WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion

@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” ?

@regularkid Those the exception apply to sz32 as well? (since Wake border that sea zone as well)

@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?

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?

@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.

Me too!

I actually worked together with @Pejon_88 a year ago on a different system for tech that I believe has quite some potential. One of the basic ideas was that there’s be a new structure, namely research facilities (small) and complex (big).

We tried out a few different routes, but never hit the endpoint of satisfaction and just put it on ice for a while. Maybe I should dust it off and give it a go? Would be interesting to hear others feedback on it.

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

@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.

Me too!

I actually worked together with @Pejon_88 a year ago on a different system for tech that I believe has quite some potential. One of the basic ideas was that there’s be a new structure, namely research facilities (small) and complex (big).

We tried out a few different routes, but never hit the endpoint of satisfaction and just put it on ice for a while. Maybe I should dust it off and give it a go? Would be interesting to hear others feedback on it.

yes go for it!

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

@axis-dominion yah, i’ve never really been a tech guy for A&A tbh. But I definitely think it could be a worthwhile pursuit as a mod to PTV, if someone else has good ideas for a tech tree.

I’ve never been a tech guy, either. Because it’s always been an expensive, random, gamble, and I want to win with strategy, and minimize random luck. I don’t want to try for advanced artillery, and get improved shipyards, instead. That being said, unless we are playing low luck, we face random chance, every battle, every game. We take that chance, because we like the odds versus payoff. TECH IS FUN! If done right, which is apparently difficult, as I’ve never seen it, it could be a great improvement to the game!

I’ll leave it to those more creative than I to debate WHICH tech should be in the game, but I want to weigh in on HOW tech should be developed in the game.

There are two systems, that I’ve seen, that got close enough for me to consider investing in tech. A&A 50th Anniversary Edition has expensive, random, tech tokens(die rolls), but if you miss, you keep your token(s), and roll each round, until successful. Global War 1936 has inexpensive, non-random tech, but a missed roll is a complete loss.

Combining these two, I can imagine a tech system that I would want to invest in:
Inexpensive - GW36, $2, rather than 50th, $5
Non-random - GW36, I chose the tech I want, and invest in THAT tech.
Return on investment - “If we aren’t winning, we are learning.” My proposal would be an improved chance at success, each successive round, following a failure. One die pip more likely to succeed, perhaps. The 50th system, of carrying your token over each round, until successful, would also work for me.

I also like that GW36 requires a series of successful rolls, to achieve the new tech. I don’t want to lose my Japanese navy, because, in one round, the US got super subs, jet fighters, and heavy bombers.

For those unfamiliar with Global War 1936, I’m attaching a picture of one of their tech charts. You can see they use a 12 sided die, but I don’t think that’s required. You’ll also see that some tech requires better die rolls for success. I like this, as I imagine it next to impossible to evenly balance a dozen technology breakthroughs, covering all the varying aspects of the game. Just make it more difficult to get a successful breakthrough on the more powerful tech.

I look forward to everyone’s feedback!

I also have never been a Tech guy for the same reasoning. Tech just makes the game more random and makes it more luck based than strategy based. I would be against Tech as a mandatory requirement but okay with optional so those that do want to use Tech can.

For any Tech I would ask for two requirements: 1) They do not go into effect until the Turn after they are discovered. 2) They are not overwhelming. They should at most provide a small advantage and never a big advantage.

u can play tech differently. like each side has 1 tech to choose, or each nation, or every few turns u get one tech.

or u can fix it, like u pay some money and u get tech for sure.

tech is a bonus option so all the rules can arrange, and it does not have to be random luck thing at all

@Amon-Sul
I like that idea of picking or buying instead of rolling. It should still not go into effect till the following Turn you get it.

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

@Amon-Sul
I like that idea of picking or buying instead of rolling. It should still not go into effect till the following Turn you get it.

that can all be arranged by mutual agreement

Yes definitely a few ways to go. We play based on random ness. After you play the same game all the time it gets scripted.
We use the 10 tech chart. Can buy token for 5 icps. Can get 2 free tokens through event cards. Can get 1 free tech through event cards. Can steal a enemy tech through event cards.
Roll a 6 breakthrough. Then roll a d10 for your tech on chart. Not all techs good for you. If you have 1-5 tokens and you roll 5 dice and get 5 6’s you only receive 1 tech and lose all tokens. Keeps tech under control plus the techs on chart are tweaked to being not to powerful.
Here’s the magnetic chart we use.

We have had 16 techs in game and doesn’t throw off balance. Most games there’s only 5-8 techs and most don’t help. At least it gives Russia a chance for a few good ones without buying if u don’t. But mostly they don’t get any.

We like the random ness based on in any war there’s many different things that can go wrong or u get a bit of a advantage at times.

As mentioned yes you could give each country a tech or a special weapon based on time of war for each turn but then over time gets scripted. IMO.

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

@Amon-Sul
I like that idea of picking or buying instead of rolling. It should still not go into effect till the following Turn you get it.

Picking, good.
Following turn, good.
Buying, bad. This is illogical for technological research advancement, for one thing. But for game play, it is bad because it makes tech subject to the same idealization as unit purchases, and the ideal J1 attack, for example. “If playing X country, you should buy Y tech, on round Z.” Not fun.

yeah, combo mode seems great

you get 1 tech, but u dont pick, u roll, and u get what u get.
or u can maybe choose to which nation u ll give it.

or each nation rolls randomly one tech etc

pretty cool