https://www.seawarstore.com/NavalEnsignsDlx.htm
This site offers dedicated military flags that are placed on the table for each player.
WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
Hey Gargantua, I definitely see where you are coming from about France.
Although PTV and BM both remove substantial disincentives to liberating france (e.g., eliminating the repeat-capital-plunder dynamic of G40, adding US NOs for mere presence in Normandy, etc.), it remains the case that France is all-too-frequently seen as a no-go zone for the Allies until after the fate of Western Europe is already decided.
One way to help rectify this problem would be to give France a national objective (for example, +5 for controlling France, Normandy, Southern France), putting more Allied income on the table for a liberated France, than without it.
I am apprehensive about the idea of a “liberate” button for France, both because of the coding challenges it would present, and because it introduces yet another faction-specific dynamic, which we generally try to avoid unless necessary.
I have added the proposal of the French NO to the list of ideas for us to consider in version 5 of the map.
it would be great if that French NO add, would be implemented to BM too
-
@Gargantua said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
No I’m not saying “the allies should always win”
I’m saying france is broken, it’s not functional, thats why it’s already gone through several repairs and revisions and IMO no german boost is needed. Germany is already a beast. Almost unbeatable OOB without a bid, and even BM3 still see’s allied bids for this reason. A big component of this is that France is just not functional, and given the oppurtunity we should fix that.
The whole point of this idea is that it’s not a game breaker. Italian can-opener is a game breaker. Germany being able to ignore france because the allies will trip overthemselves with its liberation is a game breaker. Which is why we fixed the issue of repeat capital capture $ being grabbed. This is just a simple fix to a gamey nonsense issue.
As for “what we want” for a game, players should be able to enjoy as many engaging theatres as possible to have the best game, and the best ability to pursue multiple avenues to victory.
The fact that FRANCE, a keypoint, is essentially out of the game, isn’t just ridiculous, its sad, and a disservice to everyone who’s played.
Totally agree here. Just gonna say this once. In my game we have this going on. UK can get a NA place 3 Inf for recapturing first time in West France. You could make it Normandy too. But only one or the other.
If Paris is liberated they receive 6 Inf and its up to allies to hold if they want to build a IC. Remember though in my game you can only build up to territory value so IC aren’t game breakers but thats just me. I’m not trying to say make theses changes. These are Ideas that have been tested.
WE had one game where Germany took Moscow turn 4. But then allies were took Paris turn 5 based on Germany sending most to Moscow. Turn 5 USSR took back Moscow.
then Germany turn 6 took back Moscow but had to fly back half his planes to retake Paris back.
Another game Paris fell on turn 3 back to allies and Germany took Moscow turn 4. He was able to hold Moscow this time and pull out the win with japan help on there side. If the US would of bought 3 IC on Paris and territories they could of taken France with tanks buys and Mechanized Inf that moved 2. Allies had West Germany too.
UK was defending West Germany with a bit of help from USA while US was landing in West France.
It was awesome.
Another reminder. My game starts Dec 41. Any French territory in your control goes to UK or USA. No Capital money neither goes to Germany.
Maybe just eliminate Germany receiving Frances money with one or 2 suggested ideas with INF and NO.I’m just saying you guys got to get Paris involved in your game !
-
Air in Leningrad does not scramble to Karelia. Is that intentional?
To be it seems that Karelia borders Leningrad since the pond in between doesn’t carry a numberic denotation.
-
Hey, @trulpen yes it is intentional because the territories don’t touch. Lake Ladoga is impassible.
-
How sad. ;)
-
Is it like a mini-Bermuda-triangle in there? A nuclear test-site? Russia’s answer to Loch Ness?
-
@trulpen wormhole
-
Trying out P2V right now, I’m having trouble identifying an achievable goal with the US in the Pacific.
Generally, I think it would be very useful to have a thread where we can post strategies that have been tried in P2V, whether they worked or didnt, and just have general strategy discussion.
-
hey, @WindowWasher thats actually a really good idea. I will start a topic and request that it be pinned (together with the other PTV threads).
Stay tuned.
-
@regularkid Done :slightly_smiling_face:
Don't always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start … and better check what TripleA has done.
-
@Panther thanks panther!
-
Thanks Panther. Here is a link to the Strategies discussion: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35558/ww2-path-to-victory-strategies/
WindowWasher, I will address your question there.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
Hey folks! Version 4.0 of Path to Victory is ready for download on TripleA (delete your existing copy of the map and reinstall. The map is backwards compatible with older saved games).
The substantive changes:
-
Carriers reduced to 1 defense. May no longer scramble to empty sea zones (must be a defending surface warship present - player enforced)
-
New global victory conditions for Axis. In addition to the existing theater specific victory conditions, Axis can now also win by taking and holding for one round 13 victory cities, globally.
-
A U.S. marine has been added to Hawaii.
Enjoy!
What about an amphibious assault on a territory with an airbase where there is a fighter stationed and there is also a carrier on the adjacent sea territory - but no defending surface warship to fight the invaders in the same territory?
Do I understand the rules correctly, that the land-air-based fighter can scramble against the naval invading force - but the neighbouring carriers cannot help the defending fighter as there is no surface warship around?
I would prefer having the same rules and restrictions for scrambling from a land based air base as from a carrier.
-
-
@Gorshak said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
Hey folks! Version 4.0 of Path to Victory is ready for download on TripleA (delete your existing copy of the map and reinstall. The map is backwards compatible with older saved games).
The substantive changes:
-
Carriers reduced to 1 defense. May no longer scramble to empty sea zones (must be a defending surface warship present - player enforced)
-
New global victory conditions for Axis. In addition to the existing theater specific victory conditions, Axis can now also win by taking and holding for one round 13 victory cities, globally.
-
A U.S. marine has been added to Hawaii.
Enjoy!
What about an amphibious assault on a territory with an airbase where there is a fighter stationed and there is also a carrier on the adjacent sea territory - but no defending surface warship to fight the invaders in the same territory?
Do I understand the rules correctly, that the land-air-based fighter can scramble against the naval invading force - but the neighbouring carriers cannot help the defending fighter as there is no surface warship around?
I would prefer having the same rules and restrictions for scrambling from a land based air base as from a carrier.
Yes, only the plane from the airbase can scramble to the sea zone.
-
-
Factories in Russia: Originally owned Factory Minors in Russia are destroyed upon capture by the Axis.
Means: If Germany takes Ukraine it will be destroyed. But after Germany owns Ukraine for a turn and builds a mIC on it it will not be destroyed the entire game anymore regardless of switching the owner back and forth, correct?
Thank you for clarification on that in advance.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas that is correct. only the original factory is destroyed. subsequently built factories remain.
-
Can retreat from a battle with only AA Guns but not from a battle with only defending transports. Is that intentional?
-
@simon33 yes. AA is a combat unit that can be taken as a casualty in the course of battle, so is different than a transport, which is not.
-
Is it correct that mech inf now defend on a 3 if paired with an armour? This seems a bit OP to me…even with the extra cost factored in.
-
@wizmark hey Wizmark. That is correct. Mechs now defend at 3 when accompanied by a tank. As far as whether the unit is OP, lets crunch the numbers!.. . . Adam, take it away.
Suggested Topics
