have a hard time convincing me that a finite pool is better than a infinite probability distribution.

I suppose that we can always try ?

quote:

We had a similar discussion concerning partisans as I recall (a probability distribution is used by MWIF to generate partisan units instead of drawing from a finite pool of printed counters).

Printing counters is expensive. Compromising from a desired probability distribution to one limited by physical counters is a lot easier than running up the cost of product sold. Especially since ADG could not use a infinite probability distribution and had to use a counter mix to get the desired result of hidden results, known only to certain players.

The point that having a lot of zero chits affects how you play could also be argued in reverse, where having all the good chits changes your decision making too.

Yes, I understand that good players take advantage of all the rules, including changing odds as a result of previously drawn chits. If they didn't, I would think less of them. However, that doesn't motivate me to incorporate finite chits counts in MWIF.

Why previous chits drawn should affect US Entry probability (historical perspective) eludes me. Political manuevering? That's the first I have heard of that.

US Entry is crucial to the game. No argument there. However, if German political manuevering vis-a-vis the USSR is suppose to impact US Entry, then I would prefer it be explicit in the rules, and not something worked out by experienced players as a subtle way to influence the outcome by deft handling of neutrality pact chits.

I thought of this this morning.
Card games are played with 32 or 52 cards aren't they ?
When making computer card games, it would not come to the mind of the developper to use an infinite nnmber of cards, with a distribution that matches the one of the 32 / 52 deck ?
I think the same here, because I don't think that the "counter limitation" is due to cost or something else, I believe it is a design decision.
Should ask Harry, this is important.

Also, I don't believe that the knowledge of those "subtleties" are restricted to a limited number of experienced players. This is available to everyone. I'll look at the design & player's notes, to see if I find something about that.
But this should be asked to Harry IMHO.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 20
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 10:22:55 AM   
dale1066


Posts: 108
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline
Cheers

I really should go through the rules more carefully though it is better to hear the latest interpretations from the experts. I guess after playing CWif and not playing FTF recently (last one must have been eigth years ago) I've relied on the PCs interpretation too much and that looses a little of the subleties (not to mention arguments )

Post release will there scope for game upgrades? could these have revised rules or is the plan for MWiF to freeze the rules at the date of release?






(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 21
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 1:00:24 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21904
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel

quote:

Printing counters is expensive. Compromising from a desired probability distribution to one limited by physical counters is a lot easier than running up the cost of product sold. Especially since ADG could not use a infinite probability distribution and had to use a counter mix to get the desired result of hidden results, known only to certain players.


I respectfully disagree:

1. ADG could have used 2 series of chit, one for USE, another for Pact garrison, in order to make sure one dynamic would not affect the other. This would have meant less than 60 additionnal counters, so that cost cannot be the decision driver here.

2. Rolling dice and recording results instead of drawing counters would have been pretty similar to an infinite pool. In other words, it was not difficult to simulate the 'infinite counters' on a boardgame.

I do not think the issue with Partisans is the same. I have never seen the partisan counter pool exhausted in any game. The number of partisans is structurally too important, so that replacing this with an infinite pool has a marginal effect. On the other hand, the number of chit counters is structurally too small.

In the end, we'll have to ask Harry.

Cheers,

Daniel

If I counted right, there are 84 US Entry chit counters. That's a lot. Probably about the same as the total number of minor country units(?) To achieve the same distribution for neutrality pact chits, and keep them separate from the US Entry chits, would require another 84 counters.

Rolling dice and recording results assumes the player doing the recording is honest.

Chits in a cup is a good solution, used in many other board games, and I have absolutely no argument with that solution for the board game. Indeed, it is my preferred solution.

One of my problems with using the finite chits solution for MWIF is explaining it to a new player who has never seen the board game. The only rationale I can come up with is to say that "the board game did it this way". If asked "why did the board game intermix the US Entry chits with Neutrality Pact chits?" Well, either because:
1 - the designers wanted the two systems to interact though they never explained why, or
2 - they didn't want to have a game that contained 150 counters that were simply chits.

I still come back to probabilty distributions being a solid simulation tool used throughout the programming industry, beyond the field of board games. Substituting finite draw probability distributions is rarely used and then only when there is something in the real world that has a direct correspondence.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 22
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 1:21:35 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

1 - the designers wanted the two systems to interact though they never explained why, or
2 - they didn't want to have a game that contained 150 counters that were simply chits.


