@Stucifer 2176a44d-8289-4f50-a902-39614650fba4-9ba1m8.jpg
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
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.
-
@regularkid well then im for proposal b
-
@WindowWasher Yea! One more in my camp.
-
If you add the proposal A carriers, I think you drift too far away from the original game. It’s already a different game, but that would fundamentally change a lot of strategies and uses for pieces.
-
@WindowWasher sure, i approve.
-
My biggest concern with proposal A is that it doesn’t limit the number of scrambles. It may make getting the same number of scrambles more expensive, but not enough.
In every Pacific war I have participated in, no one lets their carriers be attacked. They continue to grow and grow in number until finally one player (US usually) has enough units to force an attack. Until then, the player who can get to territory first (Japan almost always) moves in with a fleet and puts down blockers that are very hard to get rid of–maybe only can clear 1 / turn. Allowing more fighters per carrier does not change this dynamic.
Specifically, in the early game (in PTV this is approximately the first 8 rounds) I would keep buying CVs for Japan at 1 / round even though I wouldn’t have full carriers because I want the scrambles. The US and others are just playing catch up during this time, and as a result cannot push me anywhere, and can’t fight through my blockers. In most cases, they don’t want to touch my blockers which further helps me build a fleet. Japan sitting at 70+ since Turn 3 has many options for attack and the Allies can’t do anything to fight through the fleet.
Since all the naval battles are going nowhere, Japan and Germany just pick at Russia and China until they reach economic parity (or more) and then they win the long war.
I REALLY like the CV scramble rule, but I feel it makes the CVs over-powered. Even at 20 IPCs they are worth their value with the existing rules. By adding another plane to their capacity just makes them that more desirable. Hence, my support for prop B.
Suggested Topics
