@jkprince indeed 🙂
Thank you both for your interest!
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?
-
@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.
-
It’s really only planes from FIC which can do this but now can’t. Technically Palau or Kwangsi.
-
Errata for PTV rules/objectives: Objectives for Germany: 2 PUs for German controlled Iraq or NW Persia or should read “Southern” Persia. Currently only states “Persia”. Italy’s Objective already changed “Persia” to “Southern Persia”.
-
Hey, guys. Version 6.1 of PTV is now available for download. There were no substantive changes. We simply corrected game notes and objectives panel to reflect: (1) that the Iraq/Persia National Objectives for Italy and Germany include Southern Persia, and (2) that Japan’s garrison requirement for China excludes AA guns. Enjoy!
-
Hey all. Version 6.2 of the map is available for download now.
No substantive changes were made. Just corrected a cosmetic issue with Mexico, and added some clarifications to the Game Notes. You can continue to play the old version, or update to the new one, since they’re cross compatible. Enjoy.
-
STREAMING ON TWITCH TONIGHT:
@Adam514 and I will be playing @mikawagunichi and @avandoo in a live game of WW2 Path to Victory. The game will be streamed in its entirety, with live commentary from Adam and me.
Come hang out. Have a snack. Talk some A&A.
Time: 10 pm EST, tonight.
Place: https://www.twitch.tv/dudewithopinions
-
Version 6.4 of PTV is now available for download. The revisions are non-substantive and backwards compatible with earlier versions of the game.
The changes:
-
Updated Objectives Panel to reflect that Russia’s “Lend Lease” objectives only kick in from Round 3 and later;
-
Updated Game Notes to specify that the harbor in Southern France may be used by Axis Forces while under Vichy control.
To update your version of the game, delete the old version and reinstall through the Download Maps screen.
Enjoy!
-
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
[…] we definitely aren’t planning on just copying Global 1940 tech, thats for sure. We’re looking to do a complete revamp if there’s enough support for it.
I want to propose some basic thoughts for tech rules, but am btw no native speaker of English.
My main idea is the first part of the following sequence (without claiming any detail):
- A nation can pay 2 PU and gets one technology offered by rolling a die.
- Then it can either pass or pay 7 PU for assigning its development department i.e. rolling a die again in order to determine if research will be successful.
- Given that it has been, the technology comes into effect at end of round.
- In case of failure die is rerolled next rounds for only 1 PU - with the option to buy non-recycling further dice for 5 PU each.
- Maybe it shall be even possible to start one additional research for another tech.
Any technology already developped by any ally is available without Step 1.
Any technology already developped by any nation is available without rolling a die in Step 1.Suggested technologies:
(i) Rockets (default)
(ii) Advanced Artillery (default) + Improved Mech (CanBlitz)
(iii) Heavy Bombers (default) + Long-Range Aircraft (operative air bases give 1 additional point of movement range also for landing there)
(iv) Radar (coming into effect immediately)
(v) Paratroopers
1 Infantry unit in each territory with an operative air base can be moved to an enemy-controlled territory 3 or fewer spaces away.
The number of paratroopers together with other land units attacking from adjacent territories and/or by amphibious assault must be higher than the PU value of the attacked territory!
When moving, paratroopers must obey the same restrictions that air units do. If the territory being attacked has AAA (antiaircraft artillery) units OR FACILITIES, the paratrooper infantry units are subject to antiaircraft fire in the same way as air units. If attacking along with land units from adjacent territories, paratroopers may retreat as normal.
(vi) Fortified coastlines
Operative (?) naval bases defend with 1 destroyer or 1 sub against amphibious assaults without preceding sea combat or otherwise with 1 infantry unit.Notes little OT:
[A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.[B] @fmerwinrommel said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
My other recently posted suggested change to G40 was having minor ICs and air and naval bases receive max damage when captured.
… after combat occurred.
-
@pacifiersboard
[A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.Wow. That would be a major change in the game strategy in the Pacific!! Would this apply to NOs as well i.e., DEI +5 bonus?
It can be hard to get islands and hold for a round, and because the Japanese are all by themselves (generally).
I would think this rule would REALLY favor the Allies. In fact, it essentially stalls all countries production levels by one turn…thus the Germans and Japanese will be slowed by 1 round at the beginning of the game, ie. the Germans would be stuck at 30 IPCs the first 2 turns+ the 19 French $$!!. The Allies are not usually gaining territory then and so not affect them the same. Those lost IPCs early will snowball in the later stages of the game.
Later when the two sides are trading territory, neither gains and since the Allies have more money to start, they will gain in the long run.
Maybe you could implement this change after Turn xx in the game as the production gets closer to the same–not sure when that should be.
I can’t comment on the technology aspect as I never play with it as it adds too much randomness to the game. However, you had the comment:
Any technology already developped by any ally is available without Step 1.
