WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

@aequitas-et-veritas Cummulatively, we play-tested the map about two dozen times over the course of the last ten days. About half these games were against humans, half against AI. We tested different strategies to ascertain their continued viability in PTV. Some observations:

1. Russia is a monster, but does not appear to be OP. The availability of land scramble from Leningrand/Moscow substantially nerfs the effectiveness of Italian can-openers in the North. For example, if there are three Russian planes on the airbase in Leningrad, it would only take one Russian infantry to present a meaningful blocker in the Baltic states; The Russian player would have the option to scramble 3 planes should Italy attack there.

2. We tested Sea Lion in view of the reduced transport costs. Sea Lion remains a viable option but is not OP. In both our Sea Lion games, Germany had a strong start but struggled in the East (while still giving Russia a fight). This is as it should be.

3. The jury is still out on which strategy is most effective against Russia: Make a beeline for Moscow? Or take a longer route through Russia’s oil-rich south? Or split the difference? Both strategies have been tried with varying degrees of success. Look forward to playing this out more.

4. In the Mediterranean: There’s too much to say about this for a single, introductory post, but it is noteworthy that Malta’s strategic significance is now accurately reflected in the game. Also, if Italy wants to have the option to press Cairo on round 2 (by stacking Alexandria) it is imperative that Germany land at least four planes in Italy (northern or southern) on Round 1 (they can reach from the English channel). Is no longer sufficient just to stack everything in Western Germany, since Alexandria and Cairo are out of range.

5. Japan. This is as actually one of my favorite aspects of the new game. The carrier-scramble mechanics, coupled with the positioning of islands on Sea Zone boundaries makes for some exciting cat-and-mouse games. You are likely to see Japan and the Americans sending landing forces from opposite sides of islands in order to capture and keep them. Very evocative of the battle of the Battle of Guadalcanal . I love it. As for strategy, J1Dow has been nerfed somewhat, but is still feasible based on our play-tests. I find that Japan now has a strong incentive to stick close to the coast of China, rather than plunging into it, especially on an early DOW.

Those are just my preliminary thoughts based on the play testing done so far. I’m looking forward to hearing what others think.

@farmboy hey! Great point about complexity. Minimizing complexity was definitely a touchstone of our decisionmaking process in making this map, as well as Balanced Mod. In some ways, PTV actually decreases G40’s complexity–for example, removing the complicated territory/diplomatic rules regarding Mongolia and eliminating the tiered lend lease system for Russia.

The main source of increased complexity, would, of course, be the application of scramble rules to land battles and carriers. However, since this is merely an extension of an already existing and well-understood game mechanic, i would describe as more of elegant addition, than a complexity.

As for the considerations that went into each facet of PTV, there are frankly too many too enumerate in one post. But if there are any specific aspects that you would like to see addressed, I will be happy to do so.

Congratulations again on your triumph against Adam in G40 BM3. He was so crushed by it that he decided to make a new game that he can’t possibly lose. Jk Jk. Look forward to seeing your future matches on PTV.

@farmboy The redrawing of Russia was informed by three main goals: (1) to foster a more dynamic Russian front than simply retreating and advancing two huge stacks; (2) to force Germany to choose between competing strategic objectives, rather than accessing all of them at once; (3) to more accurately reflect geographic realities.

On the first goal, Adam and I agreed from the outset that western Russia needed more territories. We used natural obstacles–namely, the repositioned Lake Ladoga and the enlarged Pripet Marshes–to give Russia more cover for counter offensives, and to give Germany more opportunities for flanking.

On the second goal, we were careful to make sure that a stack of fast German units poised to strike Moscow could not also be in range of every other strategic objective in Russia–i.e., we wanted to avoid the Bryansk/Rostov situation from G40, where Germany basically commands the entire arena from one or two territories.

Finally, on the third goal, it always bothered me personally that Moscow and Stalingrad, in G40, are the same distances from Berlin regardless of which route you take to get there. Geography dictates that If Germany goes south (i.e., under the Pripet marshes), it should take less time to get to Stalingrad and more time to get to Moscow. Conversely, if Germany goes north, it should take more time to get to Stalingrad and less time to get to Moscow. Finally, Moscow shouldn’t be closer to Stalingrad than it is to Leningrad, because in real life, Stalingrad is about half again as far from Moscow.

These considerations are now reflected in the new Russian layout. Germany can reach Stalingrad in six moves, but only it it goes south. Germany can reach Moscow in six months, but only if it goes north. In other words, Germany must choose. This was the goal.