This is spot on.
Hence it's time to ask Harry ;)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 23
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 1:22:34 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

I still come back to probabilty distributions being a solid simulation tool used throughout the programming industry, beyond the field of board games. Substituting finite draw probability distributions is rarely used and then only when there is something in the real world that has a direct correspondence.


I am curious what probability distribution you plan to use. Could you give us a hint?

Daniel

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 24
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 1:28:25 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

If I counted right, there are 84 US Entry chit counters. That's a lot. Probably about the same as the total number of minor country units(?) To achieve the same distribution for neutrality pact chits, and keep them separate from the US Entry chits, would require another 84 counters.


Let's stop counting counters: I believe this is not where we'll find an answer.

(That said, there are 84 counters for USE+Pact. If you decide to have separate counters for Pact, well, you don't need to keep 84 for USE
Back of the enveloppe calculation:
Pact is drawing 3 counters per turn. Let's have the pact hold until JA42, ie 18 turns, ie 18x3=54 counters.
USE is 1 chit / turn + approx 1 chit/turn linked to actions, ie 2 chits/ turn. More from 42 certainly. About 50 chits would make it.
Total: approx 100 chits.
Throw in 20% to ensure variability. That's 120, ie no more than 40 extra from current status.
Now count how many 45 CVs you have.
I still argue you can't incriminate printing cost here)

Daniel

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 25
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 1:41:53 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 21904
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WiFDaniel

quote:

I still come back to probabilty distributions being a solid simulation tool used throughout the programming industry, beyond the field of board games. Substituting finite draw probability distributions is rarely used and then only when there is something in the real world that has a direct correspondence.


I am curious what probability distribution you plan to use. Could you give us a hint?

Daniel

No secrets there. The code is already written. It is the same as from CWIF but modified to reflect the changes in counters ADG made most recently (within the last year?). The only difference from the board game probabilities is that the pool is infinite so drawing a counter (regardless of what counter's number is) does not change the probability for the next draw. Each year the probability changes to match the chits from WIFFE.

Here's the code:

// ****************************************************************************
function PickEntryChit(Year: Integer = 0): Byte;
begin
if Year = 0 then Year := Game.Date.Year; // Default: use the current year

ChitYear := Year;

case Year of
1939:
begin
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0: Result := 0; // 4 3 1

1..9: Result := 1; // 6 7 9

10..16: Result := 2; // 6 7 7

17..22: Result := 3; // 7 6 6

23..28: Result := 4; // 5 6 6

else Result := 5; // 2 1 1 (29)
end;
end;

1940:
begin
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0..4: Result := 0; // 12 6 4 -> 5

5..23: Result := 1; // 12 8 10 -> 19

24..36: Result := 2; // 11 5 6 -> 13

37..45: Result := 3; // 10 3 3 -> 9

46..51: Result := 4; // 6 1 0 -> 6

else Result := 5; // 2 1 0 -> 1 (52)
end;
end;

1941:
begin
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0..4: Result := 0; // 12 0 0 -> 5

5..24: Result := 1; // 13 1 1 -> 20

25..40: Result := 2; // 14 3 3 -> 16

41..52: Result := 3; // 14 4 3 -> 12

53..62: Result := 4; // 9 3 4 -> 10

63..66: Result := 5; // 5 3 3 -> 4

else Result := 6; // 1 1 1 -> 1 (67)
end;
end;

1942:
begin
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0..4: Result := 0; // 12 0 0 -> 5

5..24: Result := 1; // 13 0 0 -> 20

25..41: Result := 2; // 15 1 1 -> 17

42..56: Result := 3; // 17 3 3 -> 15

57..70: Result := 4; // 13 4 4 -> 14

71..78: Result := 5; // 9 4 4 -> 8

else Result := 6; // 3 2 2 -> 3 (79..81)
end;
end;

else
begin // 1943 +
case RollX(rsEntryChit, 0, TEntryChitRoll.HighRoll, nil, nil,
TEntryChitRoll.RollRange) of
0..4: Result := 0; // 12 0 0 -> 5

5..24: Result := 1; // 13 0 0 -> 20

25..41: Result := 2; // 15 0 0 -> 17

42..57: Result := 3; // 18 1 1 -> 16

58..73: Result := 4; // 15 2 2 -> 16

74..85: Result := 5; // 13 4 4 -> 12

else Result := 6; // 8 5 5 -> 8 (86..93)
end;
end;
end;
end;


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 26
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 3:28:13 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
Thanks for the code, Steve!

