Combined WiFCE/DoD III Campaign 1936-1946 Playthrough #4: Mar/Apr 1936

[@jamescurran9002]

Really enjoying this

[@bjarneandreassen9118]

Very exciting to see. Really hoping to get to try this one day. Thanks for the new episode!

[@Jezza_One]

Great stuff keep up the good work.

[@vms77]

The 0f text states that you can agree after and/or before any treaty has been proposed... ??? In addition, Spain will have a civil war soon (july), so... it's not a waste of points to use them now? (I asume that when the civil war starts both sides will have a very different political position...)

[@thetabletopsedge]

You are correct regarding 0f being played before or after, but it does have to be played in the same turn as the proposal. I'm not sure I follow you with regards to your Spanish Civil War comments.

[@jamescurran9002]

Vms77...do you interpret that 0f as reading ANY other country can agree to any Treaty? I E GB proposes Treaty to France, can US later play 0f also,and therefore a third party to the original Treaty?

[@thetabletopsedge]

@@jamescurran9002 That's not how I would interpret it, but the language in the option description is (unfortunately) potentially confusing. The "if someone else has already done so this turn," refers specifically to joining the London Naval Treaty. The way the description is written, though, could cause someone to think it applies to any proposal. With respect to a Treaty proposal specifically, while 0f states it can be played before or after a proposal, the Treaty option prerequisite requires the proposing MP to have a lower initiative than the recipient (who would be playing 0f). So playing 0f before a Treaty proposal won't work. You have to insure the proposing MP has the lower initiative. When it comes to something like Combined War Aims, though, there is no requirement for the War Aims to be played prior to the play of 0f.

[@jamescurran9002]

Oh...US Entry, are you remembering to divide by three in DODIII?

[@jamescurran9002]

For end of turn in WIF, isn't there supposed to be a -2 DRM for any ideology that every MP passes?

[@thetabletopsedge]

Yes, that's my understanding. And a -1 DRM if only some of the MP's Pass. However, no one has been passing so far. Mainly because they don't care how long the turn goes, and they don't want to be the ones to end it. They have all taken their impulses and simply not done anything. There will likely come a time, however, when MP's will be looking to Pass in order to end the turn (potential initiative DRM effects be damned).

[@jamescurran9002]

On CW/FR Treaty, I always include an economic statement of 1 oil from Canada going to France.

[@thetabletopsedge]

A solid idea, but this time the CW was a bit greedy. While they agreed to give 2 oil to France, they gave them the ones they themselves weren't using (and happen to be the furthest away). We'll see if this decision will come back to haunt the CW down the road.

[@icitrom]

Really enjoying this series a lot! Do you have a BGG user name?

[@thetabletopsedge]

Thanks for watching! Glad you are enjoying it. BGG username is "dougf1971".

[@kennethcrist443]

Where in the DODIII rules does it state that you need to spend build points to bid for playing political options? You can spend build points to buy bid points during the production phase, but I see no rule that requires spending build points to bid. Is this a house rule you are using?

[@thetabletopsedge]

In the combined DoD/WiF game, "Money" and "Build Points" are one and the same (see the definition of Build Point in the glossary in back). One house rule I am using is that MP's are allowed to "deficit spend" on military units. Ordinarily, while each MP has a debt limit and they can spend into a negative balance, MP's can only drop below an income of "0" for political options.

[@kennethcrist443]

Yes, money and build points are the same thing but money and BID POINTS are not the same thing. You may buy Bid Points at a one for one exchange during the production phase, but you do not need to spend any money to bid for Initiative during the Political Phase. If Britain as 8 bid points and is in the 4th position om the track, they get a +2 modifier to their bid. If they bid 4 bid points, they are a total of +6 for Initiative. This leaves them with 4 bid points for the next turn and no money is subtracted from their Build Points reserve. Also, you seem to be adding each country's PE to their bid. That is not what the rules allow. The PE is used in case of tie bids; if a country does not get an option after bidding, they receive their PE minus the number of Bid Points used for that turn; and it is used to calculate how many bid points the country receives if they play option 0G to gain additional Bid Points minus the number of points bid that turn. It is not added to their bid total for that turn. Finally, the Naval Treaty is in effect from the beginning of the game even if no countries have played the option. In the setup section, the US and USSR are stated to be on their reverse side (-1 PE) on the PE track because they have the lowest naval ratios. So, US should be a 1 PE effectively from the start. (This reflects the Isolationist sentiment that existed in the mid-30s and thus makes it hard to get a lot done. The most important thing is the election in N/D 1936. Make sure you have enough Bid Points so that the Axis Powers prevent the US from bidding high enough to play the option.) Paragraph 11 "Put your political effectiveness (PE) marker on your starting position on the political effectiveness track. Note the track is there merely as a convenience, a major power may have a PE greater than 9, or less than 0. Turn the USA & USSR political effectiveness (PE) markers face down (see 8.7.1 IPO 15)." Check under the section that starts: "If the Naval Treaty rules have not been suspended then:" You are certainly doing something I would not consider: playing both solitaire. I have enough problems keeping one side going during our FTF games.

