WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion

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

@axis-dominion haha. the pains of being an early adopter.

Actually, it was one of your comments/suggestions that inspired the decision to change carrier mechanics. So YOU did this to yourself, Axis…

Keep that feedback coming. It’s very much appreciated and helpful.

oh haha, that was all Adam actually, I was wanting them nerfed even more, like limiting the carrier scrambling as I think it’s a bit too much, and given the carrier-scrambling ability, I can’t imagine anyone bothering with cruisers and battleships, despite the reduced cost. carrier scrambling is just so huge honestly.

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

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

@axis-dominion haha. the pains of being an early adopter.

Actually, it was one of your comments/suggestions that inspired the decision to change carrier mechanics. So YOU did this to yourself, Axis…

Keep that feedback coming. It’s very much appreciated and helpful.

oh haha, that was all Adam actually, I was wanting them nerfed even more, like limiting the carrier scrambling as I think it’s a bit too much, and given the carrier-scrambling ability, I can’t imagine anyone bothering with cruisers and battleships, despite the reduced cost. carrier scrambling is just so huge honestly.

my specific suggestions were to either:

1. limit to no more than 3 air scrambling from a sz
   OR
2. limit to the number of land or sea units that are being defended, so if there’s just one dude or dd, for example, then only one air could be scrambled to defend it (from a given sea zone)

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

2. limit to the number of land or sea units that are being defended, so if there’s just one dude or dd, for example, then only one air could be scrambled to defend it (from a given sea zone)

I think the same should in that case apply for land-scrambling.

The issue with the land scrambling limit is that makes it significantly harder to stack islands, something the US already has trouble with.

I was actually referring to land-to-land.

@trulpen That could be interesting yeah.

As it is now skirmishes are heavily reduced.

I’m thinking one strategy for G could be, although pretty expensive, to put up an ab in Saratov, Vologda and S Belarus respectively.

Russia would be pretty much jailed in, only affording to hit one area. Of course, G has to be able to complete the feat of containing the commies as first base.

The same goes with Normandie and Holland. Keeping 3 fig in Paris is very strong now. Maybe not bad in that instance though.

Well, the Allies does have some trumps at hand, like a super-strong Russia.

Great work on this guys! Just seeing the rule set for first time now.

Lots of these ideas were a long time coming. Love the effort!!!

But there is still one MAJOR flaw I hope you can fix…

Liberation of Paris… when recapturing Paris away from axis… it should be the liberating powers OPTION to liberate France, during every purchase units phase.

As things are, despite any of the mods we have ever seen we still have the super gimmicky/gamey issue of not being able really enter Paris for the sake that the allies will be so logistically punished for it with loss of frontline factories and IPCs Etc. Only to have Germany being able to totally ignore defending it, and subsequently take it back denying alll the allied efforts in France to date becuase they can’t use those French territories for production.

A “real” France campaign is still off the table. Instead every battle for France is a jokes on Paris episode.

PLEASE FIX THIS ISSUE ;) from the bottom of my dark heart

Hell to simply

Just give a button that says “liberate nation” in the politics phase. And any allied owner of Paris can do that for France when it pleases.

@Gargantua The Allies did delay taking Paris even though they could have earlier in the real war. There are situations where taking Paris back is advisable, and it is useful to the Germans because of the factory and the airbase. Fast units are more expensive to mass just for defense too. If we give the option of liberating France, it would never be liberated and would be kept in US/UK hands.

@regularkid can France use it’s 12 ipc bonus for liberation to repair bases? Perhaps not in the past but might be a nice add considering the potential value of the Paris airbase. Otherwise it’s a potentially long delay for damaged French bases and another disincentive to taking Paris.

No interest in having IC destroyed in Paris and Normandy when Ger captures ? Then when allies liberate give them 4-6 inf placed in Paris so allies can buy an ic and hold it or
The ic in Paris and Normandy is Destroyed on Ger capture and when allies liberate maybe give Paris a ic and 4-6 inf.
It’s just how far u want to go here in game changes

Or looks like a NO of 12 icps if Normandy liberated ? Then give allies another NO for liberating Paris one time in game. But money needs to stay in Atlantic side or France

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

@Gargantua The Allies did delay taking Paris even though they could have earlier in the real war. There are situations where taking Paris back is advisable, and it is useful to the Germans because of the factory and the airbase. Fast units are more expensive to mass just for defense too. If we give the option of liberating France, it would never be liberated and would be kept in US/UK hands.

