WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

@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.

Two more bugs – Rio de Oro should connect to French West Africa but doesn’t, and I’m not able to win a triggered victory with the Axis for controlling 13+ Victory Cities for a full turn (see attached saved game). The Axis had 14 VCs at the start of G9, and they still have 14 VCs at the end of G10, but the game isn’t showing any kind of victory message.2022-4-26-WW2-Path-to-Victory.tsvg

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

Two more bugs – Rio de Oro should connect to French West Africa but doesn’t,

I actually don’t think the first one is a bug. You shouldn’t be able to cross the Sahara via Rio De Oro.

Secondly, hasn’t the change to divide SZ38 off Malaya killed at least 75% of the interest in this game? To me, that raises the question that perhaps there would be interest in a variant which reverses this mistake.

@simon33 I mean, reasonable people can disagree about whether an army could have crossed the Western Sahara in the 1940s. In terms of both rainfall and population density, the Rio de Oro area is actually less desolate than northern Sudan, where the game does allow you to cross.

That said, I’m primarily relying on the TripleA map here. You can see that Rio de Oro is clearly adjacent to both Morocco and French West Africa. If the map designers want that area to be impassible, then I believe it should be marked as such in the basic map, not just after you apply the graphical overlay.

As far as your second question, I have no idea why people have stopped playing this game. I enjoy it and I plan to continue playing, even though the developers have ignored my bug reports for the last year.

Moreover, I do not agree that dividing SZ38 is a mistake. The sailing distance from Bangkok (in SZ 132) through Singapore (in SZ38) to Calcutta (in SZ40) is about 3,000 miles. This is also roughly the sailing distance from New York to France. The standard Global map models the NY-France trip as requiring a naval move of 4 spaces. I see no excuse for treating that trip as 4 spaces wide while treating the Bangkok-Calcutta route as only 2 spaces wide. Any invasion of India would have required some staging grounds on the western coast of the Malayan peninsula – it would have been totally unrealistic to try to attack India using forces based out of Bangkok or Saigon, yet this is exactly what Global encourages players to do. I am thrilled that the Path to Victory map corrects this problem; it is one of the main reasons that I find the map interesting.

Well, I don’t think that was intentional. You raise a valid issue in that if Rio de Oro should not connect to French West Africa it should be drawn to show that, although I would be very surprised if a connection was actually intended. There is no connection in G40 or BM.

Classic had the Sahara as being completely passable. G40 had it completely impassable. I don’t think anyone would argue for a middle ground of being able to go around it at the western end as well as the populated eastern end.

Regarding SZ38+SZ132, you raise some valid points here but the effect on gameplay is very dramatic and it was never discussed. Also later discussion fell on deaf ears. If such a dramatic change is contemplated I think Japan should be beefed in some other ways. I think it just makes Japan too weak and makes it a 3 turn sail from Tokyo to Calcutta when previously it could be done in two if a naval base were built.

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

People haven’t stopped playing PTV. To the contrary.

Oh yeah?

16 league games completed in the first 5 months of 2023 for 3.2 games per month
87 league games completed in 2021 for 7.25 games per month

I give you the first few days of June as a bonus.

@simon33 Would need to divide both by the respective amount of total games played to account for player count for a proper analysis.

339/12mths in 2021
84/5mths in 2023

28.25/mth in 2021
16.8/mth in 2023

So even if you adjust for less total games being played, as a proportion PtV is less popular than it was. But I have a real problem with that argument. PtV is the newest and shiniest version and I would expect as a proportion that people would gravitate towards it.

Anyway, I consider my point proven. But you don’t seem to care.

@simon33 You are indeed free to consider your point proven. Critical minds may differ.

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

Critical minds may differ.

Not sure about rational ones though.

@simon33 Your using faulty reasoning. Because a few people live there in today’s time frame, does not mean that entire armies can cross with tanks and artillery through hundreds of miles of sand dunes. You watch too much Rat Patrol! You and the one that thinks movement is unrealistic nonsense should go to the same BBQ. The block in that game is realistic enough. Look at the Qattara depression. Their is a reason why Rommel and the Allies totally avoided this place at El Alamein! its an impassible quagmire of desert!

Who are these people that keep bringing up this ridiculousness??

@simon33 I think it’s great that you replied to the last post on this PTV thread that was made a year ago, and instantly revived fun and spirited discussion!

@imperious-leader said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@simon33 Your using faulty reasoning. Because a few people live there in today’s time frame, does not mean that entire armies can cross with tanks and artillery through hundreds of miles of sand dunes. You watch too much Rat Patrol! You and the one that thinks movement is unrealistic nonsense should go to the same BBQ. The block in that game is realistic enough. Look at the Qattara depression. Their is a reason why Rommel and the Allies totally avoided this place at El Alamein! its an impassible quagmire of desert!

Who are these people that keep bringing up this ridiculousness??

I mistake me here. I am just saying that a block in the middle of Sahara which doesn’t go to Atlantic would be ridiculous. I would presume that roads existed from Cairo to Sudan even in 1939 but I am not so sure on the Western coast. So it should be either Classic style free for all or G40 style.

@gamerman01 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@simon33 I think it’s great that you replied to the last post on this PTV thread that was made a year ago, and instantly revived fun and spirited discussion!

I don’t understand why you liked both my post and Adam514’s contrary post.