WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

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

[…] we definitely aren’t planning on just copying Global 1940 tech, thats for sure. We’re looking to do a complete revamp if there’s enough support for it.

I want to propose some basic thoughts for tech rules, but am btw no native speaker of English.

My main idea is the first part of the following sequence (without claiming any detail):

• A nation can pay 2 PU and gets one technology offered by rolling a die.
• Then it can either pass or pay 7 PU for assigning its development department i.e. rolling a die again in order to determine if research will be successful.
• Given that it has been, the technology comes into effect at end of round.
• In case of failure die is rerolled next rounds for only 1 PU - with the option to buy non-recycling further dice for 5 PU each.
• Maybe it shall be even possible to start one additional research for another tech.

Any technology already developped by any ally is available without Step 1.
Any technology already developped by any nation is available without rolling a die in Step 1.

Suggested technologies:
(i) Rockets (default)
(ii) Advanced Artillery (default) + Improved Mech (CanBlitz)
(iii) Heavy Bombers (default) + Long-Range Aircraft (operative air bases give 1 additional point of movement range also for landing there)
(iv) Radar (coming into effect immediately)
(v) Paratroopers
1 Infantry unit in each territory with an operative air base can be moved to an enemy-controlled territory 3 or fewer spaces away.
The number of paratroopers together with other land units attacking from adjacent territories and/or by amphibious assault must be higher than the PU value of the attacked territory!
When moving, paratroopers must obey the same restrictions that air units do. If the territory being attacked has AAA (antiaircraft artillery) units OR FACILITIES, the paratrooper infantry units are subject to antiaircraft fire in the same way as air units. If attacking along with land units from adjacent territories, paratroopers may retreat as normal.
(vi) Fortified coastlines
Operative (?) naval bases defend with 1 destroyer or 1 sub against amphibious assaults without preceding sea combat or otherwise with 1 infantry unit.

Notes little OT:
[A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.

[B] @fmerwinrommel said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

My other recently posted suggested change to G40 was having minor ICs and air and naval bases receive max damage when captured.

… after combat occurred.

@pacifiersboard
[A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.

Wow. That would be a major change in the game strategy in the Pacific!! Would this apply to NOs as well i.e., DEI +5 bonus?

It can be hard to get islands and hold for a round, and because the Japanese are all by themselves (generally).

I would think this rule would REALLY favor the Allies. In fact, it essentially stalls all countries production levels by one turn…thus the Germans and Japanese will be slowed by 1 round at the beginning of the game, ie. the Germans would be stuck at 30 IPCs the first 2 turns+ the 19 French $$!!. The Allies are not usually gaining territory then and so not affect them the same. Those lost IPCs early will snowball in the later stages of the game.

Later when the two sides are trading territory, neither gains and since the Allies have more money to start, they will gain in the long run.

Maybe you could implement this change after Turn xx in the game as the production gets closer to the same–not sure when that should be.

I can’t comment on the technology aspect as I never play with it as it adds too much randomness to the game. However, you had the comment:

Any technology already developped by any ally is available without Step 1.
Any technology already developped by any nation is available without rolling a die in Step 1.

I’m guessing these are mutually exclusive additional rules to the 5 bullet point rules…you pick one of them.

I like the second option best “any tech 1 country has, everyone else can get without rolling die in step 1” because the my main concern with technology rules is the game becomes unbalanced, but that’s a discussion for another room in this forum…
At least with this rule, there is an initial payment to get a tech, and everyone else can “catch-up” with typically a lesser payment.

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

[A] I also would like to see a feature of high-impact change implemented: Income is collected only for territories that your power already owned at the beginning of its turn.

This idea has been proposed before. I would be interested to try it but I am not sure it is achievable in Triple-A without change. I kind of think though that it would make Sea Lion way too hard and effectively take that off the table for the early game. So I would think you would need some setup changes, not sure what.