[@thetabletopsedge]

@@kennethcrist443 I follow you now. First regarding PE. I am not adding PE to anyone's bid. I am adding the modifier for their initiative position on the previous turn, just like in your example of the CW's bid. PE is only used to break ties in the case of modified bid totals, and to award bonus bid points to MP's that bid for initiative but did not get a chance to choose a political option (because the Political Phase ended before it got to them due to a die roll). In 8.7.2 under MP option 0(g), my copy of the rules states that choosing this option "gains you twice as many bid points as our current modified political effectiveness". PE is potentially modified by the Naval Treaty rules. Rule 8.6 on page 12 states: "Each MP that didn't get to play any political options in the turn receives bid points equal to its current modified PE..." I don't see anything anywhere about receiving bid points equal to "their PE minus bid points used for that turn." Do you have a reference? Is there a FAQ or errata somewhere with this in it? As for the Naval Treaty, my copy of the DoDIII rules says on page 20 (under IPO15 Naval Treaty): "At the start of the game, no one is in the treaty (the Washington Naval Treaty has lapsed)." So if no one is in the treaty (and the rules say it has lapsed) how can a treaty with no one in it be in effect? However, a closer reading of the rules talks about "Naval Treaty RULES" in lower paragraphs, which apparently have nothing to do with whether anyone is actually in the treaty or not. So as I now understand it, the RULES (which are listed at the bottom of the left column on page 20) are in effect, regardless of whether anyone is actually in the treaty (which makes zero sense) until such time as at least 3 MP's potentially subject to the treaty (ie - everyone but China) are at war with another MP. So the lowest naval ratio MP needs to be on its PE -1 side, as does the second lowest if it isn't a member of the Treaty. I have never been a fan of Harry Rowland rule books, but the DoDIII rule book is quite possibly the worst he's ever written (and that's a pretty high bar). I've always thought the game would be more interesting if the Treaty WERE in effect at the start of the game with MP's subject to it. The treaty restrictions are such that it makes no sense for any MP to willingly join it. PE is so rarely impactful that the naval building limitations far outweigh any possible gain from being a member of the Treaty. I suppose if a MP has the second lowest ratio that being a member could keep their PE marker right side up, but that's a pretty specific circumstance that may be difficult to maintain for any length of time. So if I understand things correctly, the Naval Treaty rules are in effect at the start of the game and no MP's are in the treaty. I'll be curious to see how much, if any, difference that makes in game play. I will say, though, that the way the rule is written is very misleading. It is quite true that Money and Bid Points are not the same thing. Money is used to purchase Bid Points, which cost 1 money per Bid Point. Technically, Bid Points are purchased, along with any units, in the Production Phase and go into a MP's Bid Pool. So it would be possible to buy 6 Bid Points for 6 Money (which is equal to 6 Build Points), but then use only 2 or 3 of those Bid Points from the Bid Pool in the following turn's Political Initiative Phase, leaving the others for use in future turns. What I've been doing is simply "buying" the Bid Points when the MP's actually bid in the Political Initiative Phase (instead of spending the BP's in the Production Phase to buy Bid Points). It's largely a distinction without a difference. You still spend BP's on Bid Points in order to bid for Political Initiative. The only real difference is that buying Bid Points in the Production Phase and then putting them in a Bid Pool allows for their use over multiple turns. However, the cost in terms of BP's is the exact same. So whether I'm spending 3 BP's in the Production Phase to buy 3 Bid Points to go in the pool for next turn's Political Initiative bid or deducting the cost of those bid points when they are bid in the Political Initiative Phase makes no practical difference to the game. While it is certainly feasible for MP's to buy Bid Points for future use, I don't really see the value in that, especially if the Bid Points are used after a gear up which increases that MP's PM. Spending 3 BP's out the 6 BP's I have available for production is less efficient than spending 3 BP's out of the 9 BP's I have for Production after I gear up. And granted, gearing up is not a common event, nor does it occur frequently, but I don't see any value in purchasing Bid Points and then holding on to them for multiple turns (during which a gear up may, in fact, occur). Regarding your comment about the Axis Powers having enough Bid Points to prevent the US from bidding high enough to play their Option 0(c) in N/D'36, I don't see how that's practical. The US has the largest Debt Limit (30) of any MP in the game. Which means if it is important enough, none of the Axis powers can have a Bid Pool larger than the US Bid Pool without completely trashing their own game. Germany spending nothing on political options or units for the whole first year just to deny the US a chance to hold the election (even then, the US will go likely go second since no one else will realistically be able to outbid them and therefore have a 90% chance of holding the election anyway) is something I would absolutely love to see happen as a Democrat or Communist. I think Germany re-militarizing the Rhineland is more important than the US holding their election on time (not least because it keeps France from from re-occupying it). Delaying US entry is very important, and should definitely be pursued where practical, but it does no good to delay US entry if France and the CW (with potential help from the USSR) can stop Germany in her tracks in 1939-1941. I appreciate your comments, and if you have a link to a document showing the PE stuff (along with any other changes/clarifications not in the DoDIII rule book) I'd appreciate it. Thanks for watching!

