Very interesting. In reality, it’s even a bit worse for the Axis, since they did reach their peak territorial conquest in all theaters simultaneously.
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
@simon33 absolutely. You did the right thing by going full Pacific, imo. All I’m saying is Japan is still stronk.
-
It surprised me how difficult it has been to retake Hawaii. I knew you could take it but I thought I would be able to reclaim it relatively easily.
-
@regularkid I think the split is great! For all the reasons you state.
-
As for the Malaya VC add, I think it would be better if that 7th VC in the Pacific would be a city that would be harder to take with Japan, but not too hard (for example Wellington, Vancouver, Vladivostok).
-
@Amon-Sul, we added Malaya as a VC (and increased the Pacific victory requirements to 7 VCs) in order to make holding Malaya essential to Japanese victory. This effectively gives the Allies another way to stop Japan from achieving its victory conditions. That was our main goal.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul, we added Malaya as a VC (and increased the Pacific victory requirements to 7 VCs) in order to make holding Malaya essential to Japanese victory. This effectively gives the Allies another way to stop Japan from achieving its victory conditions. That was our main goal.
Its a step forward, but a small one I would say. (smaller then with some other cities).
-
Is Afghanistan supposed to be not connected with central India? It looks like it should be, but I tried moving units between the two areas and it did not work. Perhaps a bug?
-
@regularkid Quick rules question: Do CVs scramble to defend adjacent land even if there is no amphibious assault? I thought that was part of the original rule (maybe my misunderstanding), but the notes are seem to say they defend any adjacent land unit – regardless of how attacked.
-
If the rule is they do scramble, I would suggest a tweak that requires amphib assault to scramble. Just to further reduce the power of the all-mighty carrier in this game. Heck, my Germans are buying them in droves because of the mobile defense!
-
Yeah, no amphib required.
I think your suggestion undermines the intention of the CV scramble!
-
@ArmedAce fixed it.
-
@surfer hey. they can scramble to any adjoining land battle in which there are friendly defending units. doesn’t have to be an amphibious attack
also, can you link me to ur game where Germany is buying carriers to serve as mobile airbases. I wanna see what Russia is up to! :)
-
The game is here.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35977/l20-ptv-surfer-x-vs-wizmark-l-6/118I don’t see this as undermining the CV scramble rule as much as reducing the impact. The Japanese are ridiculously strong because of the CV rules. I like the complexity of the battles, but for the $$ value the CV is easily the best piece in the game.
-
Ok, feedback FWIW after several games.
- If the new scramble rules require require a surface warship or a land unit, why was this not retrofitted to the old scramble rules? Should be consistent.
- Disappointed the reduction in the Chinese Burma Rd objective was retained. This reduction reduced the fun of fighting in China.
- Guerrilla fighters are less of a factor and China is stronger. The merit of this rule is further reduced in P2V as opposed to BM.
- Like the Siberia IC although I am not so sure about it being in a coastal territory.
- Don’t understand the need for the complexity of removing Industrial complexes in USSR. If you don’t want Germany to take the Ukraine IC, just take it off the map. In Siberia, removing the IC if Japan lands makes it less valuable for Japan to do so.
- Leningrad is no longer connected to the Barents Sea. This improves realism but I am less keen on not having a naval base or airbase on the Barents Sea. I think there should be an airbase on Karelia and a naval base either on Karelia or Archangel.
- No universal scramble?
- No paratroopers?
- Canada losing its production in a sea lion game is still pretty dumb.
- Japan’s income has been migrated from the money islands to increased objectives. I can’t see anything good about this idea. Fighting over the money islands was a fun aspect and this has been reduced.
- Less objectives can be more. Increasing everyone’s income without increase the number of starting troops as significantly tends to make the game last longer. Perhaps this is an intended outcome, not sure really. Not really sure why the Carolines etc objective should be extended to Japan.
- Like the Malta airbase.
- Positively hate the partition of SZ38
- Pacific victory is almost impossible without a near complete abandonment of the Pacific by the allies or some major miscue.
- Interesting that the reduction in bomber attack power reduces the odds on Taranto with no other changes.
-
Simon,
Interesting thoughts.
What do U mean by sz 38?
-
@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
What do U mean by sz 38?
Not sure I understand the question. What in OOB was SZ37 became SZ38, the coast of Malaya, in early versions of P2V. Later versions split this into SZ38 & SZ132 the FIC and Calcutta coasts are now for sea squares away. Makes it hard for Japan to challenge UK_Pacific.
-
The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.
-
@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.
Intensely dislike if that works better for you.
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.
Intensely dislike if that works better for you.
Perhaps ”abhorringly averted”?
I fully agree (sorry @regularkid for not being available on discord).
-
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.
Intensely dislike if that works better for you.
Perhaps ”abhorringly averted”?
No, I think I don’t get it.
Suggested Topics
