WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

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

@trulpen i checked all of them and only Yenisey was a problem I think.

Great!

Question, wouldn’t it be appropriate that Japan has one more inf in Kwangsi at the start? I’m sure you’ve mulled over that issue a lot, so you probably have good reasons.

There is one more inf than in OOB already, but three territories to potentially grab instead of one. Also the sb’s being less of an attack-force makes Yunnan pretty shaky if only going in with 3-4 land units.

Perhaps the idea is that Japan has to have a tough choice and likely skips Hunan, and maybe even Kweichow as well, to secure a conquest of Yunnan?

Anyway, if I got a 3-bid with Axis, that’s where I’d put it without a blink.

Both Iran and Ireland should have been true neutral even having pro-allied Greece is questionable. I don’t think Greece would join Allies if Italy didn’t attack.

@Navalland that is true, but this game isn’t exactly historical. Most features exist to make it balanced.

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

@Navalland that is true, but this game isn’t exactly historical. Most features exist to make it balanced.

On such a note, I don’t know about you guys, but in all of my P2V-games (think it’s about 8 now) Russia has DOWed against Japan 100 % in round 3-4. I’ve played both sides.

Clearly the solution for BM3 did a much better job of keeping tension in the Siberian region.

@trulpen Yes and no…I would say that at least 80% of the time in the games I have played recently, both BM3 and p2V Russia DOWs against japan…those 2 rich spaces next to Amur are too tempting to not hit, especially if japan has vacated the north to attack the south.
The only game it hasnt happened is a team game against the BrAetv where japan has a factory in manch…and a big army!

That’s a huge commitment which might cost Japan dearly in the long run.

@trulpen not essentially, bc J had still all his TT’s.
But I screwed up my positioning ( oversaw two planes and an additional sub.

Anyway, as long as your IJN is strong and you still got your TT’s then you are allways in the benefit to shift them arround.
( Push the Allies out of reach).
Depending on the state of game of course!

Having Japanese tanks marching towars Central Asia is one of the biggest blunder in A&A WWII scenarios. It just totally eliminate all WWII feelings and this feature is not a must for balance either.

Banning Russo-Japanese front would be bad too. Better approach is reducing Japan’s power, mixing 1 Pu and 0 Pu territories between Irkutsk-Vladivostok and making it vulnerable to lose Dutch colonies. Having Chinese cavalry would be helpfull too hence China-Soviets can set up stronger defense together in Soviet Far East.

My UK Pacific units, placed in Eastern India, are not turning British at the end of the turn. Is this happening to anyone else?

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

@trulpen hey Trulpen. I think we are pretty content with the early-game balance in China atm. A risk averse Japanese player can get 100% odds on Yunnan, all but guaranteeing that he will take it with at least one land-unit remaining by attacking with the full Kwangsi stack, and two bombers from Japan. If he wants to take a chance on Yunnan by also going for the other adjacent territories, that’s certainly his prerogative. But it shouldn’t be a risk-free proposition. What makes the game interesting and fun is having to make strategic choices, calculated risks, and living with the consequences.

I don’t like it much. The reduction of the Burma Rd from 6IPC to 3IPC was retrograde and although the guerilla fighters are less annoying than in BM, partly because the 3 attack value bombers, there is still some nuisance value there.

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

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

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

@Navalland that is true, but this game isn’t exactly historical. Most features exist to make it balanced.

On such a note, I don’t know about you guys, but in all of my P2V-games (think it’s about 8 now) Russia has DOWed against Japan 100 % in round 3-4. I’ve played both sides.

Clearly the solution for BM3 did a much better job of keeping tension in the Siberian region.

@trulpen thanks for the feedback. There’s a pretty lengthy discussion about this issue earlier in this thread.

As stated there, the reason the Sino-Soviet dynamic is different in PTV than in BM is not the Lend Lease/Mongolia rules It’s the factory in Amur combined with Russia’s extra income.

If you removed the factory, you would have the pretty much the same dynamic in the far east as exists in BM. I’m confident of this.

On the other hand, if you were to import the BM lend lease rules exactly to PTV, the impact would be negligible. It would not change the fact that Russia has the factory, and the financial means to use it to wage an offensive campaign against Japan early on.

Might very well be. It certainly works regarding game balance, which is priority.

Found a small bug in the map connectivity. Southeast Mexico is not connected to SZ91 in the east. I have 2 ftrs on mexico and they cannot fly to Gibraltar.

@regularkid Ok, thanks. I think that particular game was corrupted, as I tried reloading and adding other units. No one could move to SZ91. But yes, I tried a fresh game and of course the move was handled correctly. I posted because I thought that region of the board was probably not playtested much…

Thanks for building this mod. It’s adds another level of complexity.

I’d like to give my input on the division of z38 by Malaya. I think that was a bad solution. Inhibits movements to the west, so J is actually confined to stay east of Malaya. Gives some weird effects and seriously hampers J-strategy. It tips the balance in the Pac far too much in favour of the Allies. Imho.