Oh, I get it now!
So the AI just confused. Makes sense.
WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion
-
If Northern Manchuria is not a coastal territory, does that mean it has or should have guerilla fighters?
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
If Northern Manchuria is not a coastal territory, does that mean it has or should have guerilla fighters?
What I remember I was told it shouldn’t. Likely because it’s “original” japanese.
-
Then there needs to be a notes update.
-
Just to clarify, CVs can only scramble to sea zones if there are defending surface warships (why not subs?) but airbases can still scramble to otherwise empty sea zones?
-
@simon33 Yes. Subs are useful enough as is, and scrambling planes to defend subs seems unrealistic.
-
Hey all! We are pleased to announce Version 5.0 of WW2: Path to Victory is now available for download on TripleA. Based on playtesting and community feedback, we made the following changes to the map:
(1) Sea Zone 38 (by Malaya) is now two Sea Zones (38 and 132), as shown below;
(2) The Vital Forward Bases National Objective in the Pacific now requires control of Gilbert Islands and is reciprocal. That is, Japan can also earn plus +5 PUs by controlling Caroline Islands, Paulau, Marshall Islands, Marianas, and Gilbert Islands.
Thanks again for all of your continued support and feedback. I look forward to seeing you around the gaming table.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
(1) Sea Zone 38 (by Malaya) is now two Sea Zones (38 and 132), as shown below;
Gee, that change is huge. No longer can ships get from the FIC SZ to India. I didn’t follow any discussion on that one - did I miss it?
-
@simon33 some players expressed concerns about Japan’s ability to project threat while maintaining a firm grip on its islands, and the related challenge the US faces of holding onto islands once taken. Splitting seazone 38 seeks to alleviate this by (1) allowing a block of at least one of the DEI islands (Sumatra); (2) compelling Japan to choose between threatening India and defending its home islands (e.g., Iwo Jima); and (3) taking some air pressure off Caroline Islands since carrier planes in sz 38 can’t reach the islands themselves.
In essence, the change prevents Japan from having its cake and eating it too.
-
Doesn’t that make an already difficult job for the Axis (unless I am playing allies) even harder?
-
@simon33 the issue with balance is twofold. One is the relative difficulty of playing Axis vs playing Allies. And the other is the relative difficulty of playing Germany vs playing Japan. The modifications in version 5.0 seek to address the latter.
-
SZ24 is wrongly connected to SZ35.
-
@simon33 wow. Good spot. It is now fixed. Thanks, Simon.
-
Is the version now 5.2?
-
@simon33 naw. i didn’t change the version number. if you redownload the map, it will work as intended
-
One more thing. :) It says when hovering over the territories that if the British capture any chinese therritories they go to UK-Pac, but should really go to China, right?
-
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
One more thing. :) It says when hovering over the territories that if the British capture any chinese therritories they go to UK-Pac, but should really go to China, right?
That’s still in G40. Unnecessary, but doesn’t do any harm.
-
I have some questions about marines on an ally’s ship. It’s relevant to a game I’m playing now.
For these examples, assume I have an ANZAC marine on a US cruiser adjacent to a Japanese territory, and it’s ANZAC’s turn.
-
If the sz is empty, the marine can do a legal amphibious assault.
-
if I have a Japanese sub in the SZ, I assume ANZAC would have to have an accompanying ANZAC warship in order to allow them to ignore the Japanese sub, and do the AA. Correct?
-
If I can scramble into the SZ, then what happens? If there’s no ANZAC warship or plane, then there’s nothing to scramble against, is there, but I still think the marine shouldn’t be able to land because it has nothing there to defeat my potential scramble, correct? Would they still have the option to try to do the AA just to force me to scramble a plane to negate it? Or is an AA not legal without an ANZAC warship or plane present to defeat the potential scramble?
-
defending sub + scramble option: ANZAC would need it’s own surface warship (to be able to ignore the sub & defend against the scramble, if I chose to scramble), or a sub (ignore the sub and avoid potential scrambling). But if ANZAC only brings in planes, then it can’t ignore the sub, and a combat move AA isn’t legal.
-
Now what happens if it’s a kamikaze sz? Technically I can’t use the kami because it’s ANZAC’s turn, not the US, so technically the US cruiser isn’t eligible for a kami. So can the marine land, if there’s no defensive sub, no scramble option, and no ANZAC warship or plane?
-
-
@freh all this is different of course if you were talking about an anzac cruiser.
Also, if there are any anzac units in the sea zone (dds, cruisers, ftrs, etc) then they are subject to being engaged by scrambles or kamikazes but that wouldnt affect the marine/cruiser.
-
@ksmckay correct. In the combat phase of ANZAC’s turn, the Kamikazes can be used against any ANZAC warships that were moved into the sea zone in connection with the amphibious attack.
-
@regularkid This creates a weird result IMO, where an attacking cruiser & marine from the same power could be subject to a kamikaze attack, but an ally’s cruiser in the sz, with a marine on board, wouldn’t be. It’s offers a weird way to get around kamikazes if you’re, say, the UK: you could load marines on US cruisers or BBs, and then they could move in kamikaze SZs on non-combat, and then the marines could off-load on their turn and there’d be no risk of kamikaze against the cruiser.
Although, I guess it isn’t too different from a plane riding along on an ally’s carrier to extend its range.
Suggested Topics
