WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

Proposal A’s effect isn’t strictly to reduce the number of carriers and hence scrambling, it’s to increase the ratio of non-scrambleable aircraft to scrambleable aircraft from 2:1 to 3:1. This has the effect that given the same amount of carriers on both sides (10 for example), the attacker can clear blockers with 3:1 aircraft or 30 against 10 if trying to clear 1 blocker, and 15 against 10 if trying to clear 2 blockers. Clearing 2 blockers becomes much easier and the defender shouldn’t scramble unless they have a carrier number advantage.

The issue with proposal B is that there’s no scaling of the scrambling effect as the number of carriers increases. You go from having carrier scrambles be a significant part of the Pacific in the beginning of the game to being largely irrelevant when a sufficient number of carriers are amassed on both sides.

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

The issue with proposal B is that there’s no scaling of the scrambling effect as the number of carriers increases. You go from having carrier scrambles be a significant part of the Pacific in the beginning of the game to being largely irrelevant when a sufficient number of carriers are amassed on both sides.

This already exists with airbases, so it isn’t a new problem, if it is a problem. Interesting feature, maybe, particularly because you can’t buy multiple airbases on the same territory.

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

After playing a couple of games of PtV this carrier scramble rule was one of the main reasons that I decided not to continue playing PtV anymore. I won’t get into the other reasons since you are not addressing them here anyway.

I would choose Proposal B for three reasons:

1. A 3 scramble matches that of land based aircraft airbases. For me it makes no sense that a carrier that is smaller and has a harder time getting its planes into the air can scramble half of its force where a land territory with gosh knows how many landing strips can only scramble a maximum of three fighters no matter how many planes are there.
2. Limiting it to 3 would open up the ability for more mobile warfare which has always been the advantage of sea combat over land combat while still maintaining some ability to project defensive force just like airbases. Just changing the cost of the carriers alleviates the problem somewhat but not that much and a scramble of 8-9 would certainly be doable. I have played in many games with 12+ carriers so those 24 planes would reside on 8 carriers instead of 12.
3. Changing the cost of the carrier and its abilities further differentiates the game from Axis and Allies. I think the intent of the developers, you guys, was to tweak Global 1940 but still maintain the Axis and Allies original game, look and feel. The more it is different from Axis and Allies the more it is like any other TripleA game map that is not Axis and Allies.

I agree here with Andrew, and I too stopped playing in great part due to that carrier scrambling rule. I absolutely hated it to be perfectly honest, and that was one of the first things I had asked about changing, and I actually remember proposing capping it off to just 3 (this was way back when you guys first released it, BTW). I guess my request/proposal was ignored, but now that enough people have complained, it’s getting the attention again.

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?