WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

[trulpen]

@aequitas-et-veritas said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

No, I think I don’t get it.

With the division of z38 Calcutta has become completely out of bounds for the JN (which if they go there won’t make it back to Philly or any other key areas). UK-Pac just got a miracle save not having to worry at all about amphi-landings in Calcutta. It’s a very bad mechanic concerning game-balance.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@trulpen ahh OK. Thank you for the explanation.

[trulpen]

Yw.

It was said that Japan should not eat it’s cake and be able to keep it, but I don’t think the intention of the developers was to simply take away the cake.

Japan is strong, but also has 4 allied nations against it and can’t be everywhere. Imho the aforementioned solution kind of rips apart Japan’s struggle in the Pacific.

[regularkid]

@simon33 responding to some of your points:

1. Sure, I think we considered extending the surface-warship requirement to “oldschool” airbase scrambles, for consistency’s sake. But it raises problems. For example, does Germany really need to have a surface navy to contest amphibious landings in Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, or Germany itself etc. even if it has a robust Luftwaffe at the ready? Shouldn’t the Allies at least be required to provide some cover for such landings? I think so. Also, do we really want to require Germany to maintain a surface navy to keep its transport in the Baltic safe from an air strafing? Shouldn’t local air superiority be enough? The airbases in G40 were such a great leap forward because they modeled the primacy of defensive airpower in naval settings. We didn’t want to upset that. So, we kept the old sea scrambles unchanged, and only imposed the “defending unit” requirement for the new scramble types (i.e., scrambles from carriers, and scrambles to land battles), where it was needed for gameplay reasons.

2. As you noted in your comments, China is already stronger in PTV, so there was no reason to put the Burma road objective back to 6. The purpose of guerrillas is to require Japan to make a long term commitment of precious land forces if it wants to take and hold all of China. Again, its about Japan making choices and tradeoffs.

3. Is the destruction of Russia’s original factories upon capture particularly complex? It models something that actually happened historically, and it serves a game function as well, since allowing the capture and use of the Siberian factory by Japan would make an early invasion of the Soviet Far East OP.

4. What do you mean by “universal scramble”?

5. As for the “money island” fight, its a matter of personal taste, I suppose. But I personally found the trading of those four islands in G40 predictable and a bit repetitive, not to mention ahistorical. The Dutch Each Indies changed hands only once during the war; and the Allies never bothered to liberate them. PTV seeks to shift some of the focus to the Central and South East Pacific, which is where the real island trading happened. Of course the “money islands” are still incredibly valuable in PTV and essential to Japan’s long term prospects.

6. Feeling pretty good about the partition of sea zone 38. Actually, Adam and I just posted a lengthy video on the NerdHerd patreon discussing historical and gameplay considerations that went into the change. https://www.patreon.com/posts/ww2-path-to-vs-5-44106956?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copy_to_clipboard&utm_campaign=postshare. In short, the change puts greater emphasis on Malaya (Singapore - “the Gibraltar of the East”) as a launching point for an amphibious invasion of India, and compels Japan to choose between putting an immediate threat on Calcutta, and projecting power elsewhere in the Pacific.

7. In my recent game with you, japan came perilously close to securing the necessary victory cities, even with a 100% investment by the United States, Russia, etc. Anecdotally, it seems like a large number of the Axis victories in PTV have been Japan victories. Indeed, the emerging consensus seemed to be that Japan was the stronger Axis (with some even arguing it was OP). I don’t think splitting sea zone 38 has taken the fight out of the Japanese empire. But, of course, time will tell.

Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback. I look forward to playing more with you, and spitballing some more ideas.

Right now we are batting around a possible limitation for carrier scrambles (e.g., limiting to 3 planes from each sea zone). Personally, I don’t think the change is necessary. But I’m not completely opposed to the idea either.

[simon33]

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

What do you mean by “universal scramble”?

Scramble of (presumably) 1 air unit from every land territory.

[regularkid]

@simon33 even without an airbase? woo boy. there would have to be a really compelling gameplay justification for that kind of change, because it seems like it would be alot of work to implement.

[simon33]

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

As you noted in your comments, China is already stronger in PTV, so there was no reason to put the Burma road objective back to 6. The purpose of guerrillas is to require Japan to make a long term commitment of precious land forces if it wants to take and hold all of China. Again, its about Japan making choices and tradeoffs.

One critique here, it has previously been claimed (by Adam) that the guerillas are required because China is too weak. But the reduction in the objective makes it weaker (slightly). And you are now claiming that China is strong enough and doesn’t need any strengthening.

In any event, I gave the reason - fun. Perhaps you disagree that is fun and it is more fun the way it is.

[CaptainNapalm]

@regularkid

My only critique, is I think the carrier scramble should be limited to 3 maximum planes. One of my current opponents has 15 US carriers against me, for example. It’s a bit stifling to the game action, as it allows multiple blockers to be placed, and only risk losing one or two, rather than all blockers. Blockers are already a broken part of the game, but they always have been. So, if you don’t want to fix the blocker problem, like Global War 36 and Bloodbath Rules do for example, you could at least help not making it worse, which is what carrier scramble does.

Lest you only feel you are getting negative feedback, let me just say that I enjoy PTV very much! Many in my gaming group love it so much that one had a map printed out so that we can play face to face! I hope you take each game played as positive feedback, even if the participants are not voicing their opinions. To play, is the greatest compliment you could receive!

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

PS. The current game of 15 US carriers is not a PTV game, but my impression of the stifling nature, and blocker boost allowed by carrier scramble in other games of PTV, is still valid.

[wizmark]

Just a quick question…and sorry if it has come up before but I have noticed in the new map that Szs 38 and 43 arent convoy zones. Was wondering if this was deliberate, and if it was what the reasoning was as every zone around these 2 are convoy zones.