Any technology already developped by any nation is available without rolling a die in Step 1.I’m guessing these are mutually exclusive additional rules to the 5 bullet point rules…you pick one of them.
I like the second option best “any tech 1 country has, everyone else can get without rolling die in step 1” because the my main concern with technology rules is the game becomes unbalanced, but that’s a discussion for another room in this forum…
At least with this rule, there is an initial payment to get a tech, and everyone else can “catch-up” with typically a lesser payment. -
@surfer said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
[A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.
This idea has been proposed before. I would be interested to try it but I am not sure it is achievable in Triple-A without change. I kind of think though that it would make Sea Lion way too hard and effectively take that off the table for the early game. So I would think you would need some setup changes, not sure what.
-
@pacifiersboard I agree with Surfer and SImon that the proposed change on income collection would massively benefit the Allies (to the detriment of game balance).
One other (perhaps unintended) consequence: there would be an even greater advantage to having your territory liberated by an ally, as opposed to retaking it yourself. I’m not sure there is a real-world analog for this.
What purpose would the rule-change serve?
As far as the tech tree proposals: quite a few neat ideas, but many would be difficult/impossible to implement in TripleA. I like the reduced barriers to entry for techs that already exist in the world.
-
A few points
- Not sure I like the two sea zones for the Caroline Islands. 1 zone with a separate sea zone for Palau played better - Can’t see the logical reason why should have to decide whether you want to be in range of SZ6 or New Zealand or Hawaii. Also not being in range of Java is a bit annoying too. But possibly being in range of Malaya is a bit interesting.
- The Kyushu <-> SZ20 link makes it much easier to get troops onto China and FIC. This seems to help Japan against China a fair bit. Not as much difficulty ferrying troops to FIC.
- I still despise the partition of SZ38 - it is now necessary to give Japan a bid, normally a TT, which makes it hard for the allies if everything works properly for the Axis. Starting to see a possible rationale, in that if Australia falls early Japan can win convincingly but surely that is sub optimal allied play and we shouldn’t be changing the map for that.
-
These comments should really have been in the feedback thread so will reply to them here.
@gargantua said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
Liberation of Paris… when recapturing Paris away from axis… it should be the liberating powers OPTION to liberate France, during every purchase units phase.
Well… not completely sure about this idea but it is a gaping hole in the rule set for Global 1940. I have been trying an axis strategy for leaving Normandy and S France French and it has been paying handsome dividends. Honestly, this strategy is ridiculous and gamey.
One partial solution is to not require France to have a capital to collect income. So they collect income for these territories and can mobilise troops if they are french. But to have a no capital arrangement and then they get liberated from the axis by USA and go back to France is still a limitation for the allies compared to going to USA ownership. So they need to be able to claimed by other powers IMO.
Not completely sure what the full solution might be but throwing some ideas into the air here.
-
@simon33 I wonder if one full game round should be played after french liberation and allies still control france, before normal french liberation rules take place.
Would still jack the allies and the normandy factory but … yea Germany probably wouldn’t counter attack. Idk maybe. It is 4 bucks.
i remember trying a National objective after round x where Germany got 5 bucks if they controlled it and allies got 5 if they reconquered. That’d be on top of the USA 5 bucks for having a dude there. 10 -15 dollar swing if USA has a dude there.
Yea idk, never found a good solution either
-
One could make Normandy a “Friendly Neutral” controlled by France at game start. Then if France was liberated, it would stay in control of whoever currently has it.
Not perfect, but maybe better than as is ? I guess you could do it for S France as well if you wanted
-
@barnee said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
One could make Normandy a “Friendly Neutral” controlled by France at game start. Then if France was liberated, it would stay in control of whoever currently has it.
Not perfect, but maybe better than as is ? I guess you could do it for S France as well if you wanted
Setting the original owner to someone other than France does resolve the issue of the USA losing ownership of Normandy when Paris is liberated but doesn’t resolve the case if it is never captured by the Axis.
-
@simon33 I thought BM had incentives, Vichy Rule, to take Normandy. I know Gamerman1 has a rule that it turns friendly neutral after rd 1 if not captured.
Anyway, if used with no capital cash twice, I think it’d work. Don’t see a big downside anyway.
-
@barnee said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
I thought BM had incentives,
Indeed but that could also be considered bait.
I agree though that there isn’t a big downside. Don’t think I said that there was a downside.
@barnee said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
I know Gamerman1 has a rule that it turns friendly neutral after rd 1 if not captured.
Haven’t heard that one, interesting idea. Which then gives a huge incentive to take it.
-
One other feedback point is that I’m finding China more challenging to play than in BM, even though it has been beefed up. I think the main reason for this is the Szechwan <-> Hunan connection. This makes it really hard to hang on to the Burma Rd even if you get Yunnan. Also cuts off the retreat into the bowels of China.
I’m not sure why the map was redrawn in this way actually, wanted to make China forced to withdraw early to the west?
Suggested Topics
