Good Action Argo ! Sounds way cool. Do you plan on making a triplea version ?
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
@simon33 You are indeed free to consider your point proven. Critical minds may differ.
-
@adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Critical minds may differ.
Not sure about rational ones though.
-
@simon33 Your using faulty reasoning. Because a few people live there in today’s time frame, does not mean that entire armies can cross with tanks and artillery through hundreds of miles of sand dunes. You watch too much Rat Patrol! You and the one that thinks movement is unrealistic nonsense should go to the same BBQ. The block in that game is realistic enough. Look at the Qattara depression. Their is a reason why Rommel and the Allies totally avoided this place at El Alamein! its an impassible quagmire of desert!
Who are these people that keep bringing up this ridiculousness??
-
@simon33 I think it’s great that you replied to the last post on this PTV thread that was made a year ago, and instantly revived fun and spirited discussion!
-
@imperious-leader said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 Your using faulty reasoning. Because a few people live there in today’s time frame, does not mean that entire armies can cross with tanks and artillery through hundreds of miles of sand dunes. You watch too much Rat Patrol! You and the one that thinks movement is unrealistic nonsense should go to the same BBQ. The block in that game is realistic enough. Look at the Qattara depression. Their is a reason why Rommel and the Allies totally avoided this place at El Alamein! its an impassible quagmire of desert!
Who are these people that keep bringing up this ridiculousness??
I mistake me here. I am just saying that a block in the middle of Sahara which doesn’t go to Atlantic would be ridiculous. I would presume that roads existed from Cairo to Sudan even in 1939 but I am not so sure on the Western coast. So it should be either Classic style free for all or G40 style.
-
@gamerman01 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 I think it’s great that you replied to the last post on this PTV thread that was made a year ago, and instantly revived fun and spirited discussion!
I don’t understand why you liked both my post and Adam514’s contrary post.
-
@simon33 assuming PTV has ebbed slightly in popularity (I do not concede this point!), one reason might be vocal detractors who unfairly and inaccurately malign it on public message boards.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 assuming PTV has ebbed slightly in popularity (I do not concede this point!), one reason might be vocal detractors who unfairly and inaccurately malign it on public message boards.
You consider it unfair but what do you expect when you make a major change without any consultation and then insist that it remain?
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
I don’t understand why you liked both my post and Adam514’s contrary post.
I appreciate your statement.
The way I view likes - I don’t have to agree with a post to like it. I will like/heart posts when I’m glad they posted rather than staying silent. Or when I think the poster communicated something well/effectively. Et cetera
-
@simon33 you haven’t explained what’s wrong with the change. And others have said that it dramatically improves the Pacific Theater. I welcome further discussion of this and any other aspects of PTV, but a bald assertion that a perceived drop in popularity is due to the split in the Malaya sea zone does not pass scrutiny.
-
League play is a small sample out of the universe of AAA games IMO. I’ve played several hundred games but never a single league game. Once my play group discovered PTV we pretty much switched to that exclusively over the past 2+ years.
I think the division of the Malaya SZ was good (and honestly support almost any change to increase the number of territories and SZs). If you think that change massively imbalances the game, I’d like to hear what you think the balance of P2V is (in terms of required Axis bid)? I think it’s pretty close to balanced and we normally play with an Axis bid of about 6. And we certainly don’t feel that Japan is weak, though the justification for a J1 DOW is lower than Global.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 you haven’t explained what’s wrong with the change. And others have said that it dramatically improves the Pacific Theater. I welcome further discussion of this and any other aspects of PTV, but a bald assertion that a perceived drop in popularity is due to the split in the Malaya sea zone does not pass scrutiny.
I feel that I already have. I am surprised you suddenly want to talk about it. Bids were already being put in for axis before this division. Japan seemed weak enough already. You have commented that a lot of Axis victories have been as Japan but I am inclined to think a lot of those have been because of inexperience; e.g. your victory over me after claiming Hawaii early on and me having an insane amount of trouble reclaiming it.
