@jkprince indeed 🙂
Thank you both for your interest!
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
There is an error where it is forcing me to go through manch to attack korea instead of directly from the seazone below korea and manch. This adds an extra movement to the planes. Is this a known issue?
-
@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@wizmark Game will give the option to scramble, but if you’re playing the newest version you aren’t allowed to scramble unless there are surface warships defending the sea zone.
Will this be fixed in the next version, or something all players have to be aware of? This is the first time I can remember hearing about it, by the way.
-
@CaptainNapalm hey Captain, it’s a player enforced rule per Game Notes. Unfortunately, there is no way I am aware of to make it a game enforced rule.
-
@regularkid What about tech? It doesn’t appear to be working. I know we played a game and realized the option for airborne forces never came up after a player had developed it. I’m pretty sure something wierd is going on with jets as well. The image of the fighter on the board does not change. Super subs dont get strips, etc. Thanks. Love the map/
-
@loki17 hey Loki, we imported the tech code straight from BM3 with the expectation of possible future development, but the map has not been tested for tech. Thanks for bringing the issues to our attention.
There has been alot of discussion on this and other threads regarding what form an eventual tech tree might take, and we want to nail that down before we do any further work on the tech component. Glad you like the map, and if you have any thoughts on what you’d like to see a tech tree to include, please do share thanks.
-
Ill sign up for a year on the nerdherd group $10/month option str8 away if you fix tech and an an options to develop tech on both charts at the same time, get multiple techs on the same turn, keep tokens on both charts. Thanks again
-
@loki17 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.
Join us in the nerd herd anytime. We appreciate your support. And stay tuned for exclusive video on Japan strategies/counters. ;)
-
I have to reiterate: The DOW-situation between Japan and Russia is just simply bad. What I can see there’s a 100 % RDOW before turn 6. Japan has no incentive whatsoever to waste land-units up north until the RDOW comes.
I think the construction in BM3 is so much better.
-
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
I have to reiterate: The DOW-situation between Japan and Russia is just simply bad. What I can see there’s a 100 % RDOW before turn 6. Japan has no incentive whatsoever to waste land-units up north until the RDOW comes.
I think the construction in BM3 is so much better.
I haven’t noticed any difference. What is the difference? And how do you see it affecting games?
-
There’s a big difference.
P2V: “Mongolia: If Japan declares war on Russia, Mongolian territories and units will automatically turn Russian at the end of Japan’s turn.”
BM3: “An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia” along with the original Soviet-Mongolian Defence Pact.
In effect this means that a JDOW on Russia activates Mongolia for the russians. Strong incentive for Japan not to. It also means that Russia won’t negate any income-increase when DOW on Japan, which makes a lot less of incentive not to.
I can simply say that in my handful of games the effect is not what the creators wished for. Very anachronistic.
-
I’d like the BM3-construction to be active in P2V as well. It made for a lot more tension up north, both Russia and Japan hesitating to DOW and wanting the other nation to do it.
-
I’m not sure about your logic here, trulpen. In both cases there is a pretty decent disincentive to DOW. I suppose with P2V, Japan can nullify the Pacific lend lease offsetting activating Mongolia.
-
@simon33 I agree with trulpen…with the extra Mic and extra income it only makes sense for Russia to declare once the war becomes general. North Manch is unaccessable from an amphib landing and if you can link up with the chinese stack…usually 14-16 inf and a fighter…then that is a major land army for the limited japanese army to deal with.
There is no penalty for the russians…just losing access to 8 inf. For the japanese you are probably going to be down 4-6 income until the time comes to build enough to eliminate them…and all in a theatre opposite to where you really want to be concentrating in the south.
-
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
There’s a big difference.
P2V: “Mongolia: If Japan declares war on Russia, Mongolian territories and units will automatically turn Russian at the end of Japan’s turn.”
BM3: “An additional 2 PUs per each “open” Lend-Lease lane, when Russia is at war with European Axis, if Japan has also declared war on Russia” along with the original Soviet-Mongolian Defence Pact.
In effect this means that a JDOW on Russia activates Mongolia for the russians. Strong incentive for Japan not to. It also means that Russia won’t negate any income-increase when DOW on Japan, which makes a lot less of incentive not to.