Thanks!

[regularkid]

@CaptainNapalm “limited to 3 maximum planes” per scrambling sea zone? Hmmm. not bad. Talking it over with Adam.

Also, thanks for the kind words.

[regularkid]

@wizmark I think its the same reason there isn’t a convoy zone in the English channel, or in sz 115. All else being equal, its more interesting if the convoy zones are in sea zones that won’t be occupied by the enemy anyhow.

[regularkid]

Hey, hey, guys. We need feedback on an important issue. Some have expressed concerns about the new scramble capabilities of carriers creating theater stagnation (e.g. with a stack of carriers in adjoining szs, blockers are harder to clear, islands are harder to take, etc.).

There are currently two proposals on the table on how to address these concerns in the next version of PTV. We would like to hear from you, to see which has more community support.

1. Proposal A: Increase the cost of carriers (to 20 PUs or so), and increase their plane capacity to three, while still limiting the scramble capacity to one per carrier. The upshot is there will be fewer carriers on the board, and therefore less scramble potential.

2. Proposal B: Keep the carrier costs and scramble/plane capacity the same. And limit the maximum number of planes that can be scrambled from each sea zone to three planes, regardless of how many carriers are there.

We would appreciate your responses to this. Please state which proposal you prefer, and why.

[AndrewAAGamer]

After playing a couple of games of PtV this carrier scramble rule was one of the main reasons that I decided not to continue playing PtV anymore. I won’t get into the other reasons since you are not addressing them here anyway.

I would choose Proposal B for three reasons:

1. A 3 scramble matches that of land based aircraft airbases. For me it makes no sense that a carrier that is smaller and has a harder time getting its planes into the air can scramble half of its force where a land territory with gosh knows how many landing strips can only scramble a maximum of three fighters no matter how many planes are there.
2. Limiting it to 3 would open up the ability for more mobile warfare which has always been the advantage of sea combat over land combat while still maintaining some ability to project defensive force just like airbases. Just changing the cost of the carriers alleviates the problem somewhat but not that much and a scramble of 8-9 would certainly be doable. I have played in many games with 12+ carriers so those 24 planes would reside on 8 carriers instead of 12.
3. Changing the cost of the carrier and its abilities further differentiates the game from Axis and Allies. I think the intent of the developers, you guys, was to tweak Global 1940 but still maintain the Axis and Allies original game, look and feel. The more it is different from Axis and Allies the more it is like any other TripleA game map that is not Axis and Allies.

[CaptainNapalm]

@regularkid
You probably know my answer, as I proposed B, before. But, as proposal A is new to me, let me weigh in with a vote for B, officially.

Two reasons:
Ease of understanding - No cost change, or capacity change, and the 3 plane max scramble is familiar to all.
Minimizing the divergence from Global 40 - I think of these attempts as fixes to a great game. While I don’t share Andrew’s fear of shattering the community by having these variants, I do fear the learning(relearning) curve, that is a barrier to entry. We need all the players we can get.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

2. Proposal B: Keep the carrier costs and scramble/plane capacity the same. And limit the maximum number of planes that can be scrambled from each sea zone to three planes, regardless of how many carriers are there.

We would appreciate your responses to this. Please state which proposal you prefer, and why.

How do I have to understand this?
Does it mean as an example:

Sz 47 will be attacked and because of the presence of Enemy CV’s in sz 48,50 and 55 the Opponent is able to launch three Planes per seazone (Assuming he has three CV’s in each of the mentioned Sz’s?),
a total of 9 Planes into combat?

[regularkid]

@aequitas-et-veritas Exactly.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@regularkid Then this I would say is indeed insane and does not feed the purpose.

To your Proposal A: I would recommend to take the Carrier values of the WaW B.Carrier and let it work the same way when you implement it in PtV. A/D/M/C 1/3/2/20 2HP Land 3planes.

Proposal A would also be the proposal I am rooting for since I gained allready some Exp. with it in WaW and understand the dynamics of the B.Carrier.

I personally would even try to keep the normal CV but as a light version. (A/D/M/C 1/2/2/14 1HP Land 1 plane only).
This should nerf PtV to the extend to have fun and test some tactics in a regular game.
I see peoples changing their purchase philosphy allready and try to guard and protect such expensive vessels like the B.Carrier.

If you are interested in a Test game with the B.Carrier @regularkid PM me please.

[trulpen]

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

2. Proposal B: Keep the carrier costs and scramble/plane capacity the same. And limit the maximum number of planes that can be scrambled from each sea zone to three planes, regardless of how many carriers are there.

This is the preference imo.

It will solve a lot of the issue while still keeping basic factors the same. It also aligns more to the basic scramble-rules from ab’s.

Sure, it’s possible then to scramble to a sz from several different sz’s. The problem with that strategy is that dividing the fleet makes it sensitive an susceptible to attack. Can hardly be worth a blocker to sacrifice a couple of carriers with air, right?

A carrier costing 20, but carrying 3 air, is a lot more powerful in itself. This makes Japan come into it’s air/carrier-sweetspot earlier, which should be good for them, upsetting the balance in the Pac. Of course, Japan har been seeiously nerfed lately, so perhaps it would be a good thing.

However, it would be simply awesome for Gwrmany for exactly the same reason, when the carriers are also able to support land-areas.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

In WaW the B.Carrier is available after the First turn, not right at the beginning. It could be nerfd in a similar way for PtV.

[trulpen]

@aequitas-et-veritas said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

In WaW the B.Carrier is available after the First turn, not right at the beginning. It could be nerfd in a similar way for PtV.

You meant “fourth”.