WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread


  • @surfer yup agreed. It will require a combat ship.


  • Then with land-scramble an aa won’t do the trick?

  • '17 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    Can we get an official map picture showing all these changes, I think i may want to make a custom map for this-

  • '20 '16

    @trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    Then with land-scramble an aa won’t do the trick?

    AAA is a combat unit, so it would work.


  • @CaptainNapalm said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    @trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    Then with land-scramble an aa won’t do the trick?

    AAA is a combat unit, so it would work.

    It’s about as much a combat-unit as a trannie. It doesn’t have an attack value and a special defence value.

  • '19 '17

    @Imperious-Leader said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    Can we get an official map picture showing all these changes, I think i may want to make a custom map for this-

    Not sure what you mean. This map is on TripleA.

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Question about revised carrier rules as presented in Triple A notes:

    Last sentence says “Otherwise, the planes may land in any adjacent territory”.

    This should include open, undamaged aircraft carriers within 1 movement point away (adjacent sea zones), too, right?

    I know this is fairly nitpicky, but I can see this potentially being a problem between players in the middle of a game, thanks.


  • Should be, in accordance with the rules.

  • '19 '17

    @gamerman01 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    Question about revised carrier rules as presented in Triple A notes:

    Last sentence says “Otherwise, the planes may land in any adjacent territory”.

    This should include open, undamaged aircraft carriers within 1 movement point away (adjacent sea zones), too, right?

    I know this is fairly nitpicky, but I can see this potentially being a problem between players in the middle of a game, thanks.

    Yeah that wording was changed in later versions, you can land in any viable landing spot with your 1 movement after the battle if your original carrier/territory is no longer a viable landing spot.

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Probably a known issue, but I was trying my first move on PTV (I hope this is the right place to post a technical issue) and Triple A wouldn’t let the plane on Korea go 1 space to Zone 20. To attack Hong Kong I had to use edit mode.

    Thanks

  • '19 '17

    @gamerman01 There was a map change, you’re still looking at the old map overlay while the code (saved game) was started on the new version of the map. Korea is fully enclosed in sz7 in the new version, hence why it takes 2 moves to get to sz20. You need to delete the existing PTV map and then install it again.

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Thank you very much, it helps that you were so fast

  • '19 '17 '16

    @Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    @gamerman01 There was a map change, you’re still looking at the old map overlay while the code (saved game) was started on the new version of the map. Korea is fully enclosed in sz7 in the new version, hence why it takes 2 moves to get to sz20. You need to delete the existing PTV map and then install it again.

    If you can get the developers to move on the map version, users will be prompted to do this. Not sure who is your resident “git” expert.


  • @simon33 the version numbers have changed in the YAML every time we’ve issue a major update.

    You can use the “update” option (rather than manually deleting and reinstalling the map) by simply clicking “DOWNLOAD MAPS,” then “GOOD QUALITY” and then selecting “UPDATES” and it will give you the opportunity to download the most recent version.

  • '20 '16

    Japan just conquered the Siberia, and the factory was not destroyed. Is this a game issue, new map(which I think I have), or Triple A 2.0(which I don’t have)?

  • '19 '17

    @CaptainNapalm It was a bug, fixed in future iterations of the map.


  • After having played 1½ games of P2V I’d like to say that I really like the feel of game-play regarding both Russia and China, and more specifically the german and japanese conquest thereof. You guys have done a very good job!

    In OOB it is just a simple max throttle towards Moscow getting that train into motion for a secure capital take-down á la Crushia. After having done it 2-3 times it becomes rather boring. Like an overly prolonged opening. Japan can go for a J1DOW which spices things up, but otherwise has not much more to do than getting into position and send punches on China.

    In BM3 play is much richer and heading more towards the long-term economic game. I like it, but still view Russia and China as a ather single-minded approach with pretty much similarity to OOB. Of course with some apparent differences, like that an early sack of Moscow is not easy to execute at all.

    With P2V I get a much more a sensation of strategic goals and gains. In Russia there are now actually atleast two pretty divided fronts. Russia is super-strong, but also has to handle heavy pushing from several directions.

    Think I read something that @AndrewAAGamer wrote before commencing his first game in P2V recently, namely that he’d plan to focus on the Atlantic instead of pushing against Russia because he wouldn’t be able to take the capital swiftly. It’s true, but also only half the truth.

    I think it’s still very viable to make that Barbarossa-endeavour, but it will just look a bit different in P2V. Mechs are rather expensive all of a sudden, so much more bulk of the army has to be inf and art. Progress is slower, but still strong if patient.

    I really like it when Germany pushes strongly both north and south. They have to make a lot of choices. Something that however also applies to Russia. In the previous maps it was a rather just simple recipe of first hold Bryansk, then hold Moscow. Of course with a lot of skirmishes in between, but still. Should be so much more fun to play a Russia like this!

    The same goes for China. It’s stronger in P2V and thus has the potential of playing a more important role. Not that it was truly insignificant in previous versions, like the French, but still more limited.

    In P2V Japan has to choose more strongly whether to unleash towards China or UK-Pac. The latter is likely prefered, but yet, the northern territories are more easily contested in the early game and does carry with them some lucrative bounty. Also, if unchecked the chinese will be, as usual, a severe pain in the ass!

    So, towards the middle-ground and maybe some constructive feedback. I experience that the simplification of the Russian-Mongolian Pact is not making the game better. As it stand there’s no real biggie with provocation there.

