WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

Then with land-scramble an aa won’t do the trick?

Can we get an official map picture showing all these changes, I think i may want to make a custom map for this-

@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Then with land-scramble an aa won’t do the trick?

AAA is a combat unit, so it would work.

@CaptainNapalm said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Then with land-scramble an aa won’t do the trick?

AAA is a combat unit, so it would work.

It’s about as much a combat-unit as a trannie. It doesn’t have an attack value and a special defence value.

@Imperious-Leader said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Can we get an official map picture showing all these changes, I think i may want to make a custom map for this-

Not sure what you mean. This map is on TripleA.

Question about revised carrier rules as presented in Triple A notes:

Last sentence says “Otherwise, the planes may land in any adjacent territory”.

This should include open, undamaged aircraft carriers within 1 movement point away (adjacent sea zones), too, right?

I know this is fairly nitpicky, but I can see this potentially being a problem between players in the middle of a game, thanks.

Should be, in accordance with the rules.

@gamerman01 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Question about revised carrier rules as presented in Triple A notes:

Last sentence says “Otherwise, the planes may land in any adjacent territory”.

This should include open, undamaged aircraft carriers within 1 movement point away (adjacent sea zones), too, right?

I know this is fairly nitpicky, but I can see this potentially being a problem between players in the middle of a game, thanks.

Yeah that wording was changed in later versions, you can land in any viable landing spot with your 1 movement after the battle if your original carrier/territory is no longer a viable landing spot.

Probably a known issue, but I was trying my first move on PTV (I hope this is the right place to post a technical issue) and Triple A wouldn’t let the plane on Korea go 1 space to Zone 20. To attack Hong Kong I had to use edit mode.

Thanks

@gamerman01 There was a map change, you’re still looking at the old map overlay while the code (saved game) was started on the new version of the map. Korea is fully enclosed in sz7 in the new version, hence why it takes 2 moves to get to sz20. You need to delete the existing PTV map and then install it again.

Thank you very much, it helps that you were so fast

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@gamerman01 There was a map change, you’re still looking at the old map overlay while the code (saved game) was started on the new version of the map. Korea is fully enclosed in sz7 in the new version, hence why it takes 2 moves to get to sz20. You need to delete the existing PTV map and then install it again.

If you can get the developers to move on the map version, users will be prompted to do this. Not sure who is your resident “git” expert.

Japan just conquered the Siberia, and the factory was not destroyed. Is this a game issue, new map(which I think I have), or Triple A 2.0(which I don’t have)?

@CaptainNapalm It was a bug, fixed in future iterations of the map.

After having played 1½ games of P2V I’d like to say that I really like the feel of game-play regarding both Russia and China, and more specifically the german and japanese conquest thereof. You guys have done a very good job!

In OOB it is just a simple max throttle towards Moscow getting that train into motion for a secure capital take-down á la Crushia. After having done it 2-3 times it becomes rather boring. Like an overly prolonged opening. Japan can go for a J1DOW which spices things up, but otherwise has not much more to do than getting into position and send punches on China.

In BM3 play is much richer and heading more towards the long-term economic game. I like it, but still view Russia and China as a ather single-minded approach with pretty much similarity to OOB. Of course with some apparent differences, like that an early sack of Moscow is not easy to execute at all.

With P2V I get a much more a sensation of strategic goals and gains. In Russia there are now actually atleast two pretty divided fronts. Russia is super-strong, but also has to handle heavy pushing from several directions.

Think I read something that @AndrewAAGamer wrote before commencing his first game in P2V recently, namely that he’d plan to focus on the Atlantic instead of pushing against Russia because he wouldn’t be able to take the capital swiftly. It’s true, but also only half the truth.

I think it’s still very viable to make that Barbarossa-endeavour, but it will just look a bit different in P2V. Mechs are rather expensive all of a sudden, so much more bulk of the army has to be inf and art. Progress is slower, but still strong if patient.

I really like it when Germany pushes strongly both north and south. They have to make a lot of choices. Something that however also applies to Russia. In the previous maps it was a rather just simple recipe of first hold Bryansk, then hold Moscow. Of course with a lot of skirmishes in between, but still. Should be so much more fun to play a Russia like this!

The same goes for China. It’s stronger in P2V and thus has the potential of playing a more important role. Not that it was truly insignificant in previous versions, like the French, but still more limited.

In P2V Japan has to choose more strongly whether to unleash towards China or UK-Pac. The latter is likely prefered, but yet, the northern territories are more easily contested in the early game and does carry with them some lucrative bounty. Also, if unchecked the chinese will be, as usual, a severe pain in the ass!

So, towards the middle-ground and maybe some constructive feedback. I experience that the simplification of the Russian-Mongolian Pact is not making the game better. As it stand there’s no real biggie with provocation there.

Japan could happily make a sweep towards Sibiria already J1 if they were not more importantly occupied elsewhere. The 8 inf is a deterrent, but the Land Lease NO in BM3 makes Japan to really think twice when or if they should DOW on Russia. Without it Russia also has almost no incentive at all to hold back on a DOW and intrusion.

Maybe it’s for the better. I’m not sure. I believe it does make early DOW in the north pretty much standard with Russia as the common aggressor, while especially in BM3 it wasn’t certain. For me, I like the trickier decisions and strategic tension better.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

As for “Lendlease Incentives” vs. “Auto-Mongolia Incentive,” we had considerable negative pushback on BM regarding the more complex structuring the lendlease NO, and its interaction with Japanese/Russian relations. That was one of the reasons we opted to simplify it, while giving Mongolia additional infantry in order to make the incentives stronger.

Thanks!

I think that the Lend-Lease incentive in BM3 (where a JDOW gives Russia potentially more income) is a great addition compared to OOB. You just heard from all the haters, that’s all. ;)

In OOB it is a no-brainer for J to chew up the Soviet East very early. A standard move is to move an inf and tank immediately to Siberia on J1. Consequence of DOW is none, while the release of mongolian hordes is a nuiscance, but still not too worrysome to not be worth it.

I think you found a very good and balanced mechanic with BM3. Russia wants J to DOW, while J wants Russia to DOW and very often noone does until perhaps turn 7 or 8 if J is strong enough to pursue some conquest.

Ok, this is last part is for another thread (namely feedback for BM3), but I think a good change would be that Russia not only has to DOW in order to go into Korea after a US-landing, but that soviet prescence in originally owned japanese territories bordering Mongolia should also put the defence pact out of play.

Completely agree with @trulpen. Sure it’s a little complicated, but it really is an effective barrier for both sides. A great compromise = both sides lose equally, and this is in that category.

I agree as well for what it is worth, it makes for an edgy standoff…who has the strength to move first?