[@pm71241]

Is this only available in 360p ? ... or is my client punishing me?

[@thetabletopsedge]

It is currently processing the HD version. If you check back in a couple hours the higher def version should be available.

[@jamescurran9002]

If a MP is receiving the bonus bids from the previous turn, why would they choose not to bid? There are many ways to play options, mainly on the MP 0 list, that cost little or no money. Remember, you only have to pay if option is successful. So, there's increasing your PE standing, or Democratic Election, etc But IMO ,if you have those Bonus Bids, you've GOT TO Bid at least one,and why not all?

[@thetabletopsedge]

I'm only giving bonus bid points (which are different from the bid modifier for initiative position) to MP's that bid but did not get to play an option. I think it is in a later video that I explain why (I think it's in #5 or #6, not sure though). I do see your point about bidding at least the bonus points. If you've got them, why not spend them? I have been treating the bonus bid points as just that, a bonus to an actual bid, rather than as a stand alone bid point (the equivalent of the MP having spent money). In DoD II, only MP's that bid and did not get to play an option were awarded bonus bid points for the following turn. There's a slight discrepancy in the DoD III rules, but one section does explicitly state "even if they did not bid." I'm not sure why that language was put into that section (and left out of another applicable section, hence the discrepancy). I suppose it could have been added in an attempt to get more MP's to bid for options each turn. If so, it's dubious reasoning. Almost all of the 0 cost options are very situational dependent (eg - quelling/supporting resistance, building a SYNTH, holding an election, etc.). The only truly "free" option is the one to gain bid points for the following turn, but that's a means to an end, not an end in itself. No MP can afford to waste BP's on political options they don't need, especially early on before they can gear up.

[@pm71241]

So...when rolling WiF initiative ... isn't it supposed to be the winner of the initiative who _decices_ who goes first?

[@thetabletopsedge]

Yes, that is correct. That is why you will usually see the initiative winner in a WiF game choose to let the other side go first during the short, bad weather winter months, in order to preserve, or perhaps gain, the coveted +1 or +2 DRM to their initiative roll for the long, good weather turns in the summer. The combined DoD/WiF game uses a variant of this procedure. The ideology with the second highest total can choose to go after the ideology with the lowest initiative roll. Then the ideology with the highest initiative total can choose which position of the three it wishes to go. I have not bothered with this so far since so very little is actually happening on the maps, and is likely to remain that way for the next few turns. Once the possibility of something of significance occurring draws near, the various ideologies will be paying closer attention to choosing where in the order they go.

[@pm71241]

@@thetabletopsedge Exactly.

[@denisdelarive7753]

@@thetabletopsedge Seeking the so wonderful double tap!