A few points

• Not sure I like the two sea zones for the Caroline Islands. 1 zone with a separate sea zone for Palau played better - Can’t see the logical reason why should have to decide whether you want to be in range of SZ6 or New Zealand or Hawaii. Also not being in range of Java is a bit annoying too. But possibly being in range of Malaya is a bit interesting.
• The Kyushu <-> SZ20 link makes it much easier to get troops onto China and FIC. This seems to help Japan against China a fair bit. Not as much difficulty ferrying troops to FIC.
• I still despise the partition of SZ38 - it is now necessary to give Japan a bid, normally a TT, which makes it hard for the allies if everything works properly for the Axis. Starting to see a possible rationale, in that if Australia falls early Japan can win convincingly but surely that is sub optimal allied play and we shouldn’t be changing the map for that.

These comments should really have been in the feedback thread so will reply to them here.

@gargantua said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

Liberation of Paris… when recapturing Paris away from axis… it should be the liberating powers OPTION to liberate France, during every purchase units phase.

Well… not completely sure about this idea but it is a gaping hole in the rule set for Global 1940. I have been trying an axis strategy for leaving Normandy and S France French and it has been paying handsome dividends. Honestly, this strategy is ridiculous and gamey.

One partial solution is to not require France to have a capital to collect income. So they collect income for these territories and can mobilise troops if they are french. But to have a no capital arrangement and then they get liberated from the axis by USA and go back to France is still a limitation for the allies compared to going to USA ownership. So they need to be able to claimed by other powers IMO.

Not completely sure what the full solution might be but throwing some ideas into the air here.

@simon33 I wonder if one full game round should be played after french liberation and allies still control france, before normal french liberation rules take place.

Would still jack the allies and the normandy factory but … yea Germany probably wouldn’t counter attack. Idk maybe. It is 4 bucks.

i remember trying a National objective after round x where Germany got 5 bucks if they controlled it and allies got 5 if they reconquered. That’d be on top of the USA 5 bucks for having a dude there. 10 -15 dollar swing if USA has a dude there.

Yea idk, never found a good solution either

One could make Normandy a “Friendly Neutral” controlled by France at game start. Then if France was liberated, it would stay in control of whoever currently has it.

Not perfect, but maybe better than as is ? I guess you could do it for S France as well if you wanted

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

One could make Normandy a “Friendly Neutral” controlled by France at game start. Then if France was liberated, it would stay in control of whoever currently has it.

Not perfect, but maybe better than as is ? I guess you could do it for S France as well if you wanted

Setting the original owner to someone other than France does resolve the issue of the USA losing ownership of Normandy when Paris is liberated but doesn’t resolve the case if it is never captured by the Axis.

@simon33 I thought BM had incentives, Vichy Rule, to take Normandy. I know Gamerman1 has a rule that it turns friendly neutral after rd 1 if not captured.

Anyway, if used with no capital cash twice, I think it’d work. Don’t see a big downside anyway.

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

I thought BM had incentives,

Indeed but that could also be considered bait.

I agree though that there isn’t a big downside. Don’t think I said that there was a downside.

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

I know Gamerman1 has a rule that it turns friendly neutral after rd 1 if not captured.

Haven’t heard that one, interesting idea. Which then gives a huge incentive to take it.

One other feedback point is that I’m finding China more challenging to play than in BM, even though it has been beefed up. I think the main reason for this is the Szechwan <-> Hunan connection. This makes it really hard to hang on to the Burma Rd even if you get Yunnan. Also cuts off the retreat into the bowels of China.

I’m not sure why the map was redrawn in this way actually, wanted to make China forced to withdraw early to the west?

@simon33 Yeah, the Siberian factory is in a very strange spot. It’s on the coast of SZ 5, which Japan can conveniently reach from its main sea zones, from the Formosa/Hong Kong sea zone, or from Guam. Once you capture that factory there’s nowhere else in Asia for Russia to build another one, but if Russia leaves its troops in Siberia proper to defend the factory, then you might as well not have them, because you’re not adjacent to any Japanese territories, so you’re not threatening Japan.

I guess it’s nice to be able to build some artillery to support your infantry stack – but any troops built in Siberia on R1 will still be behind (east) of the main Siberian infantry stack, so they can’t actually help those troops, e.g., attack a German stack in Kazakh on R7. You could theoretically build some mechs and tanks in Siberia on R2 or R3 and have them catch up with the infantry on the march, but you’re never going to have the cash to spare for that; you need the money in Leningrad/Moscow/Stalingrad.

