https://www.seawarstore.com/NavalEnsignsDlx.htm
This site offers dedicated military flags that are placed on the table for each player.
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
@WindowWasher Yea! One more in my camp.
-
If you add the proposal A carriers, I think you drift too far away from the original game. It’s already a different game, but that would fundamentally change a lot of strategies and uses for pieces.
-
@WindowWasher sure, i approve.
-
My biggest concern with proposal A is that it doesn’t limit the number of scrambles. It may make getting the same number of scrambles more expensive, but not enough.
In every Pacific war I have participated in, no one lets their carriers be attacked. They continue to grow and grow in number until finally one player (US usually) has enough units to force an attack. Until then, the player who can get to territory first (Japan almost always) moves in with a fleet and puts down blockers that are very hard to get rid of–maybe only can clear 1 / turn. Allowing more fighters per carrier does not change this dynamic.
Specifically, in the early game (in PTV this is approximately the first 8 rounds) I would keep buying CVs for Japan at 1 / round even though I wouldn’t have full carriers because I want the scrambles. The US and others are just playing catch up during this time, and as a result cannot push me anywhere, and can’t fight through my blockers. In most cases, they don’t want to touch my blockers which further helps me build a fleet. Japan sitting at 70+ since Turn 3 has many options for attack and the Allies can’t do anything to fight through the fleet.
Since all the naval battles are going nowhere, Japan and Germany just pick at Russia and China until they reach economic parity (or more) and then they win the long war.
I REALLY like the CV scramble rule, but I feel it makes the CVs over-powered. Even at 20 IPCs they are worth their value with the existing rules. By adding another plane to their capacity just makes them that more desirable. Hence, my support for prop B.
-
Proposal A’s effect isn’t strictly to reduce the number of carriers and hence scrambling, it’s to increase the ratio of non-scrambleable aircraft to scrambleable aircraft from 2:1 to 3:1. This has the effect that given the same amount of carriers on both sides (10 for example), the attacker can clear blockers with 3:1 aircraft or 30 against 10 if trying to clear 1 blocker, and 15 against 10 if trying to clear 2 blockers. Clearing 2 blockers becomes much easier and the defender shouldn’t scramble unless they have a carrier number advantage.
The issue with proposal B is that there’s no scaling of the scrambling effect as the number of carriers increases. You go from having carrier scrambles be a significant part of the Pacific in the beginning of the game to being largely irrelevant when a sufficient number of carriers are amassed on both sides.
-
@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
The issue with proposal B is that there’s no scaling of the scrambling effect as the number of carriers increases. You go from having carrier scrambles be a significant part of the Pacific in the beginning of the game to being largely irrelevant when a sufficient number of carriers are amassed on both sides.
This already exists with airbases, so it isn’t a new problem, if it is a problem. Interesting feature, maybe, particularly because you can’t buy multiple airbases on the same territory.
-
@AndrewAAGamer said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
I agree here with Andrew, and I too stopped playing in great part due to that carrier scrambling rule. I absolutely hated it to be perfectly honest, and that was one of the first things I had asked about changing, and I actually remember proposing capping it off to just 3 (this was way back when you guys first released it, BTW). I guess my request/proposal was ignored, but now that enough people have complained, it’s getting the attention again.
-
my original proposals, just so that I can get the credit :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
-
Proposal B is my opinion too. After playing 1 (very) competitive game of PtV as Japan (shoot, kid was my partner so he knows all about this) I strongly believe the rule should be limit 3 planes, same as Airbases. As others have said, is consistent with land airbase rule, and going to supercarriers departs from all other A&A games, where for 40 years carriers carry 2 planes, so would make PtV depart even more from other versions and make it that much harder to switch back and forth between versions.
To me, the unlimited carrier scramble rule (1 per carrier) was the roughest edge of the game that I played, with no close 2nd.
-
i think proposal A sounds more interesting. Significant increase to the cost of a loaded carrier and as you said there will be higher plane to carrier ratio. for attacking blockers and ground and such 3:1 vs 2:1 should make a big difference.
Im sure proposal B would work too, but it seems boring.
-
in my opinion, solution B allows you to place multiple distinct fleets that protect each other…
instead of the usual naval pile…
-
Hey, hey guys. We are pleased to announce the release of version 6.0 of WW2 Path to Victory, now available for download on the TripleA Download Maps page. If you already have PTV installed, you can update to the latest version by clicking the “Installed” tab under “Download Maps,” and then selecting “Update” on PTV.
Based on your feedback and playtesting, version 6.0 incorporates the following substantive changes:
-
Carrier scrambles are now limited to a maximum of three planes from each sea zone adjoining the battle (player enforced);
-
Convoy blockade zones have been added to sea zones 43 and 38; and
-
Sea zone 46 (by Dutch New Guinea) has been redrawn to further differentiate the reach of the Malayan naval base from sea zone 38. The redrawn sea zone is shown below.
We hope you enjoy the changes and look forward to future games.
-
-
Based on your feedback and playtesting, version 6.0 incorporates the following substantive changes:
- Carrier scrambles are now limited to a maximum of three planes from each sea zone adjoining the battle (player enforced);
Beautiful!!
-
For people who don’t want to deal with Triple A, you can post a complete map picture? with set up?
-
from sz 27 to sz 35 you arrive with ships … bug?
already from the previous version
-
@Avner I don’t understand what you mean.
-
dalla sz27 (hawaii) triple A consente di arrivare con una nave in sz35 (come in sz34)… calcola 3 spostamenti ma sono 4.
-
-
@Avner Update your map, I have the latest one and it takes 4 moves to go there.
-
Was any thought made to having a 2 turn build for BBs and CVs?
Suggested Topics