The irony of this argument is, as is, Paris doesn’t get liberated.

It’s just awkwardly ignored by both parties, save the rather rare situations it’s “advisable”. Which is exactly what I am suggesting we avoid.

And in terms of historical reality, the French government (4th republic) was not actually re-established until AFTER the war In 1946. Prior to that it was simply DeGaulles provisional govt under US/UK protection, which is essentially what I am proposing.

I’m glad we are having a discussion about this issue because it’s been glaring for a decade :)

Maybe the “free men” bonus could be adjusted in a way to make liberating it more common or desired. If people got 10 free inf they might do it. Or maybe after Paris is liberated first time, any French Controlled factories get free infantry or something. Whether they have an income or not.

Or perhaps USA or UK can use French controlled factories.

Or via the Vichy shift, perhaps French territories can be treated like dutch ones, activateable by allies on NCM. If Paris is recaptured, French territories will then revert to whichever allied powers are in those territories. On their non combat turns.

Either way… we ought to try to break up this gimmick

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

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

@Gargantua The Allies did delay taking Paris even though they could have earlier in the real war. There are situations where taking Paris back is advisable, and it is useful to the Germans because of the factory and the airbase. Fast units are more expensive to mass just for defense too. If we give the option of liberating France, it would never be liberated and would be kept in US/UK hands.

The irony of this argument is, as is, Paris doesn’t get liberated.

It’s just awkwardly ignored by both parties, save the rather rare situations it’s “advisable”. Which is exactly what I am suggesting we avoid.

And in terms of historical reality, the French government (4th republic) was not actually re-established until AFTER the war In 1946. Prior to that it was simply DeGaulles provisional govt under US/UK protection, which is essentially what I am proposing.

I’m glad we are having a discussion about this issue because it’s been glaring for a decade :)

Maybe the “free men” bonus could be adjusted in a way to make liberating it more common or desired. If people got 10 free inf they might do it. Or maybe after Paris is liberated first time, any French Controlled factories get free infantry or something. Whether they have an income or not.

Or perhaps USA or UK can use French controlled factories.

Or via the Vichy shift, perhaps French territories can be treated like dutch ones, activateable by allies on NCM. If Paris is recaptured, French territories will then revert to whichever allied powers are in those territories. On their non combat turns.

Either way… we ought to try to break up this gimmick

Yes that was my suggestion where make it worth it for allies

The Allies usually have a very strong situation at the west front as it is. A more favourable liberation of Paris would upset things quite a bit. You would simply need some substantial benifits for the Axis to counter-weigh that change.

Any modification of the original rules should still strive to keep as much of the original as possible. To have a separate liberation-rule for France is not feasible, I think.

@GEN-MANSTEIN

Yeah, I just struggle so hard with the concept, that for Germany, it’s more often to their benefit to lose Paris lol, and it’s often more advisable for Germany to abandon Paris than it is advisable for the allies to liberate it.

It’s crazy.

Like saving private Ryan, where the captain Miller and Hamill talk

“Captain Hamill:
You got to take Caen so you can take Saint Lo.

Captain Miller:
You’ve got to take Saint Lo to take Valognes.

Captain Hamill:
Valognes you got Cherbourg.

Captain Miller:
Cherbourg you got Paris.

Captain Hamill:
Paris you got Berlin.

Captain Miller:
And then that big boat home.“

Losing Paris needs to be a MAJOR threat to euro axis. Not some calculable advantage, a MAJOR disadvantage to the allies and a big laugh.

But then you should do the same with Calcutta, Moscow and Rome and so on, no?

@trulpen not at all.

You don’t see Vichy India or Vichy Russia.

France gets treated differently in all variants of BM. The game presents a geographically problem with two capitals so close., and hence why France is a special case. Not too differently than the Dutch or Mongolia are also special cases.

And because its already a special case scenario, minor adjustments to it arent off base in my mind.

Might be, might be.