@jkprince indeed 🙂
Thank you both for your interest!
WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread
-
Just noticed that the japanese home land NO is faulty. US has taken Iwo Jima, but Japan still gets the NO of 3 IPC.
-
@trulpen Indeed, thanks. Working on some other changes too.
-
It seems to me that concerning all the changes in PTV comparing to BM, the figs should cost 11, not 10. tacs 10 is ok.
and the ACs, they should be more expensive too.
figs and ACs are still massively bought above average.
cruisers under average.
maybe they should cost 10.cheers
-
Could you explain how to paint a good relief tiles?
-
Hey all! We are pleased to announce Version 5.0 of WW2: Path to Victory is now available for download on TripleA. Based on playtesting and community feedback, we made the following changes to the map:
(1) Sea Zone 38 (by Malaya) is now two Sea Zones (38 and 132), as shown below;
(2) The Vital Forward Bases National Objective in the Pacific now requires control of Gilbert Islands and is reciprocal. That is, Japan can also earn plus +5 PUs by controlling Caroline Islands, Paulau, Marshall Islands, Marianas, and Gilbert Islands.
Thanks again for all of your continued support and feedback. I look forward to seeing you around the gaming table.
-
@Navalland said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Could you explain how to paint a good relief tiles?
Hey Navalland. The relief tiles, in my opinion, should include attractive texturing for the land territories and sea zones. In Path to Victory, I used a layered “cloud” pattern for the sea zones, which is one of the textures include in Photoshop. For the land territories, I found an old map, made it semi-transparent, and tiled it.
-
Is it possible to paint relief tiles on using Paint and GIMP only?
-
@Navalland. You need an editing software that allows you to do PNG files with transparency. I’m not sure if Paint or GIMP include that feature.
-
The NO
if Normandy and Holland Belgium are both Axis controlled at the beginning of Germany’s turn and each garrisoned with at least one land unit at the end of Germany’s turn
doesn’t seem to be active when Italy steps in. Have a situation now where Italy controls Normandie at the beginning of Gs turn and retook Holland as well, so both territories are garrisoned at the end of Gs turn by italian units.
Doesn’t specifically say they need to be garrisoned with german units, so presume it’s faulty.
-
@trulpen hey Trulpen. They have to be garrisoned by German units to satisfy the “Atlantic Wall” conditions. I’ll update the game notes and objectives panel to reflect this.
-
-Is the game still balanced without national objectives?
-Wouldn’t it be more correct setting up Ireland and Iran as true neutral?
-
You could calculate the NO’s impact on balance by determining what percentage of each sides production in a typical game consists of NO income. That would actually be an interesting inquiry, but it’s not particularly relevant for our purposes. The main reason we retained National Objectives in PTV is for their positive effect on gameplay (they induce players to contest areas that would otherwise see little action, and provide interim goals on the way to victory), and to enhance historical accuracy.
As for the political standing of Ireland and Persia:
Historically Persia was invaded early on by the Soviets and British, and the entire country was commandeered and used as a base of operations by the Allies. Setting Persia to “Strict Neutral” would ensure that this historical outcome almost never happened in the game.
Ireland was technically neutral, but as cursory glance at the internet reveals, it leaned heavily towards the Allies in practice. . . they supplied men, they gave Allies preferential POW treatment etc. I have no doubt that if the UK were deadset on enlisting Ireland as a base of operations in the war effort, it could have done so. “Pro-Allied Neutral” correctly captures Irelands true standing in the war, in my opinion.
-
When UK controls Yenisey, it is converted to UK-EU and not UK-Pac. Timguska and Evenkiyskiy, which are the border, are correct though.
-
@trulpen thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Version 5.1 is now available for download (you’ll have to delete and reinstall the map if you want to see these corrections). The only changes are:
-
Clarified wording on “Atlantic Wall” national objective to specify “German” land units.
-
Corrected alignment of Yenisey to “UK_Pacific” when captured by British.
-
-
@regularkid Did you check the russian territories to the east as well?
-
@trulpen i checked all of them and only Yenisey was a problem I think.
-
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@trulpen i checked all of them and only Yenisey was a problem I think.
Great!
-
Question, wouldn’t it be appropriate that Japan has one more inf in Kwangsi at the start? I’m sure you’ve mulled over that issue a lot, so you probably have good reasons.
There is one more inf than in OOB already, but three territories to potentially grab instead of one. Also the sb’s being less of an attack-force makes Yunnan pretty shaky if only going in with 3-4 land units.
Perhaps the idea is that Japan has to have a tough choice and likely skips Hunan, and maybe even Kweichow as well, to secure a conquest of Yunnan?
-
Anyway, if I got a 3-bid with Axis, that’s where I’d put it without a blink.
-
Both Iran and Ireland should have been true neutral even having pro-allied Greece is questionable. I don’t think Greece would join Allies if Italy didn’t attack.
Suggested Topics
