WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

  • '19 '17 '16

    Was any thought made to having a 2 turn build for BBs and CVs?


  • @simon33 we absolutely did. The idea we batted around in the early stages of PTV development was to have a “standard” carrier build, which would take two rounds to complete, and a substantially more expensive expedited carrier build, which would take only one turn. We even looked into how this could be coded (it’s definitely doable, if a bit complex).

    Ultimately, we went in another direction: keeping the same carrier build time, but requiring an undamaged naval base for their construction.

  • '19 '17 '16

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

    @simon33 we absolutely did. The idea we batted around in the early stages of PTV development was to have a “standard” carrier build, which would take two rounds to complete, and a substantially more expensive expedited carrier build, which would take only one turn. We even looked into how this could be coded (it’s definitely doable, if a bit complex).

    Ultimately, we went in another direction: keeping the same carrier build time, but requiring an undamaged naval base for their construction.

    Interesting idea about the expedited build. Is that really historically accurate? Didn’t they just build things as fast as they could to start the next one sooner? If you don’t like the requirement to wait two turns why not provide an escort carrier with only 1 hit and 1 plane carried, for say, 12IPCs.

    The adopted approach is at least an order of magnitude less significant than the two turn builds.


  • @simon33 did some research on it when considering the idea. It took well over a year to build fleet carriers. Capital ships took even longer (e.g., the U.S.S. Missouri was completed in three years).

    Briefly considered adding escort carriers as well, but ultimately went with the existing unit roster (albeit with some minor tweaks) to increase ease of adoptability for Global players.

  • 2021 '20 '19 '18 '17

    Hopefully this is a good place to get a rule clarification on this rule: "Revised Plane Landing Rules: It is legal to land air on newly built carriers. However, it is not legal to make a combat move that is only possible because of a newly built carrier. "

    The turn in question is the American round 11 turn found here:

    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36206/owentoo-axis-vs-simon33-allies-ptv/175?page=7

    The Americans launched 4 aircraft from CVs in 89 to attack SZ 105 (3 zones away) and then recovered the 2 surviving aircraft onto a newly built CV in 104. I feel that is illegal, and the Americans should have moved one of the launching CVs from 89 to either 91, 92 or 106 to recover the surviving aircraft.

    What say our PTV developers?

  • '19 '17 '16

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

    Hopefully this is a good place to get a rule clarification on this rule: "Revised Plane Landing Rules: It is legal to land air on newly built carriers. However, it is not legal to make a combat move that is only possible because of a newly built carrier. "

    The turn in question is the American round 11 turn found here:

    https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36206/owentoo-axis-vs-simon33-allies-ptv/175?page=7

    The Americans launched 4 aircraft from CVs in 89 to attack SZ 105 (3 zones away) and then recovered the 2 surviving aircraft onto a newly built CV in 104. I feel that is illegal, and the Americans should have moved one of the launching CVs from 89 to either 91, 92 or 106 to recover the surviving aircraft.

    What say our PTV developers?

    OwenToo feels that this is ridiculous. For my part, I never understood why the rule was changed in this way. The only real problem I had with the old rule is that losses could allow you to build the CV in another location.

  • '19 '17

    @owentoo You can only make a move that’s legal with the units on the board, but you can land anywhere including on newly built carriers. It’s to prevent a somewhat cheesy attack with a big carrier buy to make your aircraft that would normally be too far away to attack and land able to reach (typically by the sea zone near Japan).

  • '19 '17 '16

    @adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    @owentoo You can only make a move that’s legal with the units on the board, but you can land anywhere including on newly built carriers. It’s to prevent a somewhat cheesy attack with a big carrier buy to make your aircraft that would normally be too far away to attack and land able to reach (typically by the sea zone near Japan).

    Was that move really a problem? You would only be able to attack the Midway SZ, nowhere else important.

    So to clarify then, my move was legal.

  • '19 '17

    @simon33 I don’t understand the first part of your comment, but if you had the correct amount of landing spots on the board for the attack, after that you can land anywhere you want.

  • '19 '17 '16

    Not sure what part you are confused by? If you want me to explain, perhaps quote the bit.


  • @adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    @simon33 I don’t understand the first part of your comment, but if you had the correct amount of landing spots on the board for the attack, after that you can land anywhere you want.