It’s nice to be able to build a transport or whatever that could simulate a Russian invasion of Hokkaido ala a 1946 Operation Downfall if the atomic bomb was never developed, but that’s really just fluff at that point – if a Russian fleet in the Okhotsk Sea can survive a Japanese air attack, then Japan has already lost.

Bottom line is I just don’t see these changes as giving Russia any practical ability to either resist a Japanese invasion or force Japan to heavily garrison Manchuria. I like the spirit of the changes but I’m not convinced that they solve the problem of having Russia be impotent in Asia.

I’m trying this out for the first time; it’s pretty interesting so far. I like the islands in the middle of sea zones, and I like having some of the extra sea zones to maneuver in. I also like the larger Lake Ladoga and the revised stats for mechanized infantry.

I used a variation of simon’s Pearl Harbor attack and it seemed to work fine against the AI; I got Hawaii itself on J2 and was able to hold it for a couple of turns, although I think I’ll let it go on US4 to focus on India/Australia. US has been building nothing but DD/ftr/CV in San Diego since the game started, so that’s a win in terms of distracting the US and reducing its income. Obviously a human would do better than an AI, but, you know, I’d do better if it weren’t my very first time on this map.

I saw what I thought was a bug – I activated Vichy on F2, and most of the French colonies went pro-Axis, as they should, but Southern France stayed bright blue. It looked like the French were able to attack Northern Italy out of Southern France if they wanted to. Is that coded differently than it is in Global Bal Mod, or am I missing something?

2022-4-7-WW2-Path-to-Victory.tsvg

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

I’m trying this out for the first time; it’s pretty interesting so far. I like the islands in the middle of sea zones, and I like having some of the extra sea zones to maneuver in. I also like the larger Lake Ladoga.

Yes, the larger map definately makes it more interesting in the Pacific and Russian theatres, I get lost in the 3D chess match and lose whole fleets in the Pacific but it is a nice change from the G40 map and with the carrier scramble mechanic you have to really think about how you position your fleets.

I saw what I thought was a bug – I activated Vichy on F2, and most of the French colonies went pro-Axis, as they should, but Southern France stayed bright blue. It looked like the French were able to attack Northern Italy out of Southern France if they wanted to. Is that coded differently than it is in Global Bal Mod, or am I missing something?

Yeah, looks like something didn’t quite go as intended as far as I know. All the land units in S.France should go pro-Axis neutral (although cannot be commandered under the “Zone Libre” rule). Looks like the units which started in S.France changed but not the one moved in from Normandy, then it persuaded the original two units to change their mind and join the Free French!

I was able to recreate this - Vichy combat.tsvg.
Maybe this situation hasn’t come up before?

@flyingbadger One more bug, I think – as UK Pacific, I was unable to place a minor factory in Kyushu even after controlling it for two full turns. It works fine on edit mode, just not as part of the normal unit placement. I feel like Japan should be part of the Pacific economy, no?

Has anyone thought about making a 3-faction 1939 version of Path to Victory, with Liberals, Communists, and Fascists as three separate alliances? I think the extra territories would be very helpful for simulating Communist vs. Nationalist China, as well as for the historical division of Persia. You could add a new territory type called “pro-Communist” for areas like Baltic States, East Poland, and Northwest Persia. (Not that these areas actually liked the Soviets in any kind of democratic sense; just that the Soviets were able to successfully pull off coups there.) And then you could add a second Chinese-style nation for some of the northwest Chinese provinces that was allied with Russia instead of with the Liberals.

That’s a pretty cool idea indeed! :)

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

@flyingbadger One more bug, I think – as UK Pacific, I was unable to place a minor factory in Kyushu even after controlling it for two full turns. It works fine on edit mode, just not as part of the normal unit placement.

I think that a minor factory should be placable on Kyushu, at least with my understanding of the rules, certainly Japan can, suppose UK pacific should be able to as well.

@flyingbadger Yup, I checked the XML. It’s a bug; the territory is being assigned to Europe instead of Pacific. The maintainers need to add

<option name="changeUnitOwners" value="British"/>
<option name="whenCapturedByGoesTo" value="British:UK_Pacific"/>

to the Kyushu territory attachment.