WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion

hoffman, see my thread in the player help section.

Cannot find many threads that really get into this version of the game in great detail. Played 1 full game of it so far, and love it. (I was originally a Classic player all the way.)

Anyway, few questions to maybe spark some discussion on this:

Which official version is this map closest to? Also which “official” rule set does this variant use? Spring 1942 edition?

Bidding: on the few posts I found on the topic, it seems people think this map favors the Axis and they actually bid allies. Either I am reading posts on a different version or I just suck, because it seems like the Allies are in pretty good shape in this map from the beginning and they can do some things right out of the gate to slow what needs to be a rapid Axis assault. E.g. China being a distraction and the UK being able to defend most of its colonies for at least 3 turns.

I am still not entirely sure what the best opening moves are for the Axis, which is what I would really like to discuss in depth here if other folks have some more experience with this game. For instance, what odds should the German player take to try and take Leningrad first turn? It seems like their Northern fleet cannot last more than a turn against a good UK player, so should you just sacrifice it and take worse odds on a Leningrad assault if the Soviet player leaves you, say, a 70% chance? (I am usually the kind of player that only attacks with overwhelming odds, e.g., 90% and above. Even 85% makes me nervous…) How can the Germans ever keep their Northern fleet alive? Do they need to? (It seems like the English can kill it turn 1 no matter what the Germans do.) If you cannot take Leningrad T1, is it better to instead focus like a laser on a later round (T4 or 5) take over of Stalingrad with a huge mass of tanks and infantry that you slowly plod over there?

Is a rapid take over of Africa impossible against a UK player who adequately defends Syria and Egypt T1 and who rapidly stacks Gibraltar with numerous planes and troops? Should the Italians forego Africa and put everything into a Russian assault? Is Western Turkey a viable take-over to open up another avenue for Italian ships and/or tanks into Russia or Africa?

Do the Japanese sacrifice their fleet to kill the US at Midway or do they ignore them entirely and focus everything on India? It seems like focusing on anything else is ultimately a mistake, at least thats how my last game played out.

So many questions! What do you guys think is the optimum opening Axis move?

Yea well that was in 2004. BTW i am still looking for the files. But the order of battle is totally correct as well as the air power ratios.

Just tweek the existing inventory of units and alter as needed.

@eddiem4145:

I have downloaded the rule book from Xeno games before. In fact I printed it out. I would be willing to fax it to you if they do not have the download still.

Incidentally, I have played their online (so to speak) email version. I bought it in 2004 with the promise of a newer more practical version. Yes it has been 6 years. They are still working on it. I never asked for my money back. There last update was october of last year. If they ever get it out, it probabbly will be great.

eddiem4145@yahoo.com

These guys make WOTC look good.

please post whatever rules you got written down. Its hard to follow strategy for games we don’t know the rules for, unless you are doing NOTHING except using the complete AAE rules for AAR verbatum, which still requires some rules to conform it to AAR.

I have studied extensively the economic dynamics of the added benefit of how nations faired following conquest, and concluded that the conquering player for the most part has not increased his total economic output from either liberation or conquest, and even to a lower degree has the nation that was invaded had lost any of its war making potential as a result of enemy occupied lands.

Cases:

German invasion of the Soviet Union only caused the Soviets to mobilize to a full war economy, moving potentially targeted areas (factories and industry) out of harms way. Secondly, even after the period of 1943-45 the Soviet economy rose at a even level in spite of having recaptured most if not all of her German occupied territories.

In Germany’s case she did benefit marginally with the conquest of france, because Vichy government was forced to pay for the war but this didn’t add nearly as much as the Germans slowly moving into a full wartime economy.

In the British case the loss of Singapore, parts of Egypt or Tobruk only served to embolden the conquerer and which served to deliver only a short term psychological blow to national morale.

Japan did benefit from the conquest of the Dutch colonies and was able to sustain her war from the newfound oil imports to offset the American oil embargo effects.

The invasion and liberation of France did not afford the allies with income, nor did it cost the Germans anything but prestige, a few lost U-boat bases, and some strategic air fields… but no tangible economic benefits other than the stoppage of some foodstuffs and payments from Vichy.

I think in all these cases they represent examples of only lost or gained oil reserves, but did not effect the production of airplanes, tanks, ships, or raising of new cadres of Infantry formations. In Germanys case conquered peoples offered a few divisions worth of volunteers but the effect was marginal.

All of this points to the direction that it may be more realistic and in fact solve some of the games issues, by  doing the following:

Each nation is established with a basic starting income and this does not change, except by possible investments into the economy to grow it to full war making potential.

what does this mean?

It means that for example the Soviets, Americans and Germans had economy that took time to mature and that can be presented in the game, by setting benchmarks to illustrate its growth over each turn or following the nations victory conditions.  For example: Germany avoids Moscow and instead takes the oil fields of Baku… they would be rewarded each turn with a set value in IPC, but otherwise they maintain the original income.

Secondly, note that each nation has DIFFERENT IPC starting values… so the question would also be how do the Axis try to get more money than what they start with?

They can invest in building the economy. Say they have 45 IPC basic income, they decide to save 10 IPC and you multiply the 10 IPC to the nations growth rate ( say Germany is at 50% growth rate) , so on all future turns her new starting figure will be at 50 IPC  ( remember: this is just an example).

possible benefits:

–Nobody is gonna keep taking stuff just to collect the money
–It saves alot of time to figure out what money you have
–it will boost SBR campaigns which done seem to really be part of the game
– it will encourage submarine warfare and ENR attacks
– All these silly invasions would keep happening
– effective elimination of a game phase ( collect income), also solving that issue about double collection.

Now im sure some of you will say it will extend the game and make it longer, but if you also adopt the all Axis/ All Allies move sequence the time is a washout.

Great thought! I will play test!

Just had another thought, if you wanted to eliminate dice, you could setup a rock/paper/scissors type game using those Units

Infantry defeat fighters/tanks, lose to artillery/bombers
Tanks defeat artillery, or other tanks
Fighters defeat bombers/tanks but lose to infantry/artillery (imbedded aa guns)

That type of concept anyways.  It would take some thinking through , more than this post from my cellphone haha but would be possible!

:-o
  I have several house rules, trying to get someone to agree to play them is usuallly the hard part.
      1. Armor can blitz into enemy territory in the non-combat phase, even if it causes a special," blitz combat phase"!
            Armor that have left over movement after their combat movement only.
      2." Combined Arms"; When there are Infantry+artillary+armor+air units combined in either attack or defense, all the units recieve a +1 in combat.
          So, if you have only three armor, then only they and three of each other troop type gains this bonus, irregardless of how many other troop types there are.
      3. Anti-Aircraft guns act as artillary too. Attack at a 3 and defend at a three. 88s’ were a bad ass gun.
                    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++  More later++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

:roll:Crazy Ivan