Is it like a mini-Bermuda-triangle in there? A nuclear test-site? Russia’s answer to Loch Ness?
@trulpen wormhole
Trying out P2V right now, I’m having trouble identifying an achievable goal with the US in the Pacific.
Generally, I think it would be very useful to have a thread where we can post strategies that have been tried in P2V, whether they worked or didnt, and just have general strategy discussion.
hey, @WindowWasher thats actually a really good idea. I will start a topic and request that it be pinned (together with the other PTV threads).
Stay tuned.
@regularkid Done :slightly_smiling_face:
Don't always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start … and better check what TripleA has done.
@Panther thanks panther!
Thanks Panther. Here is a link to the Strategies discussion: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35558/ww2-path-to-victory-strategies/
WindowWasher, I will address your question there.
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
Hey folks! Version 4.0 of Path to Victory is ready for download on TripleA (delete your existing copy of the map and reinstall. The map is backwards compatible with older saved games).
The substantive changes:
Carriers reduced to 1 defense. May no longer scramble to empty sea zones (must be a defending surface warship present - player enforced)
New global victory conditions for Axis. In addition to the existing theater specific victory conditions, Axis can now also win by taking and holding for one round 13 victory cities, globally.
A U.S. marine has been added to Hawaii.
Enjoy!
What about an amphibious assault on a territory with an airbase where there is a fighter stationed and there is also a carrier on the adjacent sea territory - but no defending surface warship to fight the invaders in the same territory?
Do I understand the rules correctly, that the land-air-based fighter can scramble against the naval invading force - but the neighbouring carriers cannot help the defending fighter as there is no surface warship around?
I would prefer having the same rules and restrictions for scrambling from a land based air base as from a carrier.
@Gorshak said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
Hey folks! Version 4.0 of Path to Victory is ready for download on TripleA (delete your existing copy of the map and reinstall. The map is backwards compatible with older saved games).
The substantive changes:
Carriers reduced to 1 defense. May no longer scramble to empty sea zones (must be a defending surface warship present - player enforced)
New global victory conditions for Axis. In addition to the existing theater specific victory conditions, Axis can now also win by taking and holding for one round 13 victory cities, globally.
A U.S. marine has been added to Hawaii.
Enjoy!
What about an amphibious assault on a territory with an airbase where there is a fighter stationed and there is also a carrier on the adjacent sea territory - but no defending surface warship to fight the invaders in the same territory?
Do I understand the rules correctly, that the land-air-based fighter can scramble against the naval invading force - but the neighbouring carriers cannot help the defending fighter as there is no surface warship around?
I would prefer having the same rules and restrictions for scrambling from a land based air base as from a carrier.
Yes, only the plane from the airbase can scramble to the sea zone.
Factories in Russia: Originally owned Factory Minors in Russia are destroyed upon capture by the Axis.
Means: If Germany takes Ukraine it will be destroyed. But after Germany owns Ukraine for a turn and builds a mIC on it it will not be destroyed the entire game anymore regardless of switching the owner back and forth, correct?
Thank you for clarification on that in advance.
@aequitas-et-veritas that is correct. only the original factory is destroyed. subsequently built factories remain.
Can retreat from a battle with only AA Guns but not from a battle with only defending transports. Is that intentional?
@simon33 yes. AA is a combat unit that can be taken as a casualty in the course of battle, so is different than a transport, which is not.
Is it correct that mech inf now defend on a 3 if paired with an armour? This seems a bit OP to me…even with the extra cost factored in.
@wizmark hey Wizmark. That is correct. Mechs now defend at 3 when accompanied by a tank. As far as whether the unit is OP, lets crunch the numbers!.. . . Adam, take it away.
@regularkid For 11 PUs, you can get 1 mech 1 tank or 1 inf 2 art (not an efficient buy already, but just to compare same PUs). Let’s compare attack defense and hit points.
Fast:
A = 5
D = 6
HP = 2
Slow:
A = 6
D = 6
HP = 3
The inefficient slow buy has more attack power and 1 more hit point than the fast buy. In a battle, slow is still significantly more efficient than fast units. Fast units compensate that with their mobility.
@regularkid Whew! A 10/10 stack now costs 110 ipcs and defends at 60…it was costing 100 and defending at 50. 10 ipc equates to 1 fighter, so the similar cost of 110 ipc gives a 54 defence with 11 units…9 hits. New stack gets 10 hits first round with less units…
@regularkid On attack the 10/10 stack has 50 power instead of 40…8.5 hits instead of 6.5…the extra 10 spent on a fighter would still only get to 43 in the old money…7 hits (and a bit)
@wizmark but if you’re seeking to max defense under G40 rules, why would you buy a fighter instead of 1 tank + 1 mech with the 10
extra PUs, since that is the more efficient buy, and we’re trying to compare the comparative value of tanks and mechs?
@regularkid true, didnt think of that… is 55 power with 12 units better than 60 power with 10? Beyond my very basic maths skills lol