Anyway, those are some brief thoughts. I may have felt differently if other changes had been made that helped the axis and reduced the bids at the same time. I have posted previously that I don’t really like the way the China redraw plays.
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 you haven’t explained what’s wrong with the change. And others have said that it dramatically improves the Pacific Theater. I welcome further discussion of this and any other aspects of PTV, but a bald assertion that a perceived drop in popularity is due to the split in the Malaya sea zone does not pass scrutiny.
I feel that I already have. I am surprised you suddenly want to talk about it. Bids were already being put in for axis before this division. Japan seemed weak enough already. You have commented that a lot of Axis victories have been as Japan but I am inclined to think a lot of those have been because of inexperience; e.g. your victory over me after claiming Hawaii early on and me having an insane amount of trouble reclaiming it.
Anyway, those are some brief thoughts. I may have felt differently if other changes had been made that helped the axis and reduced the bids at the same time. I have posted previously that I don’t really like the way the China redraw plays.
Bids are not, in and of themselves, a bad thing. A small bid to decide who plays which sides, and to satisfy the players in regard to balance, keeps the game fresh. Further, the division in the Malayan sea zone was not for balance per se, but to improve the dynamics in the South Pacific theater, and for historical interest.
-
Ok, that is an interesting viewpoint. I tend to think high bids are a limitation. The change from BM2 to BM3 (+3 to Japan for holding Okinawa and Iwo Jima)I consider to be a mistake.
-
@simon33 as a interested observer I’ve noticed before your antipathy to that particular NO. What’s your reasoning if you don’t mind me asking?
It’s a small amount of ipcs, not too hard for the US to remove so doesn’t seem a game breaker? -
@wizmark said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 as a interested observer I’ve noticed before your antipathy to that particular NO. What’s your reasoning if you don’t mind me asking?
It’s a small amount of ipcs, not too hard for the US to remove so doesn’t seem a game breaker?Perhaps because it was the last one to be added - it was the change from BM2 to BM3, with the reasoning that Axis were getting bids and needed some help to rebalance the game. Then as game play evolved, allied bids started going up and up. So the entire rationale for it being added is no longer valid.
-
@simon33 But why complain about any NO that favors the Axis as long as you think the game is currently skewed in favor of the Allies overall? What do you believe is an appropriate bid for P2V under the current rules?
-
@mikawagunichi said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 But why complain about any NO that favors the Axis as long as you think the game is currently skewed in favor of the Allies overall? What do you believe is an appropriate bid for P2V under the current rules?
Fair call if you are talking about P2V although in the case of BM I think it is a valid complaint.
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Fair call if you are talking about P2V although in the case of BM I think it is a valid complaint.
Now that heart was definitely agreement.
I won’t say any more since I have a balanced mod opinion and it’s the PTV feedback thread, and some of the same guys gave us BM and PTV -
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@wizmark said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 as a interested observer I’ve noticed before your antipathy to that particular NO. What’s your reasoning if you don’t mind me asking?
It’s a small amount of ipcs, not too hard for the US to remove so doesn’t seem a game breaker?Perhaps because it was the last one to be added - it was the change from BM2 to BM3, with the reasoning that Axis were getting bids and needed some help to rebalance the game. Then as game play evolved, allied bids started going up and up. So the entire rationale for it being added is no longer valid.
The changes we made are mainly for gameplay, not for balance. I haven’t thought that Allies were superior to Axis at any point in the development of BM. We started from unbalanced G40, changed rules and NOs to improve the game and end up with BM4 which is more balanced than G40 for sure, but perfect balance was never our Nerd Herd objective. Whatever imbalance exists is perfectly handled by the bidding process between both players, and a decent bid (10+) is a positive aspect and keeps the game fresh.
The Iwo Jima and Okinawa NO adds a bit of importance to otherwise ignored portions of the map, and is in line with the rest of the Pacific island NOs with the same goal.
Suggested Topics
