WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

[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”.

[trulpen]

And do you mean then that noone would be able to purchase carriers until turn 4?

[regularkid]

Cool ideas, but it would be more helpful for us if we keep the conversation focused on the specific proposals (A or B) mentioned in my prior post–i.e., increased cost with additional carrying capacity, or limiting the scramble to 3 per sea zone. Which is better? Thats what we’re grappling with right now.

[trulpen]

We were.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@regularkid we were!😁

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@trulpen with the start of G3 would be suitable.

[Avner]

B solution for me…

but I would like a limit per aircraft carrier group … not an overall limit

analogy with airports

[Avner]

ah I read that it was already considered… maximum three planes for SZ, sorry

this can also result in multiple fleets (as in reality) and not huge stacks of aircraft carriers…

so how was the stack reduced in russia (german and russian) maybe solution B could do the same in the pacific?

[surfer]

If we’re taking a vote, mine is prop B. Limit upto 3 per SZ. I don’t see that changing CV carry capacity will help. I would think it add to the problem.