I’m new to P2V but like what I’ve seen so far and think this will be my favorite version of global.

I think the combination of the added NOs in the Pacific along with the Jap CA & marine at the Carolines brings back the possibility of the Pearl Harbor attack being viable. I did this in a play test vs myself with the following moves:

3 fig, 3 tac, 1 SS, 1 DD to Pearl
CA + marine to SZ 33/Gilbert Islands
TT from SZ 7 to SZ 32/Wake Island
2 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 SS, 2 TT to SZ 36, take both Philippines territories

NC all 3 CVs to SZ 32 to land planes, replace any lost with those from Japan (should be 1)

1 DD to SZ 27 to block

1 CA left in SZ7 to pick up Marine built J1 which will take Guam on J2. CA/Marine that took Gilbert on J1 will take Wake on J2. That gives you both Pacific Island NOs.

Japan made 48 IPCs J1, 62 J2. The fleet that went to the Philippines J1 can take Borneo/Celebes J2, and Java/Sumatra J3 and kill the tiny UK or AZ fleets that may get in the way. By doing the PH attack you’ve taken out 2 of the 4 US ships which can carry troops and delayed their advance in the pacific by a turn. Also pretty much forces US to spend in the Pacific which helps Germany.

The re-drawn map has it’s advantages and disadvantages. The attacks I’ve laid out allow for single ships to take islands without fear of counterattack due to the extra SZs and the islands bordering multiple SZs. Since a Calcutta Crush is impossible with the extra SZ off Malaya, I think a more methodical strategy by Japan is optimal. Use your initial advantage to kill as many Allied ships as possible, thereby saving money which may otherwise be spent on ships to get more land units into China and heading south on TTs.

@andrewaagamer

If it’s a J1 attack then the US will already have the factory upgrades in rd1. So 4 bombers rd1, 6 bombers rd 2. As for the other planes, I fly all the planes the US starts with (assuming PHI is dead) to Hawaii. 4 can land on Hawaii, 2 on the carrier, then all down to Queensland next turn.

So if it’s only strats that can attack, and we assume the entire original IJN is in one sea zone minus 2 DDs assumed to be used for blocking, you’re looking at all 5 capital ships damaged, both DDs dead, and planes having to land on land. Then between UK and AZ you’ve got another 2 DDs, 2 CAs, and 6 planes to attack the wounded IJN, before even adding in any purchases. IJN may end up with a few ships left, but they will have to backtrack to a naval base to repair and join with newly purchased ships to create a fleet stronger than what the US has.

Also, if the IJN is parked off Malaya, the Allies need to hold only 1 territory bordering SZ 37 and the fg/tacs from Queensland can also join the attack.

Granted, a good Jap player probably won’t let this happen but the mere threat makes the entire corridor from Queensland/Malaya/DEI/India very treacherous to navigate. Typically the Japs will pull back to the Philippines to consolidate the fleet and have kamikaze’s available. But if they do that and therefore don’t kill India within the first 4-5 rounds, that’s already a big win for the allies. If the allies are able to take back any DEI before rd 4 that just provides even more landing spots for planes and less places the IJN can safely navigate. Hard to Japan to be a threat to win if you’ve cut them off from India and started to drain their income.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

@simon33 i like it! you’d need to be prepared to sacrifice air in the Pearl Harbor battle to save the destroyer though, or risk of a 58% hit on the japanese fleet by wake (by my calcs). But otherwise looks pretty solid to me. I might try this in a game.

Well, you can reinforce on NCM if needed.

i think even with max reinforcement of the wake seazone on ncm, u still need a destroyer by hawaii to prevent a 50/50 on the wake fleet. perhaps i’m overlooking something tho.

Pretty sure he meant send the DD to Hawaii on NM, not Wake. We’re just saying you dont’ want to send anything extra during combat because if US doesn’t scramble those units would be wasted.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Still a bit surprised by going for PH with 3CVs when 2+1 bomber would do. Seems like a compromise to enable attacking the UK BB. Third CV is really useful around the DEI.

If you need to go for Guam to stop the US objective, does that mean you aren’t taking Wake?

And you still aren’t taking Borneo then. Dislike that.

