@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!
Its historically accurate.
It allowes the continuation of the fight with Germany beyond Moscow.
It gives Russia the opportunity to take back Moscow.
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.
@Amon-Sul oh I see. I thought you had asked whether a major Ic was needed to build ships.
@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
Hey all. Just wanted to address a rule issue that has come up in some of our matches.
Here is the scenario:
Germany attacks Normandy, France, and Southern France on round 1 (risky move, but is doable).
France chooses to scramble its fighter from Paris to the fight in Normandy.
Germany succeeds in taking France and Southern France, but fails to take Normandy, where the French fighter survives.
Question: Can the surviving French fighter land in Normandy?
The answer is yes.
The rule: A scrambling plane must return to the place from where it scrambled, unless that place is no longer a viable landing spot (either because the territory was taken, or the scrambling carrier was damaged/destroyed). If the place from where the plane scrambled is no longer a viable landing spot, the plane may land in any available spot that is adjacent to or in the battle zone itself.
So in the scenario above, Normandy would be an available landing spot for the surviving French fighter, since it could not return home to France.
Please be aware that the current version of the TripleA engine does not handle this rule well. However, we have tested it on the upcoming TripleA 2 engine, and it works perfectly in accordance with the rules stated above. Until that version is released, please use edit mode whenever you need to land scrambled planes in the territory to which they scrambled.
@regularkid How those the new island placements affect the rule: “while it’s not at war with Japan, the United States may not…end the movement of its sea units in sea zones that are adjacent to Japan-controlled territories” ?
@Misterblue good question. The rule remains unchanged, but now there is an exception for the Guam sea zone. Ships may end by Guam even though it abuts marianas. Will add this to game notes.
@regularkid Those the exception apply to sz32 as well? (since Wake border that sea zone as well)
@Misterblue correct
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
Can you comment on civil war and great purge - are those one time penalties?
Yes, it is a onetime penalty that only affects starting income.
I don’t see anything about these concepts in the game notes, or in your new variant description. Is there additional info on Path to Victory, somewhere?
@CaptainNapalm Hey Captain. We will be putting out an updated version of the map with supplemented game notes in the next couple of weeks. The Great Purge/Civil War Penalty was inadvertently omitted from the original notes.
Regarding carrier scramble:
Can scramble into land territories, only if there is a friendly land unit in the territory.
Does this apply to sea zones? I assume no, or you’d have stated such, but just want to be clear.
So, assuming this “friendly unit needed to scramble” rule does NOT apply to sea zones, would a lone transport NOT be able to make an amphibious assault adjacent to an enemy carrier based aircraft, without being vulnerable, but WOULD be able to make a non-combat landing adjacent to an enemy carrier based aircraft?
After typing this out, I realize carrier scramble is likely, simply the exact same as airbase scramble, but limited to one plane per carrier. Which is why you called it a simple expansion of an existing game feature. But, hey, I’m not going to erase this whole post! I wasted my time, writing it. Now I’m going to waste your time by reading it. (And it might actually clarify some things. hehehe)
@CaptainNapalm said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
Regarding carrier scramble:
Can scramble into land territories, only if there is a friendly land unit in the territory.Does this apply to sea zones? I assume no, or you’d have stated such, but just want to be clear.
So, assuming this “friendly unit needed to scramble” rule does NOT apply to sea zones, would a lone transport NOT be able to make an amphibious assault adjacent to an enemy carrier based aircraft, without being vulnerable, but WOULD be able to make and non-combat landing adjacent to an enemy carrier based aircraft.After typing this out, I realize carrier scramble is likely, simply the exact same as airbase scramble, but limited to one plane per carrier. Which is why you called it a simple expansion of an existing game feature. But, hey, I’m not going to erase this whole post! I wasted my time, writing it. Now I’m going to waste your time by reading it. (And it might actually clarify some things. hehehe)
Just noticed, game notes say the defender needs a unit in the land territory to scramble.
Does NOT say it needs to be a land unit, as I stated. Can it be an allied unit, or does it need to be a unit belonging to the scrambling power?
@CaptainNapalm said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:
But, hey, I’m not going to erase this whole post! I wasted my time, writing it. Now I’m going to waste your time by reading it. (And it might actually clarify some things. hehehe)
I feel your pain, and would have plowed forward as well. Land-scramble is permitted if there is any friendly defending unit (land, air, AA gun, etc.) in the defending territory. Note, this even applies to pro-neutrals! Hope that clarifies.
