WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion

@Gargantua said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@Gargantua The Allies did delay taking Paris even though they could have earlier in the real war. There are situations where taking Paris back is advisable, and it is useful to the Germans because of the factory and the airbase. Fast units are more expensive to mass just for defense too. If we give the option of liberating France, it would never be liberated and would be kept in US/UK hands.

The irony of this argument is, as is, Paris doesn’t get liberated.

It’s just awkwardly ignored by both parties, save the rather rare situations it’s “advisable”. Which is exactly what I am suggesting we avoid.

And in terms of historical reality, the French government (4th republic) was not actually re-established until AFTER the war In 1946. Prior to that it was simply DeGaulles provisional govt under US/UK protection, which is essentially what I am proposing.

I’m glad we are having a discussion about this issue because it’s been glaring for a decade :)

Maybe the “free men” bonus could be adjusted in a way to make liberating it more common or desired. If people got 10 free inf they might do it. Or maybe after Paris is liberated first time, any French Controlled factories get free infantry or something. Whether they have an income or not.

Or perhaps USA or UK can use French controlled factories.

Or via the Vichy shift, perhaps French territories can be treated like dutch ones, activateable by allies on NCM. If Paris is recaptured, French territories will then revert to whichever allied powers are in those territories. On their non combat turns.

Either way… we ought to try to break up this gimmick

Yes that was my suggestion where make it worth it for allies

The Allies usually have a very strong situation at the west front as it is. A more favourable liberation of Paris would upset things quite a bit. You would simply need some substantial benifits for the Axis to counter-weigh that change.

Any modification of the original rules should still strive to keep as much of the original as possible. To have a separate liberation-rule for France is not feasible, I think.

@GEN-MANSTEIN

Yeah, I just struggle so hard with the concept, that for Germany, it’s more often to their benefit to lose Paris lol, and it’s often more advisable for Germany to abandon Paris than it is advisable for the allies to liberate it.

It’s crazy.

Like saving private Ryan, where the captain Miller and Hamill talk

“Captain Hamill:
You got to take Caen so you can take Saint Lo.

Captain Miller:
You’ve got to take Saint Lo to take Valognes.

Captain Hamill:
Valognes you got Cherbourg.

Captain Miller:
Cherbourg you got Paris.

Captain Hamill:
Paris you got Berlin.

Captain Miller:
And then that big boat home.“

Losing Paris needs to be a MAJOR threat to euro axis. Not some calculable advantage, a MAJOR disadvantage to the allies and a big laugh.

But then you should do the same with Calcutta, Moscow and Rome and so on, no?

@trulpen not at all.

You don’t see Vichy India or Vichy Russia.

France gets treated differently in all variants of BM. The game presents a geographically problem with two capitals so close., and hence why France is a special case. Not too differently than the Dutch or Mongolia are also special cases.

And because its already a special case scenario, minor adjustments to it arent off base in my mind.

Might be, might be.

To further clarify. I’m trying to SOLVE a problem here, not create new ones. I have no interest in any special cases or goofy conditions.

My aim is to make things more seamless and fluid. And actually open up the western front.

You know if Germany goes mostly all out for Moscow then the allies should be taking Paris. Or having a good chance too. Germany should be weak on one of there fronts east or west.
But then this is g40.

@GEN-MANSTEIN Germany can’t do everything in PTV.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

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.

This would do it, except it would need to be just France and one other french territory (or just France), not all three (i think), the allies cant take and hold the 3 territories, and when they can, it’s already futile the war has been won.

It’s gotta be that the french can place 3 infantry a round on two factories in Europe for it to be worth it to the allies. If they cant, it results in factories not being used to their full extent, right on the front.

If the allies control Africa, Normandy and France, the French are earning 13+5 (the proposed french objective) = 18 IPCs, enough to produce on the factories which makes taking France back not such a bad thing for the allies.

Could go more simple

France does not collect. Ever. Instead, any free french factory in Europe, held from the beginning of the French turn, gets 3 free infantry.

This would make it a major priority for axis not to lose Paris. Whilst not giving the allies some ridiculous attack or advantage, but rather, slow defensive civilian support.

It also takes away the axis choice to ignore factories that have converted to free French.

This would give us battle in France game we want.

Alternates to this could be proposed but I think this fits the bill best because it’s simple.

For balance with this idea. I think the $12 free French stuff on liberation and the $5 us Paris NO would go.

Whilst still not perfect, the allies getting a possible 9 free extra inf per turn In a fully liberated France would be huge, and the axis would have to rapidly respond (which let’s be honest is easy for them to do).

A real battle of the bulge may actually occur!

So what you’re really saying is that you think the Allies should always win? 😁

Germany has quite clearly a lot weaker position in P2V than BM3, and more so than OOB. Making Paris into a game-breaker will need them to protect it at all costs, making any progress in the east futile.

This is atleast not what I want for the game.

I reiterate. P2V is likely Allied-biased as it is.

If you counter that Paris-change with 2-3 new German NOs, maybe it could be possible, but then there’s the risk of things just spinning out of hand (like in every nation will need som extras).

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.

@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.

How sad. ;)