WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies

[trulpen]

@GEN-MANSTEIN, yes, the Soviet-Mongolian Defence Pact. If JDOW it activates, if RDOW it never does.

[General 6 Stars]

Why doesn’t Russia get a penalty ?

[trulpen]

The penalty is that they won’t get the 8 mongolian inf.

But I agree, not much of a penalty and hence the reason why I believe there will be a 95 % tendency of early RDOW in P2V.

Japan should not have much interest in pushing north since south, west and east is quite enough for them already.

[General 6 Stars]

@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

The penalty is that they won’t get the 8 mongolian inf.

But I agree, not much of a penalty and hence the reason why I believe there will be a 95 % tendency of early RDOW in P2V.

Japan should not have much interest in pushing north since south, west and east is quite enough for them already.

Ya. How many Mongolians Inf are there ? 15 ?

[trulpen]

@GEN-MANSTEIN said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Ya. How many Mongolians Inf are there ? 15 ?

8

[General 6 Stars]

I like that number. Always felt half of G40 Mong. inf should be half that of 15 and rest placed in Russia to help with no bid. Or at least run back to Moscow on train like 2-3 Inf per turn per territory. Gives Russia more choices. They are Pro-Russia Inf. Gettin a bit off topic probably.
I know barnee was testing a 10 or 15 Icp penalty for Russia if they RDOW on Japan.

[wizmark]

Has anyone won as allies yet in PTV? Interested to see if the small differences add up or whether a bid is still needed?

[WindowWasher]

Not to my knowledge @wizmark, although I think the allies are winning in a few of the current games

[WindowWasher]

I’ve seen mech-tank combos being used effectively with Russia now.

At what point have people bought them, how many, and what type of success did you see? Trying to figure out a standard first couple of moves Russia. Is infantry still more effective?

[regularkid]

@WindowWasher speaking just for myself, I’ll generally buy them as Russia only when i want to put an immediate threat on something (for example, to deadzone Ukraine from Stalingrad) or if I anticipate a need for defense in a particular territory two spaces from a factory (for example example, if I’ve calculated that in two turns, I’ll need fast from Russia to hold Kursk against what Germany can threaten with by that time).

And there are pf course other special situations where fast might be advisable (e.g., a successful Sealion, leaving the Eastern Front vulnerable, or a heavy push against Manchuria/Korea).

[WindowWasher]

from my current game, 100% KJF works to subdue japan (I think, haven’t accomplished it yet for sure, but im close), but I dont see how anything less than 85% US focus can keep japan from exploding.

Anybody have any experience with a KGF in P2V? Or a more balanced aproach?

[Adam514]

@WindowWasher 85% just keeps Japan in check in BM3 as well.

[simon33]

One thing I have noticed as allies in P2V is that it is now normally possible to stack up Yunnan C2, DOW UK2 and hold Yunnan J3 and likely go on to secure the Burma Rd. Perhaps this is sub optimal Japan play although it has been happening in quite a few games. Allies should go on to win from this move unless it can be dislodged. None of these games have finished though.

[trulpen]

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

One thing I have noticed as allies in P2V is that it is now normally possible to stack up Yunnan C2, DOW UK2 and hold Yunnan J3 and likely go on to secure the Burma Rd. Perhaps this is sub optimal Japan play although it has been happening in quite a few games. Allies should go on to win from this move unless it can be dislodged. None of these games have finished though.

Thank you, @simon33, for this revelation. This is what I tried to point out a while back before I quit playing P2V.

The division of z38 (by Malaya) makes the task for J very difficult, if not impossible. Sure, they have the initial fire-power, but even in OOB/BM3 the biggest limitation is their logistics. They have to choose to either let go of the ocean or the land.

For J that like choosing between Scylla and Karybdis, with z38/132 (or whatever) being the giant whirlpool.

The incision was great for the Allies, but poor for game-play.

[simon33]

In a couple of Adam514’s games, he’s done an Anzac crush to overcome this limitation (vs regularkid and myself). 666 is doing one to me also. That does help Japan but losing China is really bad.

I’m confused why players don’t take FIC J1. Only costs 8IPC/turn for a max of 3 turns. Losing China costs Japan more than that.

Seems that if Japan can’t take either Sydney, India (unlikely) or Hawaii reasonably early, the Axis are in a lot of trouble.

[FMErwinRommel]

Looking at PTV and one of the biggest operational /tactical effects results from many Pacific isles now being on the border between two sea zones, rather than totally within a single sea zone. This means that a player can reinforce an isle before its attacked or try to retake an isle that was just captured, without destroying an enemy fleet on the other side of the isle in a different sea zone. Or conversely, an attacker can invade an isle without controlling the entire sea around the isle. Would appreciate a discussion on how this has affected play.

[FMErwinRommel]

Would like an update on early discussion on which side wins the most. Last post months ago said Allies never won, but appeared to be winning in some games in progress.

[FMErwinRommel]

How is the computer AI in letting me playtest PTV solo before taking on a live opponent?

[Adam514]

@fmerwinrommel AI won’t be a good match for a human who knows how to play, but also they won’t respect player-enforced rules (minor issue for playtesting though).

[mikawagunichi]

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.