[@jamescurran9002]

My understanding is if you're playing with the Auxiliary political options, those not printed on ADG cards, you get a +1 roll for ending options play. Plus, you can gain Bid points for free, based on 3x your PE . Also ,if you only play that option, you don't roll for end of turn. So...the smart move for all majors would be to play that MP 0 option on the first turn. And therefore have free bid points for the foreseeable future. Now, my question.. You're playing Solitaire. How did you determine bids for all major powers and still maintain a sense of fairness.

[@thetabletopsedge]

I think the +1 DRM to ending the political phase roll is from the 2008 Annual, which I am not necessarily using. The 2016 version does not use that +1 DRM. Gaining 3x PE in bid points for playing option 0g is an optional rule that I am not using. If a MP plays 0g, then they will gain 2x PE. And the not rolling to end the Political Phase for playing 0g is also an optional that is not in use. If Germany doesn't play her Ge6 option to occupy the Rhineland on the first turn, as France I am definitely playing Fr6 to occupy it. It will deny Germany 2 factories and 2 resources, as well as provide France with a nice defensive line against Germany (the Rhine). It'd would be extremely detrimental for Germany to play 0g (or any other non-Ge6 option) right away. The bid points you gain from playing 0g are only added to next turn's initiative bid. They are not a permanent increase. Those are bonus bid points. You must still actually bid at least 1 to take advantage of them. Otherwise, they will just help you in relation to the other MP's that do not bid. And you must actually play 0g to gain the points. If the Political Phase ends before it gets to you, then you don't get the 2x bid points. Playing 0g the turn before you need to do something very important is a good strategy, because if successful then you will garner a large number (depending on your PE) of bonus bid points to add to the next turn's bid when getting a low initiative is so important. As for solo play and bidding, it can be the tricky bit. When determining how much each MP will bid I assess the situation based solely on the MP in question's current money level, what they desire to do, and how important it is for them to go early in the order. This may result in some MP's overpaying, based on their perception of how important it is that they go first, but more often will likely lead to some MP's underbidding and finding themselves a few positions higher than they were planning on. As an example, in M/A'36 the CW did not want to get burned again by failing to get the Level 1 Treaty signed with France. Both MP's agreed to bid a sizable amount to try to ensure they were near the front of the initiative order. CW bid 7, knowing she would add 3 to that for a total of 10. This sounded reasonably high enough to secure one of the top two spots. 7 is an expensive bid, but at the time the CW had 12 in money on hand and judged the treaty to be important enough to expend a large chunk of that early bankroll. France did not have nearly as much money on hand, and so bid only 4. However, France knew she would be getting an additional 3 from her prior initiative position for a total of 7. At the time, I forgot to add in the additional 2 she would receive for having not played an option on the previous turn. The resulting bid total of 9 worked out nicely as it put her immediately behind the CW in bid order, and those two also happened to be the highest bidders for the turn. When Germany bid 2, she was relying on her +4 bid modifier for her position to give her a respectable total of 6. As it turned out, not only did the CW decide to go all in on her bid this turn, but Japan also bid aggressively placing her in 3rd position and Germany ended up in 4th, even though that was not the intention when she bid. It ended up costing her an opportunity to play an option this turn when the phase ended after France's option play. She does get some consolation, though, as she will now have an additional 5 bid points to use in M/J'36, giving her the inside track on the 1st position on the political initiative track. If two powers intend to try to accomplish something together (like sign a treaty or combined war aims, etc.) then I will have them coordinate their bids. For instance, when China finally gets enough cash to have a realistic chance of getting a low enough initiative to be able to play an option, then she and the USA will discuss coordinating their bids that turn, similarly to how CW and France just did in M/A'36. Generally speaking, I will seek to avoid deficit spending on the part of the MP's. This will limit to some degree the amount of money they can bid for initiative. I will willingly go into a deficit for something like a Gear Up option, however. Again, the main goal for any of the MP's is to avoid being stuck in a deficit for several turns in a row. That will negatively impact their ability to increase their military.

[@denisdelarive7753]

@@thetabletopsedge Very nicely explained, and I too think you can be objective in solo play if you only act on what a nation knows, sometimes even making a "bad" move since that is what you would have faced in a multi-player game.

[@kentnilsson465]

France starts with 5, get 2 build points and builds 2 convoys at 1 point each. Shouldnt that mean they have 5 points, not 6? SAme with CW, start with 10, gets 5 and spends 1+1+2, shouldnt that be 11, not 12?