    The rule was changed to prevent gamey carrier builds and as a slight nerf to carriers generally.

    There’s also a real world consideration: a carrier-based WW2 fighter could sortie for seven or eight hours max–not enough time to construct a carrier for the eventual landing.

    In practice, the unavailability of this “emergency carrier build to land a plane” is an improvement to the game’s realism and requires more careful advance coordination for naval/air movement. Its a win/win.

  • '19 '17

    @simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    Was that move really a problem? You would only be able to attack the Midway SZ, nowhere else important.

    I don’t know what you mean by this.

  • '19 '17 '16

    Well, the only important place Japan could conceivably attack from SZ6 in BM was SZ25. Or were you worried about USA mobilising CVs from a Korea Factory to attack the Japanese fleet utilising planes from San Francisco?

  • '19 '17

    @simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    Well, the only important place Japan could conceivably attack from SZ6 in BM was SZ25. Or were you worried about USA mobilising CVs from a Korea Factory to attack the Japanese fleet utilising planes from San Francisco?

    No, I meant the numerous examples of US ships in sz6 being attacked/deadzoned by Japanese air that wouldn’t reach if not for a carrier buy.

  • '19 '17 '16

    It’s really only planes from FIC which can do this but now can’t. Technically Palau or Kwangsi.

  • 2022 2021 '20 '19

    Errata for PTV rules/objectives: Objectives for Germany: 2 PUs for German controlled Iraq or NW Persia or should read “Southern” Persia. Currently only states “Persia”. Italy’s Objective already changed “Persia” to “Southern Persia”.


  • Hey, guys. Version 6.1 of PTV is now available for download. There were no substantive changes. We simply corrected game notes and objectives panel to reflect: (1) that the Iraq/Persia National Objectives for Italy and Germany include Southern Persia, and (2) that Japan’s garrison requirement for China excludes AA guns. Enjoy!


  • Hey all. Version 6.2 of the map is available for download now.

    No substantive changes were made. Just corrected a cosmetic issue with Mexico, and added some clarifications to the Game Notes. You can continue to play the old version, or update to the new one, since they’re cross compatible. Enjoy.


  • STREAMING ON TWITCH TONIGHT:

    @Adam514 and I will be playing @mikawagunichi and @avandoo in a live game of WW2 Path to Victory. The game will be streamed in its entirety, with live commentary from Adam and me.

    Come hang out. Have a snack. Talk some A&A.

    Time: 10 pm EST, tonight.

    Place: https://www.twitch.tv/dudewithopinions

    PTVontwitch.png


  • Version 6.4 of PTV is now available for download. The revisions are non-substantive and backwards compatible with earlier versions of the game.

    The changes:

    1. Updated Objectives Panel to reflect that Russia’s “Lend Lease” objectives only kick in from Round 3 and later;

    2. Updated Game Notes to specify that the harbor in Southern France may be used by Axis Forces while under Vichy control.

    To update your version of the game, delete the old version and reinstall through the Download Maps screen.

    Enjoy!


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

    […] we definitely aren’t planning on just copying Global 1940 tech, thats for sure. We’re looking to do a complete revamp if there’s enough support for it.

    I want to propose some basic thoughts for tech rules, but am btw no native speaker of English.

    My main idea is the first part of the following sequence (without claiming any detail):

    • A nation can pay 2 PU and gets one technology offered by rolling a die.
    • Then it can either pass or pay 7 PU for assigning its development department i.e. rolling a die again in order to determine if research will be successful.
    • Given that it has been, the technology comes into effect at end of round.
    • In case of failure die is rerolled next rounds for only 1 PU - with the option to buy non-recycling further dice for 5 PU each.
    • Maybe it shall be even possible to start one additional research for another tech.

    Any technology already developped by any ally is available without Step 1.
    Any technology already developped by any nation is available without rolling a die in Step 1.

