WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

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?

Yes, you might have just heard from the squeaky wheels.

Consider reducing Mongolia back to 6 infantry and keep the double lend-lease penalty if Japan declares war. Reinstate the Mongolia rule (after all, it has been in the rulebook for many years now so people should have figured out how it works by now) about territories bordering it, and consider the requirement for Russia to declare war to enter Korea even if it’s controlled by an ally.

Or better yet (although this would be a new rule) don’t allow Russian and American ground troops to occupy the same territory on the Pacific map (because of history). I could even see a rule that no allied GROUND units are allowed to enter Russian territories (entire world, not UK, USA, Australia or French), and no I don’t expect anyone to listen to me. Some things to think about… But since you’ve buffed Russia and made it bigger, maybe it’s time to get more historical and make her operate with no allied ground troops. (Still have the NO for no Allied units at all in Russia, with allied air still being allowed to operate in Russia, but disrupting the NO as it has been)

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

Or better yet (although this would be a new rule) don’t allow Russian and American ground troops to occupy the same territory on the Pacific map (because of history). I could even see a rule that no allied GROUND units are allowed to enter Russian territories (entire world), and no I don’t expect anyone to listen to me. Some things to think about… But since you’ve buffed Russia and made it bigger, maybe it’s time to get more historical and make her operate with no allied ground troops. (Still have the NO for no Allied units at all in Russia, with allied air still being allowed)

I think it’s a good historical approach, but would be taxing on playability. Besides, if history would’ve been different and Japan started an invasion of Siberia and Germany succeeding better by Leningrad and such, then I’m sure Mother Russia would’ve welcomed any additions whatsoever to it’s battered teets.

Has history went, they just didn’t have to. Or?

Enjoy the post, but I can’t see Russia welcoming British or American troops, no matter what :)

And the game already has them hauling in the financial aid :) Do we finally have a version where Russia can stand strong without any allied ground troops? I’m just starting to actually play PTV, but are people regularly saving Russia with actual allied ground troops?

Even in BM3, how often are allied ground troops infused into Russia? Isn’t it kind of rare anyway?

I just was thinking about your Korea suggestion, and ran with it.

I would say more or less no. It’s longer distances, so more difficult. Russia is stronger, so not as needed. But, in some instances I believe it would make sence.

Also the situation of US building a mIC in Norway. Oh, they can’t move their land units further than Finland? Oups, that just made the mIC so much less good. :)

Maybe that would be for the better though? Taking some sting out of the powerful Norwegian Enterprise. Although I suspect it would be for the worse, making Normandie the only rational option and thereby limiting play in that area.

And if whole board is too radical, because UK troops wouldn’t be allowed to come up from the middle east, and as you said about playability, taking this away could take away “playability”, maybe just disallow Allies from entering the Russian territories on the Pacific map

I’d say it’s rare in BM3 as well, and should be even more rare in P2V.

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

I would say more or less no. It’s longer distances, so more difficult. Russia is stronger, so not as needed. But, in some instances I believe it would make sence.

Also the situation of US building a mIC in Norway. Oh, they can’t move their land units further than Finland? Oups, that just made the mIC so much less good. :)

Maybe that would be for the better though? Taking some sting out of the powerful Norwegian Enterprise. Although I suspect it would be for the worse, making Normandie the only rational option and thereby limiting play in that area.

Still pretty awesome to be able to build 3 units a turn there. Ships, planes, ground units would still all be good buys there, and the ground could be picked up by transports

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

I’d say it’s rare in BM3 as well, and should be even more rare in P2V.

I appreciate that acknowledgement. I think with all the restrictions we already have, such as where Russia can move in Pacific map before DOW on Japan and Russia not allowed to go into China without state of war with Japan, might be a nice next step… and cleans up your Korea issue

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

And if whole board is too radical, because UK troops wouldn’t be allowed to come up from the middle east, and as you said about playability, taking this away could take away “playability”, maybe just disallow Allies from entering the Russian territories on the Pacific map

Russia does enjoy getting siberian territory liberated by i e US at times.

I think the first suggestion about Korea is solid. Allowing ruskijs and GI-Joes to cooperate should be ok, but it should atleast cost Russia something.

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

Russia does enjoy getting siberian territory liberated by i e US at times.

Oh, sure, I could imagine that - could allow USA to liberate Russian territories but not noncombat move into them? Easy solution

Yes, a plethora of interesting options now. :)

Again, I understand if all those suggestions are shrugged off by the team - but with rules like Italy not being able to spearhead into Russia and Russia not allowed to enter China without state of war with Japan, and Russia not allowed into places like India without war with Japan, that maybe this would be in the same spirit. We’ve come a long way from the first A&A game where Russia was absolutely doomed fast without US and British fighters swarming in. Shoot, my real dream is that no allied units are allowed in Russia, period.

And as to your great point about USA liberating far east Russia… maybe more incentive for those Russians to stay put and watch their post if USA isn’t allowed to come bail them out!

Wait… isn’t that another disincentive for Japan to declare war on Russia? That USA can then possibly use Russian territories for staging and landing? So even without lend-lease doubling as per BM3, there is actually more than the 8 Mongolian infantry to make Japan think twice, right? And it also allows Russia to enter China… And from Russia’s perspective, their penalty for declaring war is they won’t get the 8 Mongolian infantry and Japan can start invading without penalty…

Sorry for all the posts if they’re not appreciated - honestly, I’m just playing my first game of BM3 right now. But I have so much experience before BM3 I thought my opinion might still be worth putting out there…

I still vote for keeping the BM3 rules for doubling lend-lease. Japan is probably taking Amur, so the NO is potentially up from 6 to 8, plus loss of Amur is a 2 IPC swing and Siberia is a 4 IPC swing and any other territories are 2 IPC swing - whoa, doubling the lend-lease in PTV doesn’t seem like a very stiff penalty actually. Maybe consider the old rule that Japan or Russia collects 12 IPC’s if war is declared on them by the other. Or some other number. Keeps it simple, like you’ve done with taking away the Mongolia border rule thing, and makes an immediate impact either way, as opposed to the double NO thing that the Axis can manage (like if Archangel and Persia routes are both blocked, then there is no penalty at all). So all this to say maybe you don’t want to bring back the lend-lease doubling thing, which some people didn’t like anyway, and you add a simple and easy rule (the 12 IPC penalty is a good example) and please both the people that wanted that double lend-lease thing gone, and also the people who want to see Japan and Russia a little more discouraged from declaring war??? Gamer out ;)

As it stands J has plenty of good reasons not to DOW on Russia (the main one being occupied elsewhere), but it’s not really the other way around (especially with J being occupied elsewhere). Despite what gamer brought forth.

I would consider J leaving a stack of units up by Korea only to avoid a soviet intrusion to be bad play. Therefore the present solution does unfortunately not really do its job.

A PR-touch on the issue of land-lease could be that if Russia DOWs on J before say turn 5 (when Axis megalomania should be evident), then they will permanently lose all their land-leases, and a JDOW would mean Russia gets the sympathy from the world and the active land-leases are doubled. That’s kind of neat.

I also like it much better that there are objectives to fight for rather than a one-time boost whether units or IPC. So among those suggestions I’d still favour the NO-solution.

Hell, we can write a book about this!

Land Lease: A stroke of genius.

If Russia keeps 12-18 inf in the east, they can easily contest Amur. J can however then put a sub in z5 to block the NO.