@jkprince indeed 🙂
Thank you both for your interest!
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
@aequitas-et-veritas Exactly.
-
@regularkid Then this I would say is indeed insane and does not feed the purpose.
To your Proposal A: I would recommend to take the Carrier values of the WaW B.Carrier and let it work the same way when you implement it in PtV. A/D/M/C 1/3/2/20 2HP Land 3planes.
Proposal A would also be the proposal I am rooting for since I gained allready some Exp. with it in WaW and understand the dynamics of the B.Carrier.
I personally would even try to keep the normal CV but as a light version. (A/D/M/C 1/2/2/14 1HP Land 1 plane only).
This should nerf PtV to the extend to have fun and test some tactics in a regular game.
I see peoples changing their purchase philosphy allready and try to guard and protect such expensive vessels like the B.Carrier.If you are interested in a Test game with the B.Carrier @regularkid PM me please.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
- Proposal B: Keep the carrier costs and scramble/plane capacity the same. And limit the maximum number of planes that can be scrambled from each sea zone to three planes, regardless of how many carriers are there.
This is the preference imo.
It will solve a lot of the issue while still keeping basic factors the same. It also aligns more to the basic scramble-rules from ab’s.
Sure, it’s possible then to scramble to a sz from several different sz’s. The problem with that strategy is that dividing the fleet makes it sensitive an susceptible to attack. Can hardly be worth a blocker to sacrifice a couple of carriers with air, right?
A carrier costing 20, but carrying 3 air, is a lot more powerful in itself. This makes Japan come into it’s air/carrier-sweetspot earlier, which should be good for them, upsetting the balance in the Pac. Of course, Japan har been seeiously nerfed lately, so perhaps it would be a good thing.
However, it would be simply awesome for Gwrmany for exactly the same reason, when the carriers are also able to support land-areas.
-
In WaW the B.Carrier is available after the First turn, not right at the beginning. It could be nerfd in a similar way for PtV.
-
@aequitas-et-veritas said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
In WaW the B.Carrier is available after the First turn, not right at the beginning. It could be nerfd in a similar way for PtV.
You meant “fourth”.
-
And do you mean then that noone would be able to purchase carriers until turn 4?
-
Cool ideas, but it would be more helpful for us if we keep the conversation focused on the specific proposals (A or B) mentioned in my prior post–i.e., increased cost with additional carrying capacity, or limiting the scramble to 3 per sea zone. Which is better? Thats what we’re grappling with right now.
-
We were.
-
@regularkid we were!😁
-
@trulpen with the start of G3 would be suitable.
-
B solution for me…
but I would like a limit per aircraft carrier group … not an overall limit
analogy with airports
-
ah I read that it was already considered… maximum three planes for SZ, sorry
this can also result in multiple fleets (as in reality) and not huge stacks of aircraft carriers…
so how was the stack reduced in russia (german and russian) maybe solution B could do the same in the pacific?
-
If we’re taking a vote, mine is prop B. Limit upto 3 per SZ. I don’t see that changing CV carry capacity will help. I would think it add to the problem.
-
I’m inclined to think proposal B but I would like it to be considered a trial to see how it goes. I assume this also applies to carrier to land scrambling as well. That would make it harder for a large fleet to defend a relatively smaller landing which seems to be a good thing.
-
@surfer Proposal A helps the problem because the scramble capacity for each carrier remains one, even tho the carriers are more expensive (and therefore less numerous on the board). Also, with each carrier holding three planes, the attacker can bring more carrier-based planes to the attack, relative to the number of carrier based planes that can scramble in the defense (3 to 1, vs. 2 to 1 in the current version).
-
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
I’m inclined to think proposal B but I would like it to be considered a trial to see how it goes. I assume this also applies to carrier to land scrambling as well. That would make it harder for a large fleet to defend a relatively smaller landing which seems to be a good thing.
Yes. The “three plane” limit would apply to carrier scrambles to adjoining land battles as well.
-
@regularkid No it makes the problem worse. 6 planes + 2 CVs in new system = 100 IPCs. 6 planes + 3CVs in original system = 108 IPCs.
-
@surfer there are less casualties though
What if you make it so that 1 plane can scramble per carrier, 3 from each sz of carriers. This would allow you to scramble more than 3 at times if you can manage to put together a strong enough navy to hold 2 zones.
-
@surfer said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@regularkid No it makes the problem worse. 6 planes + 2 CVs in new system = 100 IPCs. 6 planes + 3CVs in original system = 108 IPCs.
Well, the point is, under proposal A, you’re paying 100/108 of the cost for 2/3 of the scramble capacity. Also, in your comparison, you’re getting fewer hitpoints/combat power for your money (i.e, three cariers is 6 HP, and 3 defense power. . . two carriers is only 4 HP, and 2 defense power). There is no question that proposal A substantially nerfs newly purchased carriers relative to their cost.
-
@WindowWasher said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@surfer there are less casualties though
What if you make it so that 1 plane can scramble per carrier, 3 from each sz of carriers. This would allow you to scramble more than 3 at times if you can manage to put together a strong enough navy to hold 2 zones.
That is precisely what proposal B calls for.
Suggested Topics
