https://www.seawarstore.com/NavalEnsignsDlx.htm
This site offers dedicated military flags that are placed on the table for each player.
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
@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?
-
@CaptainNapalm. Hey, I just tested it on version 5.1, and there was no issue with the UK Pacific un its not turning British. I didn’t encounter this problem with any of the earlier versions either. If you’d like, you can send me a saved game file, and I can check it out.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@surfer Hey Surfer. The connections do work. Sometimes (and this is an occasional problem with all maps, not just PTV), the connections don’t load upon startup of the game. All you have to do to remedy the issue is to quit and restart tripleA. I’m sure if you do that in your current game, the connections will work fine.
-
@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.
-
@trulpen hey, hey trulpen. Interesting perspective. I’d love to plumb your thoughts on this further in a live chat, especially on what you mean by “weird effects.” But I’ll respond to general point, here: based on playtesting and feedback from the community, a consesus emerged that Japan’s positional advantage in PTV needed some nerfing. This was, in part, due to the new carrier scramble mechanics, and the redrawing of islands on sea zone intersections. Primarily, what we wanted to avoid was a situation where Japan could strike out at all strategically significant objectives from one tile on the board. . . and with a seaport, FIC/seazone 37 was such a spot.
The splitting of SZ 38 achieves several objectives: (1) it forces Japan to make a choice between projecting threat on the central Pacific, and hitting India by sea; (2) it allows the Allies to take and hold one of the Dutch East Indies islands by way of a blocker (Sumatra); and (3) it enhances Malaya’s inherent strategic value.
Of course, the revised map requires further playtesting, but my early experience with it has been promising. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this. Hit me up on discord.
-
What?
Japan has been weakened so much that I would question the viability of the J1 DOW.
-
@simon33 i’m surprised to hear you say that. In our game, for example, Japan is still hanging in there despite four rounds of 100% Pacific buys by the USA, the relocation of the entire UK med fleet to India, and Russia maxing out the Siberia factory every turn for five rounds. This is possible becomes of Japan’s positional advantage (even with the split Malaya sz) and air superiority.
-
Yeah well you did take Hawaii J2 and held it. Then went on to take ANZAC. I needed to react or you would have had Pacific victory.
-
@simon33 absolutely. You did the right thing by going full Pacific, imo. All I’m saying is Japan is still stronk.
-
It surprised me how difficult it has been to retake Hawaii. I knew you could take it but I thought I would be able to reclaim it relatively easily.
-
@regularkid I think the split is great! For all the reasons you state.
-
As for the Malaya VC add, I think it would be better if that 7th VC in the Pacific would be a city that would be harder to take with Japan, but not too hard (for example Wellington, Vancouver, Vladivostok).
Suggested Topics