I can simply say that in my handful of games the effect is not what the creators wished for. Very anachronistic.
I couldn’t see it in your post, but I did some digging, and I think this is what you don’t like:
"RUSSIA
REVISED OBJECTIVE - Lend Lease: Russia no longer receives a 2 PU boost from an unprovoked Japanese declaration of war. Instead the Mongolians automatically turn Russian as aforesaid."
I wasn’t aware of that change to the 2 PU boost. Good to know!
-
Hey guys. Been following your conversation on the Russia/Japan political situation. Interesting stuff!
A couple of observations. I agree with Trulpen that the dynamic in the Far East between Russia and Japan is much different in PTV than it is in BM3, and that there is a greater likelihood of war between the two countries earlier in the game in PTV. . . . But this is not because of the Lend Lease Rules.
In PTV, there is actually a greater disincentive for Russia to declare war than in BM3.
There is a convoy zone in SZ 5 (which does not exist in BM3). A single Japanese sub in sz 5 will deprive Russia of an average of 4 PUs per turn (2 from the lost National Objective, and 2 average from convoy blockade rolls), with a possibility of up to 6 PUs lost (depending on how the convoy blockade rolls go down).
In PTV, Russia also enjoys an added bonus of waiting for Japan to declare war on it. . . a guarantee of 8 additional infantry. In BM3, the question of who declared war on whom has no effect on the disposition of the Mongolian infantry.
The reason the dynamic in the far east seems different isn’t because of how the NOs are structured. In fact, if we imported the BM3 political/NO rules exactly (with all of their added complexity), the dynamic would be pretty much the same. The reason Russia declares war more often and earlier in PTV is because it can. . . the factory and Russia’s added income make a meaningful front against Japan possible.
Changing the NOs won’t change that reality.
-
No, it’s not only the NOs. It’s also about the activation of Mongolia. It’s included in the equation.
Good point about the convoy disruption of z5. Very relevant.
Anyway, my main point is that Japan has no real incentive To DOW on Russia. Sure, pushing Russia back and getting a little income-boost is a good thing, but not rational regarding ROI.
Japan has a lot more important objectives south regarding controlling the DEI, pushing for Calcutta and suppressing the pesky chinese. Also having to contest the Pacific.
Japan is happy to have peace in the north for many turns, i e until it has full domination in the south and west.
Sure, Russia would love for Japan to DOW, but knows it won’t happen. So if there is to be conflict, Russia has to step up.
That is something that happens early in P2V (turn 3-4). Not because of income-issues, but because of the situation of putting pressure on Japan from all sides.
In BM3 I’ve experienced a lot more ambiguity and quite often just the raw tension up north. I’d say a more interesting balance.
Historically Russia rather shifted a lot of troops west when realizing/knowing Japan wouldn’t make an offensive into Russia. That happens sometimes in OOB and BM3, but not in P2V for various reasons, some of which have been pointed out already.
-
I most changes with P2V. Makes for quite a different and in many aspects interesting game. For me though, this thing we speak about is a disappointment. Anyway, it’s just a tiny part of everything that’s going on.
-
I’m inclined to agree with regularkid’s point about the mIC in Siberia* being the main change which has affected the dynamic. Without much game experience to back that up though.
- I would question the historical accuracy of this - wouldn’t the factories have been in the western Siberia, not the eastern. Are there even any roads in this part of the country?
-
I don’t like markdown. That was supposed to be the explanation of the asterisk, rather than a bullet point.
-
@simon33 when Adam and I made the map, we initially play-tested with the factory being in Amur (i.e. Vladivostok), but this was too easy for Japan to neutralize. So we moved it up to Siberia, for gameplay purposes. It is also justifiable historically, since a significant portion of Soviet war production was carried out by forced labor in Siberian gulags, for example.
One other circumstance, besides the factory, which changes the Russian/Japanese dynamic in PTV is splitting of Manchuria into northern and southern territories. It is easier for Japan to defend Manchuria as a single territory in Balanced Mod, than it is to defend Northern Manchuria against incursions in PTV. Indeed, Northern Manchuria is often left empty in PTV because putting units there would put them too much out-of-position to pursue other objectives.
Suggested Topics
