WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

my original proposals, just so that I can get the credit :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Proposal B is my opinion too. After playing 1 (very) competitive game of PtV as Japan (shoot, kid was my partner so he knows all about this) I strongly believe the rule should be limit 3 planes, same as Airbases. As others have said, is consistent with land airbase rule, and going to supercarriers departs from all other A&A games, where for 40 years carriers carry 2 planes, so would make PtV depart even more from other versions and make it that much harder to switch back and forth between versions.

To me, the unlimited carrier scramble rule (1 per carrier) was the roughest edge of the game that I played, with no close 2nd.

i think proposal A sounds more interesting. Significant increase to the cost of a loaded carrier and as you said there will be higher plane to carrier ratio. for attacking blockers and ground and such 3:1 vs 2:1 should make a big difference.

Im sure proposal B would work too, but it seems boring.

in my opinion, solution B allows you to place multiple distinct fleets that protect each other…

instead of the usual naval pile…

Based on your feedback and playtesting, version 6.0 incorporates the following substantive changes:

1. Carrier scrambles are now limited to a maximum of three planes from each sea zone adjoining the battle (player enforced);

Beautiful!!

For people who don’t want to deal with Triple A, you can post a complete map picture? with set up?

from sz 27 to sz 35 you arrive with ships … bug?

already from the previous version

@Avner I don’t understand what you mean.

dalla sz27 (hawaii) triple A consente di arrivare con una nave in sz35 (come in sz34)… calcola 3 spostamenti ma sono 4.

@Avner Update your map, I have the latest one and it takes 4 moves to go there.

Was any thought made to having a 2 turn build for BBs and CVs?

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

@simon33 we absolutely did. The idea we batted around in the early stages of PTV development was to have a “standard” carrier build, which would take two rounds to complete, and a substantially more expensive expedited carrier build, which would take only one turn. We even looked into how this could be coded (it’s definitely doable, if a bit complex).

Ultimately, we went in another direction: keeping the same carrier build time, but requiring an undamaged naval base for their construction.

Interesting idea about the expedited build. Is that really historically accurate? Didn’t they just build things as fast as they could to start the next one sooner? If you don’t like the requirement to wait two turns why not provide an escort carrier with only 1 hit and 1 plane carried, for say, 12IPCs.

The adopted approach is at least an order of magnitude less significant than the two turn builds.

Hopefully this is a good place to get a rule clarification on this rule: "Revised Plane Landing Rules: It is legal to land air on newly built carriers. However, it is not legal to make a combat move that is only possible because of a newly built carrier. "

The turn in question is the American round 11 turn found here:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36206/owentoo-axis-vs-simon33-allies-ptv/175?page=7

The Americans launched 4 aircraft from CVs in 89 to attack SZ 105 (3 zones away) and then recovered the 2 surviving aircraft onto a newly built CV in 104. I feel that is illegal, and the Americans should have moved one of the launching CVs from 89 to either 91, 92 or 106 to recover the surviving aircraft.

What say our PTV developers?

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

Hopefully this is a good place to get a rule clarification on this rule: "Revised Plane Landing Rules: It is legal to land air on newly built carriers. However, it is not legal to make a combat move that is only possible because of a newly built carrier. "

The turn in question is the American round 11 turn found here:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36206/owentoo-axis-vs-simon33-allies-ptv/175?page=7

The Americans launched 4 aircraft from CVs in 89 to attack SZ 105 (3 zones away) and then recovered the 2 surviving aircraft onto a newly built CV in 104. I feel that is illegal, and the Americans should have moved one of the launching CVs from 89 to either 91, 92 or 106 to recover the surviving aircraft.

What say our PTV developers?

OwenToo feels that this is ridiculous. For my part, I never understood why the rule was changed in this way. The only real problem I had with the old rule is that losses could allow you to build the CV in another location.

@owentoo You can only make a move that’s legal with the units on the board, but you can land anywhere including on newly built carriers. It’s to prevent a somewhat cheesy attack with a big carrier buy to make your aircraft that would normally be too far away to attack and land able to reach (typically by the sea zone near Japan).

@adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@owentoo You can only make a move that’s legal with the units on the board, but you can land anywhere including on newly built carriers. It’s to prevent a somewhat cheesy attack with a big carrier buy to make your aircraft that would normally be too far away to attack and land able to reach (typically by the sea zone near Japan).

Was that move really a problem? You would only be able to attack the Midway SZ, nowhere else important.

So to clarify then, my move was legal.