WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

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

@simon33 assuming PTV has ebbed slightly in popularity (I do not concede this point!), one reason might be vocal detractors who unfairly and inaccurately malign it on public message boards.

You consider it unfair but what do you expect when you make a major change without any consultation and then insist that it remain?

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

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

I appreciate your statement.

The way I view likes - I don’t have to agree with a post to like it. I will like/heart posts when I’m glad they posted rather than staying silent. Or when I think the poster communicated something well/effectively. Et cetera

@regularkid @simon33

League play is a small sample out of the universe of AAA games IMO. I’ve played several hundred games but never a single league game. Once my play group discovered PTV we pretty much switched to that exclusively over the past 2+ years.

I think the division of the Malaya SZ was good (and honestly support almost any change to increase the number of territories and SZs). If you think that change massively imbalances the game, I’d like to hear what you think the balance of P2V is (in terms of required Axis bid)? I think it’s pretty close to balanced and we normally play with an Axis bid of about 6. And we certainly don’t feel that Japan is weak, though the justification for a J1 DOW is lower than Global.

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

@simon33 you haven’t explained what’s wrong with the change. And others have said that it dramatically improves the Pacific Theater. I welcome further discussion of this and any other aspects of PTV, but a bald assertion that a perceived drop in popularity is due to the split in the Malaya sea zone does not pass scrutiny.

I feel that I already have. I am surprised you suddenly want to talk about it. Bids were already being put in for axis before this division. Japan seemed weak enough already. You have commented that a lot of Axis victories have been as Japan but I am inclined to think a lot of those have been because of inexperience; e.g. your victory over me after claiming Hawaii early on and me having an insane amount of trouble reclaiming it.

Anyway, those are some brief thoughts. I may have felt differently if other changes had been made that helped the axis and reduced the bids at the same time. I have posted previously that I don’t really like the way the China redraw plays.

Ok, that is an interesting viewpoint. I tend to think high bids are a limitation. The change from BM2 to BM3 (+3 to Japan for holding Okinawa and Iwo Jima)I consider to be a mistake.

@simon33 as a interested observer I’ve noticed before your antipathy to that particular NO. What’s your reasoning if you don’t mind me asking?
It’s a small amount of ipcs, not too hard for the US to remove so doesn’t seem a game breaker?

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

@simon33 as a interested observer I’ve noticed before your antipathy to that particular NO. What’s your reasoning if you don’t mind me asking?
It’s a small amount of ipcs, not too hard for the US to remove so doesn’t seem a game breaker?

Perhaps because it was the last one to be added - it was the change from BM2 to BM3, with the reasoning that Axis were getting bids and needed some help to rebalance the game. Then as game play evolved, allied bids started going up and up. So the entire rationale for it being added is no longer valid.

@simon33 But why complain about any NO that favors the Axis as long as you think the game is currently skewed in favor of the Allies overall? What do you believe is an appropriate bid for P2V under the current rules?

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

@simon33 But why complain about any NO that favors the Axis as long as you think the game is currently skewed in favor of the Allies overall? What do you believe is an appropriate bid for P2V under the current rules?

Fair call if you are talking about P2V although in the case of BM I think it is a valid complaint.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Fair call if you are talking about P2V although in the case of BM I think it is a valid complaint.

Now that heart was definitely agreement.
I won’t say any more since I have a balanced mod opinion and it’s the PTV feedback thread, and some of the same guys gave us BM and PTV

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

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

@simon33 as a interested observer I’ve noticed before your antipathy to that particular NO. What’s your reasoning if you don’t mind me asking?
It’s a small amount of ipcs, not too hard for the US to remove so doesn’t seem a game breaker?

Perhaps because it was the last one to be added - it was the change from BM2 to BM3, with the reasoning that Axis were getting bids and needed some help to rebalance the game. Then as game play evolved, allied bids started going up and up. So the entire rationale for it being added is no longer valid.

The changes we made are mainly for gameplay, not for balance. I haven’t thought that Allies were superior to Axis at any point in the development of BM. We started from unbalanced G40, changed rules and NOs to improve the game and end up with BM4 which is more balanced than G40 for sure, but perfect balance was never our Nerd Herd objective. Whatever imbalance exists is perfectly handled by the bidding process between both players, and a decent bid (10+) is a positive aspect and keeps the game fresh.

The Iwo Jima and Okinawa NO adds a bit of importance to otherwise ignored portions of the map, and is in line with the rest of the Pacific island NOs with the same goal.

PTV is great but is it just me or is it really badly optimized? The map gradually loads up square by square and lags really badly, often throwing “Out of Java heap space” errors. Even restarting TripleA doesn’t help, and I have a good PC.

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

PTV is great but is it just me or is it really badly optimized? The map gradually loads up square by square and lags really badly, often throwing “Out of Java heap space” errors. Even restarting TripleA doesn’t help, and I have a good PC.

Yeah the map is much bigger in file size, that may be the cause.

@jkprince IME the Java errors are common but are usually fixed by rebooting tripleA. How many games have you played so far?

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

PTV is great but is it just me or is it really badly optimized? The map gradually loads up square by square and lags really badly, often throwing “Out of Java heap space” errors. Even restarting TripleA doesn’t help, and I have a good PC.

We have a TripleA-Support Category on this forum to discuss issues like this one.
So you find your issue - as well as the solution - there:

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40729/heap-space-error

@pacifiersboard said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
…

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.

I wanna update my thoughts on available technologies:

(i) Rockets
During the Strategic and Tactical Bombing Raids step of your Conduct Combat phase each turn, you can pay 1PU (3PU for double damage) to make a single rocket attack against an enemy industrial complex, air base, or naval base within 3 spaces of a territory you control. This attack does one die roll of damage to that facility. Rockets may not be fired over neutral territories.

(ii) Advanced Artillery (supporting one additional infantry unit)
& Improved Mech (can carry one infantry unit during non-combat movement)

(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)
& Increased Factory Production (default)

(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) Improved Shipyards (where you got both a factory and harbor)
& 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.