WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

@trulpen Yeah numbers need to be changed on the objectives panel, it’s the Indian Ocean.

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

The UK-Pac objective, is it supposed to say z73… 81 or as it is now with z71?

I’m asking since z71 and z72 are part of the Atlantic, not the Indian Ocean.

techically speaking, sz 71 is part of both Atlantic and Indian ocean.

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

Eastern India could be Calcutta, or similarly divided.

Actually New Dehli was the capital of India from 1931, right? Here there could also be a choice if New Dehli should be the UK-Pac capital and then it would be hidden inland and not exposed to amphibious attacks. Not sure that would be a good change, or maybe it would.

@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

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

The UK-Pac objective, is it supposed to say z73… 81 or as it is now with z71?

I’m asking since z71 and z72 are part of the Atlantic, not the Indian Ocean.

techically speaking, sz 71 is part of both Atlantic and Indian ocean.

You mean 73, right? It’s the new map.

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

@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

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

The UK-Pac objective, is it supposed to say z73… 81 or as it is now with z71?

I’m asking since z71 and z72 are part of the Atlantic, not the Indian Ocean.

techically speaking, sz 71 is part of both Atlantic and Indian ocean.

You mean 73, right? It’s the new map.

sorry i am looking to bm map , i though its all the same there. sorry

why do Russia, China and USA start with less PUs then production?

Interesting, many things to like here.

Re: Mongolia the change makes it simple but it also nullifies Mongolia if the USSR wants to help China. Perhaps the new rule is too simple.

At first glance, I would have thought these changes would make it hard to win as Axis. But your play testing is that it is quite competitive? Hmm.

Are you sure you want to allow ICs to be built on Sumatra, Java, Borneo and Manilla? Perhaps unlikely to happen, unless Japan is getting hammered.

Don’t really follow why N Italy no longer connects to W Germany or France. Was the former just to prevent the W Germany -> Egypt flight? Or why Iwo Jima was moved to be a border island. Or why each of the money islands is now worth 1 less. I doubt making Siciily <-> Rome a walkable connection was a good move.

A couple of things I don’t think went far enough. No convoy zone in SZ5? No Canada as a playable power? Keeping plunder on first capture? No paratroopers? Still able to produce non-capital ships without naval bases?

Don’t really love the style of the new borders - they look like they were drawn by hand. Perhaps that’s a taste thing.

Particularly like the Med changes though. Crete & Malta become more important.

@regularkid I’m having a problem with displaying this map/game compared to others (BM3 & OOB). The map moves slowly, redraws are delayed, and multiple times I have Java Heap Space errors where I just have to restart the game.

Is there some setting/optimization I can choose to help with this? Using Linux system with TripleA version 1.9.0.0 - 13066.

Assuming you’ve already tried exiting and restarting Triple-A (there are significant memory leaks), you could try increasing the max memory in the TripleA.vmoptions file in the root installation directory.

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

Interesting, many things to like here.

Re: Mongolia the change makes it simple but it also nullifies Mongolia if the USSR wants to help China. Perhaps the new rule is too simple.

At first glance, I would have thought these changes would make it hard to win as Axis. But your play testing is that it is quite competitive? Hmm.

Are you sure you want to allow ICs to be built on Sumatra, Java, Borneo and Manilla? Perhaps unlikely to happen, unless Japan is getting hammered.

Don’t really follow why N Italy no longer connects to W Germany or France. Was the former just to prevent the W Germany -> Egypt flight? Or why Iwo Jima was moved to be a border island. Or why each of the money islands is now worth 1 less. I doubt making Siciily <-> Rome a walkable connection was a good move.

A couple of things I don’t think went far enough. No convoy zone in SZ5? No Canada as a playable power? Keeping plunder on first capture? No paratroopers? Still able to produce non-capital ships without naval bases?

Don’t really love the style of the new borders - they look like they were drawn by hand. Perhaps that’s a taste thing.

Particularly like the Med changes though. Crete & Malta become more important.

That was the thinking behind the new Mongolia rule. Everything should hinge on the DOW. Plus it’s simpler.

Balancing comes later. From our preliminary playtests, Allies have the advantage. But as time passes and more Axis strategies are discovered, that may change. Same thing happened with Global and BM.

ICs cannot be built on islands, same rule as G40.

N Italy not connecting to Western Germany is for a bunch of reasons. Namely, it makes the Western Germany aircraft placement worse for Med operations. It puts a bit more room between territories in Western Europe which was necessary especially with the new scramble rules. Iwo Jima offers a decent base of operation in some cases for the Allies in the North. DEI got a reduction in production value because they were worth too much in our opinion. Too much of a swing depended on the DEI. Why is the Sicily-Rome connection not a good move?

There is a convoy zone in SZ5. Canada as a playable power is a very bad idea, it further splits the Allies for no good reason. If UK Pacific and UK Europe are still essentially the same nation, it doesn’t make sense for Canada to be separate. Not good for gameplay either. Plunder rules stay yes. No paratroopers for now, if you have a suggestion for their implementation we’ll read it. Yes don’t need naval bases to produce any ship. Already axis-dominion said the current rule is limiting.

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Yes don’t need naval bases to produce any ship. Already axis-dominion said the current rule is limiting.

What does this mean? That you’ve maculated that rule?

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

maculated

Not sure what you mean by that. But I notice it wasn’t clear what I was saying. You CAN produce any non-capital ship without a naval base.

Is the rule the same as when I started my game with AeV? I had a plan of building a tr in G2, but failed upon the rule, as I recall it.

With maculated I meant cancelled/nullified/disposed of.

Of course still would’ve been a very costly idea if the defence is solely dependent on spamming des and cr.

Naval building rule has not changed. Some changes are coming in the next update, but nothing related to ship building as of now.

Ok, then I simply misunderstood it. Or it can be that I understood it then, but forgot it now. I’m tired. It’s inconsequential.

@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

why do Russia, China and USA start with less PUs then production?

@regularkid

@Amon-Sul Russia and China is for their purge and civil war penalties, US will be fixed.

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@Amon-Sul Russia and China is for their purge and civil war penalties, US will be fixed.

so for Russia and China its only in rd 1?