@jkprince indeed 🙂
Thank you both for your interest!
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
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?
-
@simon33 we absolutely did. The idea we batted around in the early stages of PTV development was to have a “standard” carrier build, which would take two rounds to complete, and a substantially more expensive expedited carrier build, which would take only one turn. We even looked into how this could be coded (it’s definitely doable, if a bit complex).
Ultimately, we went in another direction: keeping the same carrier build time, but requiring an undamaged naval base for their construction.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 we absolutely did. The idea we batted around in the early stages of PTV development was to have a “standard” carrier build, which would take two rounds to complete, and a substantially more expensive expedited carrier build, which would take only one turn. We even looked into how this could be coded (it’s definitely doable, if a bit complex).
Ultimately, we went in another direction: keeping the same carrier build time, but requiring an undamaged naval base for their construction.
Interesting idea about the expedited build. Is that really historically accurate? Didn’t they just build things as fast as they could to start the next one sooner? If you don’t like the requirement to wait two turns why not provide an escort carrier with only 1 hit and 1 plane carried, for say, 12IPCs.
The adopted approach is at least an order of magnitude less significant than the two turn builds.
-
@simon33 did some research on it when considering the idea. It took well over a year to build fleet carriers. Capital ships took even longer (e.g., the U.S.S. Missouri was completed in three years).
Briefly considered adding escort carriers as well, but ultimately went with the existing unit roster (albeit with some minor tweaks) to increase ease of adoptability for Global players.
-
Hopefully this is a good place to get a rule clarification on this rule: "Revised Plane Landing Rules: It is legal to land air on newly built carriers. However, it is not legal to make a combat move that is only possible because of a newly built carrier. "
The turn in question is the American round 11 turn found here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36206/owentoo-axis-vs-simon33-allies-ptv/175?page=7
The Americans launched 4 aircraft from CVs in 89 to attack SZ 105 (3 zones away) and then recovered the 2 surviving aircraft onto a newly built CV in 104. I feel that is illegal, and the Americans should have moved one of the launching CVs from 89 to either 91, 92 or 106 to recover the surviving aircraft.
What say our PTV developers?
-
@owentoo said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Hopefully this is a good place to get a rule clarification on this rule: "Revised Plane Landing Rules: It is legal to land air on newly built carriers. However, it is not legal to make a combat move that is only possible because of a newly built carrier. "
The turn in question is the American round 11 turn found here:
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36206/owentoo-axis-vs-simon33-allies-ptv/175?page=7
The Americans launched 4 aircraft from CVs in 89 to attack SZ 105 (3 zones away) and then recovered the 2 surviving aircraft onto a newly built CV in 104. I feel that is illegal, and the Americans should have moved one of the launching CVs from 89 to either 91, 92 or 106 to recover the surviving aircraft.
What say our PTV developers?
OwenToo feels that this is ridiculous. For my part, I never understood why the rule was changed in this way. The only real problem I had with the old rule is that losses could allow you to build the CV in another location.
-
@owentoo You can only make a move that’s legal with the units on the board, but you can land anywhere including on newly built carriers. It’s to prevent a somewhat cheesy attack with a big carrier buy to make your aircraft that would normally be too far away to attack and land able to reach (typically by the sea zone near Japan).
-
@adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@owentoo You can only make a move that’s legal with the units on the board, but you can land anywhere including on newly built carriers. It’s to prevent a somewhat cheesy attack with a big carrier buy to make your aircraft that would normally be too far away to attack and land able to reach (typically by the sea zone near Japan).
Was that move really a problem? You would only be able to attack the Midway SZ, nowhere else important.
So to clarify then, my move was legal.
-
@simon33 I don’t understand the first part of your comment, but if you had the correct amount of landing spots on the board for the attack, after that you can land anywhere you want.
-
Not sure what part you are confused by? If you want me to explain, perhaps quote the bit.
-
@adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 I don’t understand the first part of your comment, but if you had the correct amount of landing spots on the board for the attack, after that you can land anywhere you want.
The rule was changed to prevent gamey carrier builds and as a slight nerf to carriers generally.
There’s also a real world consideration: a carrier-based WW2 fighter could sortie for seven or eight hours max–not enough time to construct a carrier for the eventual landing.
In practice, the unavailability of this “emergency carrier build to land a plane” is an improvement to the game’s realism and requires more careful advance coordination for naval/air movement. Its a win/win.
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Was that move really a problem? You would only be able to attack the Midway SZ, nowhere else important.
I don’t know what you mean by this.
-
Well, the only important place Japan could conceivably attack from SZ6 in BM was SZ25. Or were you worried about USA mobilising CVs from a Korea Factory to attack the Japanese fleet utilising planes from San Francisco?
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Well, the only important place Japan could conceivably attack from SZ6 in BM was SZ25. Or were you worried about USA mobilising CVs from a Korea Factory to attack the Japanese fleet utilising planes from San Francisco?
No, I meant the numerous examples of US ships in sz6 being attacked/deadzoned by Japanese air that wouldn’t reach if not for a carrier buy.
Suggested Topics
