WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@axis-dominion No, both the factory and the harbor need to be in the same territory to build capital ships.

I feel that may be too restrictive, don’t you think?

@axis-dominion Only Germany and Central US cannot build capital ships while there’s a harbor for that sea zone, and they have other factories right beside them with harbors so capital ships can be placed there anyway.

@axis-dominion said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

Still no revised tech? I really love the idea of tech, but needs to be revised. Tech played a big role in the real war, and I already know Adam will say well that’s already reflected in the increased income as you conquer more, but I have to say I would really love for tech to be revisited and revised to make it a viable and fun system.

yeah, tech in BM3 sucks.

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@axis-dominion Only Germany and Central US cannot build capital ships while there’s a harbor for that sea zone, and they have other factories right beside them with harbors so capital ships can be placed there anyway.

a minor IC and a harbour are enough to build CS?

so no need for a major IC?

Factories in Russia: Originally owned Factory Minors in Russia are destroyed upon capture by the Axis.

So what about Moscow major IC?

@Amon-Sul Just becomes a minor, it is not destroyed.

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@Amon-Sul Just becomes a minor, it is not destroyed.

in Revised, I think Russia could move its ics in ncm.

we should put it back :)

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@Amon-Sul No need for a major IC to build capital ships. That is correct. One of the reasons for the harbour restriction was to prevent undue exploitation of the Soviet IC in Siberia. With Russia’s boosted income, it was a concern. Another reason was to prevent what, to me, always seemed a corny scenario of USA pumping out carriers from newly built factories in Greece and Norway.

U mean, minor ic ;)

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@Amon-Sul Just becomes a minor, it is not destroyed.

in Revised, I think Russia could move its ics in ncm.

we should put it back :)

Adam and I actually gave that some thought. Ultimately we concluded the prospect of a cat-a-mouse with minor factories roaming the Russian countryside wasn’t worth the trouble of adding a complicated ruleset and coding. Usually by the time the factory-capable territories are taken by Axis, Russia doesn’t have enough income to produce in all its factories anyhow. But if you think there are advantages to a moving-factory dynamic, I’d be interested to hear them!

1. Its historically accurate.

2. It allowes the continuation of the fight with Germany beyond Moscow.

3. It gives Russia the opportunity to take back Moscow.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

I see. So you’d want Russia to continue to be able to produce units even after its capital is taken. I believe world at war is like this?

its an interesting concept. But after a few games playing Germany, i’ll bet you will not be seeking a further buff for Russia. Germany definitely has its job cut out for it.

well, tehnically, the capitol is not taken, but removed, i mean the IC xd

Reduced Unit Costs: Transports now cost 6. Cruisers 11. Battleships 18. And tactical bombers 10.

I must underline this, cus it is so important.

Just curious, why to make transports cheaper? do they have some combat value or extra ability?

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@Amon-Sul No need for a major IC to build capital ships. That is correct. One of the reasons for the harbour restriction was to prevent undue exploitation of the Soviet IC in Siberia. With Russia’s boosted income, it was a concern. Another reason was to prevent what, to me, always seemed a corny scenario of USA pumping out carriers from newly built factories in Greece and Norway.

However, if I am understanding correctly, since it only takes a minor IC and a Harbour to build a capital ship, then a Harbour could be built in Siberia and then the Russians could build carriers there.

On that topic; Can you build a harbor and a capital ship in the same turn or do you need to wait until the next turn?

@Misterblue said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

On that topic; Can you build a harbor and a capital ship in the same turn or do you need to wait until the next turn?

No you can’t, you need to have a functional harbor at the beginning of the round, so you need to wait a turn after building the harbor (TripleA handles that correctly).

@Amon-Sul X number of factories per game may move once per game + no cat and mouse