    Suggested technologies:
    (i) Rockets (default)
    (ii) Advanced Artillery (default) + Improved Mech (CanBlitz)
    (iii) Heavy Bombers (default) + Long-Range Aircraft (operative air bases give 1 additional point of movement range also for landing there)
    (iv) Radar (coming into effect immediately)
    (v) Paratroopers
    1 Infantry unit in each territory with an operative air base can be moved to an enemy-controlled territory 3 or fewer spaces away.
    The number of paratroopers together with other land units attacking from adjacent territories and/or by amphibious assault must be higher than the PU value of the attacked territory!
    When moving, paratroopers must obey the same restrictions that air units do. If the territory being attacked has AAA (antiaircraft artillery) units OR FACILITIES, the paratrooper infantry units are subject to antiaircraft fire in the same way as air units. If attacking along with land units from adjacent territories, paratroopers may retreat as normal.
    (vi) Fortified coastlines
    Operative (?) naval bases defend with 1 destroyer or 1 sub against amphibious assaults without preceding sea combat or otherwise with 1 infantry unit.

    Notes little OT:
    [A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.

    [B] @fmerwinrommel said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

    My other recently posted suggested change to G40 was having minor ICs and air and naval bases receive max damage when captured.

    after combat occurred.

  • 2022 2021 '20

    @pacifiersboard
    [A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.

    Wow. That would be a major change in the game strategy in the Pacific!! Would this apply to NOs as well i.e., DEI +5 bonus?

    It can be hard to get islands and hold for a round, and because the Japanese are all by themselves (generally).

    I would think this rule would REALLY favor the Allies. In fact, it essentially stalls all countries production levels by one turn…thus the Germans and Japanese will be slowed by 1 round at the beginning of the game, ie. the Germans would be stuck at 30 IPCs the first 2 turns+ the 19 French $$!!. The Allies are not usually gaining territory then and so not affect them the same. Those lost IPCs early will snowball in the later stages of the game.

    Later when the two sides are trading territory, neither gains and since the Allies have more money to start, they will gain in the long run.

    Maybe you could implement this change after Turn xx in the game as the production gets closer to the same–not sure when that should be.

    I can’t comment on the technology aspect as I never play with it as it adds too much randomness to the game. However, you had the comment:

    Any technology already developped by any ally is available without Step 1.
    Any technology already developped by any nation is available without rolling a die in Step 1.

    I’m guessing these are mutually exclusive additional rules to the 5 bullet point rules…you pick one of them.

    I like the second option best “any tech 1 country has, everyone else can get without rolling die in step 1” because the my main concern with technology rules is the game becomes unbalanced, but that’s a discussion for another room in this forum…
    At least with this rule, there is an initial payment to get a tech, and everyone else can “catch-up” with typically a lesser payment.

  • '19 '17 '16

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

    [A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.

    This idea has been proposed before. I would be interested to try it but I am not sure it is achievable in Triple-A without change. I kind of think though that it would make Sea Lion way too hard and effectively take that off the table for the early game. So I would think you would need some setup changes, not sure what.


  • @pacifiersboard I agree with Surfer and SImon that the proposed change on income collection would massively benefit the Allies (to the detriment of game balance).

    One other (perhaps unintended) consequence: there would be an even greater advantage to having your territory liberated by an ally, as opposed to retaking it yourself. I’m not sure there is a real-world analog for this.

    What purpose would the rule-change serve?

    As far as the tech tree proposals: quite a few neat ideas, but many would be difficult/impossible to implement in TripleA. I like the reduced barriers to entry for techs that already exist in the world.

  • '19 '17 '16

    A few points

    • Not sure I like the two sea zones for the Caroline Islands. 1 zone with a separate sea zone for Palau played better - Can’t see the logical reason why should have to decide whether you want to be in range of SZ6 or New Zealand or Hawaii. Also not being in range of Java is a bit annoying too. But possibly being in range of Malaya is a bit interesting.
    • The Kyushu <-> SZ20 link makes it much easier to get troops onto China and FIC. This seems to help Japan against China a fair bit. Not as much difficulty ferrying troops to FIC.
    • I still despise the partition of SZ38 - it is now necessary to give Japan a bid, normally a TT, which makes it hard for the allies if everything works properly for the Axis. Starting to see a possible rationale, in that if Australia falls early Japan can win convincingly but surely that is sub optimal allied play and we shouldn’t be changing the map for that.

Suggested Topics

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

41
Online

16.2k
Users

37.9k
Topics

1.6m
Posts