    Japan could happily make a sweep towards Sibiria already J1 if they were not more importantly occupied elsewhere. The 8 inf is a deterrent, but the Land Lease NO in BM3 makes Japan to really think twice when or if they should DOW on Russia. Without it Russia also has almost no incentive at all to hold back on a DOW and intrusion.

    Maybe it’s for the better. I’m not sure. I believe it does make early DOW in the north pretty much standard with Russia as the common aggressor, while especially in BM3 it wasn’t certain. For me, I like the trickier decisions and strategic tension better.


  • @trulpen excellent post. Thanks for your kind words regarding the map.

    As for “Lendlease Incentives” vs. “Auto-Mongolia Incentive,” we had considerable negative pushback on BM regarding the more complex structuring the lendlease NO, and its interaction with Japanese/Russian relations. That was one of the reasons we opted to simplify it, while giving Mongolia additional infantry in order to make the incentives stronger.

    I do think there has been an increase in DOWs between Russia and Japan in PTV, but i would not characterize it as now the “standard” move. I would estimate that in maybe 50% of the games, there is war between Russia and Japan by the end of round six. To avoid it, Japan has to keep units back, and that is precisely the point.

    If further play-testing reveals that it is much higher than 50% or that has become the “standard” move (clearly, the ahistorical move should not be the “standard” move), we will make further changes.

    Great feedback.


  • @regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    As for “Lendlease Incentives” vs. “Auto-Mongolia Incentive,” we had considerable negative pushback on BM regarding the more complex structuring the lendlease NO, and its interaction with Japanese/Russian relations. That was one of the reasons we opted to simplify it, while giving Mongolia additional infantry in order to make the incentives stronger.

    Thanks!

    I think that the Lend-Lease incentive in BM3 (where a JDOW gives Russia potentially more income) is a great addition compared to OOB. You just heard from all the haters, that’s all. 😉

    In OOB it is a no-brainer for J to chew up the Soviet East very early. A standard move is to move an inf and tank immediately to Siberia on J1. Consequence of DOW is none, while the release of mongolian hordes is a nuiscance, but still not too worrysome to not be worth it.

    I think you found a very good and balanced mechanic with BM3. Russia wants J to DOW, while J wants Russia to DOW and very often noone does until perhaps turn 7 or 8 if J is strong enough to pursue some conquest.

    Ok, this is last part is for another thread (namely feedback for BM3), but I think a good change would be that Russia not only has to DOW in order to go into Korea after a US-landing, but that soviet prescence in originally owned japanese territories bordering Mongolia should also put the defence pact out of play.

  • 2022 2021 '20

    Completely agree with @trulpen. Sure it’s a little complicated, but it really is an effective barrier for both sides. A great compromise = both sides lose equally, and this is in that category.

  • '20 '19

    I agree as well for what it is worth, it makes for an edgy standoff…who has the strength to move first?

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Yes, you might have just heard from the squeaky wheels.

    Consider reducing Mongolia back to 6 infantry and keep the double lend-lease penalty if Japan declares war. Reinstate the Mongolia rule (after all, it has been in the rulebook for many years now so people should have figured out how it works by now) about territories bordering it, and consider the requirement for Russia to declare war to enter Korea even if it’s controlled by an ally.

    Or better yet (although this would be a new rule) don’t allow Russian and American ground troops to occupy the same territory on the Pacific map (because of history). I could even see a rule that no allied GROUND units are allowed to enter Russian territories (entire world, not UK, USA, Australia or French), and no I don’t expect anyone to listen to me. Some things to think about… But since you’ve buffed Russia and made it bigger, maybe it’s time to get more historical and make her operate with no allied ground troops. (Still have the NO for no Allied units at all in Russia, with allied air still being allowed to operate in Russia, but disrupting the NO as it has been)


  • @gamerman01 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    Or better yet (although this would be a new rule) don’t allow Russian and American ground troops to occupy the same territory on the Pacific map (because of history). I could even see a rule that no allied GROUND units are allowed to enter Russian territories (entire world), and no I don’t expect anyone to listen to me. Some things to think about… But since you’ve buffed Russia and made it bigger, maybe it’s time to get more historical and make her operate with no allied ground troops. (Still have the NO for no Allied units at all in Russia, with allied air still being allowed)

    I think it’s a good historical approach, but would be taxing on playability. Besides, if history would’ve been different and Japan started an invasion of Siberia and Germany succeeding better by Leningrad and such, then I’m sure Mother Russia would’ve welcomed any additions whatsoever to it’s battered teets.

    Has history went, they just didn’t have to. Or?

  • 2022 '15 '11 '10 Official Q&A Moderator

    Enjoy the post, but I can’t see Russia welcoming British or American troops, no matter what 🙂

    And the game already has them hauling in the financial aid 🙂 Do we finally have a version where Russia can stand strong without any allied ground troops? I’m just starting to actually play PTV, but are people regularly saving Russia with actual allied ground troops?

    Even in BM3, how often are allied ground troops infused into Russia? Isn’t it kind of rare anyway?

    I just was thinking about your Korea suggestion, and ran with it.


  • I would say more or less no. It’s longer distances, so more difficult. Russia is stronger, so not as needed. But, in some instances I believe it would make sence.

    Also the situation of US building a mIC in Norway. Oh, they can’t move their land units further than Finland? Oups, that just made the mIC so much less good. 🙂

    Maybe that would be for the better though? Taking some sting out of the powerful Norwegian Enterprise. Although I suspect it would be for the worse, making Normandie the only rational option and thereby limiting play in that area.

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

67
Online

16.1k
Users

37.7k
Topics

1.6m
Posts