@jkprince indeed 🙂
Thank you both for your interest!
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
-Is the game still balanced without national objectives?
-Wouldn’t it be more correct setting up Ireland and Iran as true neutral?
-
You could calculate the NO’s impact on balance by determining what percentage of each sides production in a typical game consists of NO income. That would actually be an interesting inquiry, but it’s not particularly relevant for our purposes. The main reason we retained National Objectives in PTV is for their positive effect on gameplay (they induce players to contest areas that would otherwise see little action, and provide interim goals on the way to victory), and to enhance historical accuracy.
As for the political standing of Ireland and Persia:
Historically Persia was invaded early on by the Soviets and British, and the entire country was commandeered and used as a base of operations by the Allies. Setting Persia to “Strict Neutral” would ensure that this historical outcome almost never happened in the game.
Ireland was technically neutral, but as cursory glance at the internet reveals, it leaned heavily towards the Allies in practice. . . they supplied men, they gave Allies preferential POW treatment etc. I have no doubt that if the UK were deadset on enlisting Ireland as a base of operations in the war effort, it could have done so. “Pro-Allied Neutral” correctly captures Irelands true standing in the war, in my opinion.
-
When UK controls Yenisey, it is converted to UK-EU and not UK-Pac. Timguska and Evenkiyskiy, which are the border, are correct though.
-
@trulpen thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Version 5.1 is now available for download (you’ll have to delete and reinstall the map if you want to see these corrections). The only changes are:
-
Clarified wording on “Atlantic Wall” national objective to specify “German” land units.
-
Corrected alignment of Yenisey to “UK_Pacific” when captured by British.
-
-
@regularkid Did you check the russian territories to the east as well?
-
@trulpen i checked all of them and only Yenisey was a problem I think.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen i checked all of them and only Yenisey was a problem I think.
Great!
-
Question, wouldn’t it be appropriate that Japan has one more inf in Kwangsi at the start? I’m sure you’ve mulled over that issue a lot, so you probably have good reasons.
There is one more inf than in OOB already, but three territories to potentially grab instead of one. Also the sb’s being less of an attack-force makes Yunnan pretty shaky if only going in with 3-4 land units.
Perhaps the idea is that Japan has to have a tough choice and likely skips Hunan, and maybe even Kweichow as well, to secure a conquest of Yunnan?
-
Anyway, if I got a 3-bid with Axis, that’s where I’d put it without a blink.
-
Both Iran and Ireland should have been true neutral even having pro-allied Greece is questionable. I don’t think Greece would join Allies if Italy didn’t attack.
-
@Navalland that is true, but this game isn’t exactly historical. Most features exist to make it balanced.
-
@WindowWasher said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@Navalland that is true, but this game isn’t exactly historical. Most features exist to make it balanced.
On such a note, I don’t know about you guys, but in all of my P2V-games (think it’s about 8 now) Russia has DOWed against Japan 100 % in round 3-4. I’ve played both sides.
Clearly the solution for BM3 did a much better job of keeping tension in the Siberian region.
-
@trulpen Yes and no…I would say that at least 80% of the time in the games I have played recently, both BM3 and p2V Russia DOWs against japan…those 2 rich spaces next to Amur are too tempting to not hit, especially if japan has vacated the north to attack the south.
The only game it hasnt happened is a team game against the BrAetv where japan has a factory in manch…and a big army! -
That’s a huge commitment which might cost Japan dearly in the long run.
-
@trulpen not essentially, bc J had still all his TT’s.
But I screwed up my positioning ( oversaw two planes and an additional sub.Anyway, as long as your IJN is strong and you still got your TT’s then you are allways in the benefit to shift them arround.
( Push the Allies out of reach).
Depending on the state of game of course! -
Having Japanese tanks marching towars Central Asia is one of the biggest blunder in A&A WWII scenarios. It just totally eliminate all WWII feelings and this feature is not a must for balance either.
Banning Russo-Japanese front would be bad too. Better approach is reducing Japan’s power, mixing 1 Pu and 0 Pu territories between Irkutsk-Vladivostok and making it vulnerable to lose Dutch colonies. Having Chinese cavalry would be helpfull too hence China-Soviets can set up stronger defense together in Soviet Far East.
-
My UK Pacific units, placed in Eastern India, are not turning British at the end of the turn. Is this happening to anyone else?
-
@CaptainNapalm. Hey, I just tested it on version 5.1, and there was no issue with the UK Pacific un its not turning British. I didn’t encounter this problem with any of the earlier versions either. If you’d like, you can send me a saved game file, and I can check it out.
-
@trulpen hey Trulpen. I think we are pretty content with the early-game balance in China atm. A risk averse Japanese player can get 100% odds on Yunnan, all but guaranteeing that he will take it with at least one land-unit remaining by attacking with the full Kwangsi stack, and two bombers from Japan. If he wants to take a chance on Yunnan by also going for the other adjacent territories, that’s certainly his prerogative. But it shouldn’t be a risk-free proposition. What makes the game interesting and fun is having to make strategic choices, calculated risks, and living with the consequences.
-
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@WindowWasher said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@Navalland that is true, but this game isn’t exactly historical. Most features exist to make it balanced.
On such a note, I don’t know about you guys, but in all of my P2V-games (think it’s about 8 now) Russia has DOWed against Japan 100 % in round 3-4. I’ve played both sides.
Clearly the solution for BM3 did a much better job of keeping tension in the Siberian region.
@trulpen thanks for the feedback. There’s a pretty lengthy discussion about this issue earlier in this thread.
As stated there, the reason the Sino-Soviet dynamic is different in PTV than in BM is not the Lend Lease/Mongolia rules It’s the factory in Amur combined with Russia’s extra income.
If you removed the factory, you would have the pretty much the same dynamic in the far east as exists in BM. I’m confident of this.
On the other hand, if you were to import the BM lend lease rules exactly to PTV, the impact would be negligible. It would not change the fact that Russia has the factory, and the financial means to use it to wage an offensive campaign against Japan early on.
Suggested Topics
