@jkprince indeed 🙂
Thank you both for your interest!
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
@ArmedAce fixed it.
-
@surfer hey. they can scramble to any adjoining land battle in which there are friendly defending units. doesn’t have to be an amphibious attack
also, can you link me to ur game where Germany is buying carriers to serve as mobile airbases. I wanna see what Russia is up to! :)
-
The game is here.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35977/l20-ptv-surfer-x-vs-wizmark-l-6/118I don’t see this as undermining the CV scramble rule as much as reducing the impact. The Japanese are ridiculously strong because of the CV rules. I like the complexity of the battles, but for the $$ value the CV is easily the best piece in the game.
-
Ok, feedback FWIW after several games.
- If the new scramble rules require require a surface warship or a land unit, why was this not retrofitted to the old scramble rules? Should be consistent.
- Disappointed the reduction in the Chinese Burma Rd objective was retained. This reduction reduced the fun of fighting in China.
- Guerrilla fighters are less of a factor and China is stronger. The merit of this rule is further reduced in P2V as opposed to BM.
- Like the Siberia IC although I am not so sure about it being in a coastal territory.
- Don’t understand the need for the complexity of removing Industrial complexes in USSR. If you don’t want Germany to take the Ukraine IC, just take it off the map. In Siberia, removing the IC if Japan lands makes it less valuable for Japan to do so.
- Leningrad is no longer connected to the Barents Sea. This improves realism but I am less keen on not having a naval base or airbase on the Barents Sea. I think there should be an airbase on Karelia and a naval base either on Karelia or Archangel.
- No universal scramble?
- No paratroopers?
- Canada losing its production in a sea lion game is still pretty dumb.
- Japan’s income has been migrated from the money islands to increased objectives. I can’t see anything good about this idea. Fighting over the money islands was a fun aspect and this has been reduced.
- Less objectives can be more. Increasing everyone’s income without increase the number of starting troops as significantly tends to make the game last longer. Perhaps this is an intended outcome, not sure really. Not really sure why the Carolines etc objective should be extended to Japan.
- Like the Malta airbase.
- Positively hate the partition of SZ38
- Pacific victory is almost impossible without a near complete abandonment of the Pacific by the allies or some major miscue.
- Interesting that the reduction in bomber attack power reduces the odds on Taranto with no other changes.
-
Simon,
Interesting thoughts.
What do U mean by sz 38?
-
@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
What do U mean by sz 38?
Not sure I understand the question. What in OOB was SZ37 became SZ38, the coast of Malaya, in early versions of P2V. Later versions split this into SZ38 & SZ132 the FIC and Calcutta coasts are now for sea squares away. Makes it hard for Japan to challenge UK_Pacific.
-
The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.
-
@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.
Intensely dislike if that works better for you.
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.
Intensely dislike if that works better for you.
Perhaps ”abhorringly averted”?
I fully agree (sorry @regularkid for not being available on discord).
-
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
The phrase ‘positively hate’ confused me.
Intensely dislike if that works better for you.
Perhaps ”abhorringly averted”?
No, I think I don’t get it.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
No, I think I don’t get it.
With the division of z38 Calcutta has become completely out of bounds for the JN (which if they go there won’t make it back to Philly or any other key areas). UK-Pac just got a miracle save not having to worry at all about amphi-landings in Calcutta. It’s a very bad mechanic concerning game-balance.
-
@trulpen ahh OK. Thank you for the explanation.
-
Yw.
It was said that Japan should not eat it’s cake and be able to keep it, but I don’t think the intention of the developers was to simply take away the cake.
Japan is strong, but also has 4 allied nations against it and can’t be everywhere. Imho the aforementioned solution kind of rips apart Japan’s struggle in the Pacific.
-
@simon33 responding to some of your points:
-
Sure, I think we considered extending the surface-warship requirement to “oldschool” airbase scrambles, for consistency’s sake. But it raises problems. For example, does Germany really need to have a surface navy to contest amphibious landings in Norway, Denmark, Western Germany, or Germany itself etc. even if it has a robust Luftwaffe at the ready? Shouldn’t the Allies at least be required to provide some cover for such landings? I think so. Also, do we really want to require Germany to maintain a surface navy to keep its transport in the Baltic safe from an air strafing? Shouldn’t local air superiority be enough? The airbases in G40 were such a great leap forward because they modeled the primacy of defensive airpower in naval settings. We didn’t want to upset that. So, we kept the old sea scrambles unchanged, and only imposed the “defending unit” requirement for the new scramble types (i.e., scrambles from carriers, and scrambles to land battles), where it was needed for gameplay reasons.