It is really an infinite distribution. E.g., you never get rid of 1939 chits.

I have built a short spreadsheet to see whether it matters.

Bottom line: major impact from end of 41 on.

Here are the results:

+ Value of USE average chit in MA41
Boardgame: 2.6
Current code: 2.3
=> not that big a difference

+ Value of USE average chit in JF42, assuming Pact holds and Japan does not declare war on CW
Boardgame: 3.6
Current code: 2.6
=> this is bigger, especially considering the US pick 2 chits from 1942 on. They lose average 2x(3.6-2.6)=2.0 value each turn.

+ Value of USE average chit in JF42, assuming Pact holds and Japan DoWs CW in ND41
Boardgame: 3.7
Current code: 2.6
=> this is bigger, especially considering the US pick 3 chits from 1942 on. They lose average 2x(3.7-2.6)=3.0 value each turn.
This cancels the additional USE chit for Japan's DoW.

****

Assumptions used in these scenarii
+ Value of USE average chit in MA41
1939:
- chits in USA Entry/tension pool: 4 (i.e. no specially nasty move from the allies).
- USSR/Ge border: 6 chits
Total drawn in 1939: 10 chits

Additional chits drawn in 1940
- USA Entry/tension pool: 8
(say 1/turn + 2 for Vichy. This is quite conservative: no Chinese city, no Belgium / Netherlands / Danemark)
- USSR/Ge border: 18 chits
Total drawn in 1940: 26 chits

Additional chits drawn in JF 1941
- USA Entry/tension pool: 1
- USSR/Ge border: 3 chits
Total drawn in JF 41: 4 chits

Total # chits drawn up to MA41 US Entry phase: 40.

Randomly remove 10 1939 chits, then 26 of (leftover 1939 + all 1940), then 4 of (leftover 39-60 + all 41). Average value of the next pick.

****

+ Value of USE average chit in JF42, assuming pact holds and Japan does not DoW CW.
Same assumptions for 1939 and 1940

Additional chits drawn in JF 1941
- USA Entry/tension pool: 8
- USSR/Ge border: 3x4+ 2x1= 14 chits
(i.e. Germany stops drawing chits in SO41 when she realizes she cannot break the pact)
Total drawn in 41: 22 chits

Total # chits drawn up to JF42 US Entry phase: 10+26+22=56

Randomly remove 10 1939 chits, then 26 of (leftover 1939 + all 1940), then 22 of (leftover 39-60 + all 41). Average value of the next pick.

+ Value of USE average chit in JF42, assuming pact holds and Japan DoWs CW in ND41.
Same assumptions as before. Add 4 USE chits drawn in ND41.

Total # chits drawn up to JF42 US Entry phase: 10+26+26=60

***

Daniel

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 27
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 6:31:25 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
I would just, on a point unrelated to the recent discussion on finite pool vs. infinite probability distribution of USE chits, say that I disagree with the notion that the USSR ought to confine its international adventurism. But that belongs more in the threat topic on the USSR AIO, of course.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to WiFDaniel)
Post #: 28
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 6:51:13 PM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Having played a substantial number of CWiF games, and still doing so, I have not found any reason to complain about the entry chit values. All the games have progressed in the US entry level in a fashion very comparable to the boardgame's levels and the US actions and entry into the war has been within the expected range in time.

Lars 

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 29
RE: 'stuffing' the border - 7/12/2007 7:18:45 PM   
WiFDaniel

 

Posts: 31
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Having played a substantial number of CWiF games, and still doing so, I have not found any reason to complain about the entry chit values. All the games have progressed in the US entry level in a fashion very comparable to the boardgame's levels and the US actions and entry into the war has been within the expected range in time.


I'm sure you did but... have you played a successful stuff in CWiF?

Some groups/players just never try to stuff the border.

Daniel

(in reply to lomyrin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> 'stuffing' the border Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.180