We are taking Borneo. To be clear the TTs/marine are allocated as follows:

2 TTs to Davao
1 TT to Borneo
1 TT to Guam
Marine to Gilberts

I’ve found PH attacks with only 2 CVs to not accomplish much. Having all 3 off Wake forces to US to play less aggressively for a turn, which gives you an extra turn to build up in the DEI and FiC. Also, assuming you buy mostly TTs J1, you have a real threat of taking Hawaii if US doesn’t block. If you only have 2 you need to start retreating them immediately on J2.

As Japan I’m fine with Anzac attacking Gilberts, that gives me an easy kill of their TT, and also their CA if they send it for the bombard. And one less TT for the allies to retake any DEIs.

Lastly, regarding Wake vs Guam J1: Wake is far easier for the US to retake later. And a TT off Guam can get units into China J2, whereas a TT off Wake will need 2 turns to do anything useful.

@simon33 we normally play with a 6 bid. We also normally do take Gilberts with the Marine. Send all 3 Carriers to land planes that attacked Pearl Harbor so you don’t need to take Wake to prevent counter attack. Extra TT is used to take Guam to prevent US from getting that NO.

We don’t take Celebes J1, save that for J2.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

If the Bid is at least 6 to the Axis, adding a TT in SZ7 and doing a J1 should be pretty awesome. You can claim the Carolines objective as well as doing the Pearl Harbour attack. Main risk being if the Borneo attack goes bad (even though above it was listed as 100%, it should be 98%). This also means you don’t have to worry about claiming that objective in later turns, which saves hassle for Japan. It is likely this will delay getting the DEI but that isn’t so important any more and it is better to grab all the other islands to stop ANZAC and USA objectives.

This is a pretty popular bid use in our group, with a slight variation. We usually put the TT with the Carolines fleet to use the inf there that are normally stranded while increasing the amount available for TTs to pick up from Japan on J2/J3. You can still get all the DEI on J2 if you are willing to sacrifice a TT in 45 (worth it from a net IPC perspective). The rest of the southern fleet can consolidate in 42 and be safe from a UK or AZ attack.

@malmessi74 Yeah, understandable. I am in US as well. If you want to start one by forum we can just keep posting the game file.

@malmessi74 I just meant logging on to triplea at the same time and playing live vs playing by forum. Not against doing the latter, though if that’s the only way it works for timing.

@flyingbadger Great stuff, thanks for putting this together.

Anyone up for a live game on triplea sometime soon? We a regular play group of 3 people and looking to see what sort of strategies others play.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Hey hey guys. Have been following the recent discussion with interest!

My two cents: Between Germany and Japan, I would definitely say Japan is the stronger nation. In fact, most of my Axis victories have been in the Pacific.

Also, this may reflect more on my own idiosyncrasies as a player, but I personally find Axis much easier to play (and win) in PTV than Allies. I think as players become more familiar with the nuances of PTV and finetune their strategies, you will see a gradual shift in the Axis’s favor. That was certainly true in the case of Global 1940. . . the optimal strategies emerged over time, until it became clear that the game favored Axis.

As it stands now, I’d gladly take Axis without a bid.

One last point warrants mention: Low luck would naturally create imbalances in the game because it strongly favors the attacker–i.e. the Axis. For a more balanced gameplay experience, I strongly recommend regular dice.

Interesting thoughts. I do agree that optimal axis strategy will take more time to figure out. A big issue in our games has been that Russia’s income stays too high for too long and Germany can’t get enough of an edge in total land units on the board to push much beyond Leningrad, and certainly not enough to split the army and hold both Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Regarding low luck, I’d argue that’s a feature not a bug in P2V. Axis need some help so that helps balance the game IMO. Also, I generally see dice a way of making the game more random, less mundane following the same exact strategy every time, but that’s more of an issue for OOB. P2V already allows for much more variation. Plus LL gives a better test of strategies without as much of a luck element, and there is still much work to be done regarding strategy development.

@oysteilo said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

how many rounds does a PtV game last compared to BM and OOB?

IME it’s the longest version. Almost never have either side achieving victory condition, but one side admitting defeat when it’s clearly over. Can easily go 20 rounds.

@malmessi74 Yeah we pretty much only play LL as well.