-
As you noted in your comments, China is already stronger in PTV, so there was no reason to put the Burma road objective back to 6. The purpose of guerrillas is to require Japan to make a long term commitment of precious land forces if it wants to take and hold all of China. Again, its about Japan making choices and tradeoffs.
-
Is the destruction of Russia’s original factories upon capture particularly complex? It models something that actually happened historically, and it serves a game function as well, since allowing the capture and use of the Siberian factory by Japan would make an early invasion of the Soviet Far East OP.
-
What do you mean by “universal scramble”?
-
As for the “money island” fight, its a matter of personal taste, I suppose. But I personally found the trading of those four islands in G40 predictable and a bit repetitive, not to mention ahistorical. The Dutch Each Indies changed hands only once during the war; and the Allies never bothered to liberate them. PTV seeks to shift some of the focus to the Central and South East Pacific, which is where the real island trading happened. Of course the “money islands” are still incredibly valuable in PTV and essential to Japan’s long term prospects.
-
Feeling pretty good about the partition of sea zone 38. Actually, Adam and I just posted a lengthy video on the NerdHerd patreon discussing historical and gameplay considerations that went into the change. https://www.patreon.com/posts/ww2-path-to-vs-5-44106956?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copy_to_clipboard&utm_campaign=postshare. In short, the change puts greater emphasis on Malaya (Singapore - “the Gibraltar of the East”) as a launching point for an amphibious invasion of India, and compels Japan to choose between putting an immediate threat on Calcutta, and projecting power elsewhere in the Pacific.
-
In my recent game with you, japan came perilously close to securing the necessary victory cities, even with a 100% investment by the United States, Russia, etc. Anecdotally, it seems like a large number of the Axis victories in PTV have been Japan victories. Indeed, the emerging consensus seemed to be that Japan was the stronger Axis (with some even arguing it was OP). I don’t think splitting sea zone 38 has taken the fight out of the Japanese empire. But, of course, time will tell.
Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback. I look forward to playing more with you, and spitballing some more ideas.
Right now we are batting around a possible limitation for carrier scrambles (e.g., limiting to 3 planes from each sea zone). Personally, I don’t think the change is necessary. But I’m not completely opposed to the idea either.
-
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
What do you mean by “universal scramble”?
Scramble of (presumably) 1 air unit from every land territory.
-
@simon33 even without an airbase? woo boy. there would have to be a really compelling gameplay justification for that kind of change, because it seems like it would be alot of work to implement.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
As you noted in your comments, China is already stronger in PTV, so there was no reason to put the Burma road objective back to 6. The purpose of guerrillas is to require Japan to make a long term commitment of precious land forces if it wants to take and hold all of China. Again, its about Japan making choices and tradeoffs.
One critique here, it has previously been claimed (by Adam) that the guerillas are required because China is too weak. But the reduction in the objective makes it weaker (slightly). And you are now claiming that China is strong enough and doesn’t need any strengthening.
In any event, I gave the reason - fun. Perhaps you disagree that is fun and it is more fun the way it is.
-
My only critique, is I think the carrier scramble should be limited to 3 maximum planes. One of my current opponents has 15 US carriers against me, for example. It’s a bit stifling to the game action, as it allows multiple blockers to be placed, and only risk losing one or two, rather than all blockers. Blockers are already a broken part of the game, but they always have been. So, if you don’t want to fix the blocker problem, like Global War 36 and Bloodbath Rules do for example, you could at least help not making it worse, which is what carrier scramble does.
Lest you only feel you are getting negative feedback, let me just say that I enjoy PTV very much! Many in my gaming group love it so much that one had a map printed out so that we can play face to face! I hope you take each game played as positive feedback, even if the participants are not voicing their opinions. To play, is the greatest compliment you could receive!
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
PS. The current game of 15 US carriers is not a PTV game, but my impression of the stifling nature, and blocker boost allowed by carrier scramble in other games of PTV, is still valid.
-
Just a quick question…and sorry if it has come up before but I have noticed in the new map that Szs 38 and 43 arent convoy zones. Was wondering if this was deliberate, and if it was what the reasoning was as every zone around these 2 are convoy zones.
Thanks!
-
@CaptainNapalm “limited to 3 maximum planes” per scrambling sea zone? Hmmm. not bad. Talking it over with Adam.
Also, thanks for the kind words.
Suggested Topics
