WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies

@daaras said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

So when you guys play the Axis and win, how do you do it/what happens?

I am starting to feel like the Allies only lose when they really mess up. The Axis seem to have to play almost flawlessly, to have a chance. What have your guys results been? My group has very very few Axis wins, and some of those have asterisks attached to them.

Just to be sure, since you say ”your group”, this is about P2V, right? Or OOB? Or both?

@daaras said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

So when you guys play the Axis and win, how do you do it/what happens?

I am starting to feel like the Allies only lose when they really mess up. The Axis seem to have to play almost flawlessly, to have a chance. What have your guys results been? My group has very very few Axis wins, and some of those have asterisks attached to them.

My group too…
I have won just once when I managed to take London with a SeaLion.
The only time I have lost against the Axis it was when I played Usa focusing on Europe only, completely disinterested of JAP and lost.
Now I am playing another game when it’s clear that Ger will try SeaLion but I wanted to play K.J.F. the same… London will fall and I will probably loose the game.
In my opinion, if Usa plays a balanced game and the other allies make no mistakes, then the Allies has the 90% to win in PtV (talking about games played by player of the same level…)

@trulpen
@Daaras
If you accept LowLuck and a little bit of editing I’ll be happy to try some PtV games…

Regarding P2V it’s very different from the other two versions. Especially Germany has to apply a rather different approach. Mechs are not as efficient a spam, costing more and really only shining combined with tanks. Therefore a lot more slow-movers should be built, why Germany has to be more patient rather than to go on a swift rampage against Russia. Also carriers are simply an even greater ship in P2V, why it’s rational that Germany also plays a bit more of the sea game.

Italy has more of its own game, but should still make it a priority to help out big brother.

Regarding Japan it’s basically the same outlook as in the other versions, but more territory to cover in China, more likely RDOW and a lot more dynamic on the ocean.

@malmessi74 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

If you accept LowLuck and a little bit of editing I’ll be happy to try some PtV games…

Thanks for the challenge! I’m fine with most edit-corrections, but am not so keen on LL.

@trulpen In this regard I am referring to PTV. I’ve been playing Axis and Allies for like 15 years, and have just recently started playing this variant. I do feel like the Allies are heavily favored. My group has even started talking about using an Axis bid.

I do really enjoy PTV, but I also feel like it needs some balance tweaks, which is why I was asking how the Axis win in your games. Are they “real” victories or do they only happen when the Allies make a critical error?

I think in my playgroup we have around a 5% legitamate Axis win rate, in over 40 games. As opposed to the other global variants where the Axis win more than 50%. Especially when I’m playing them lol

@daaras And this has been made much worse with the partition of SZ38. What was that!?

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

@daaras And this has been made much worse with the partition of SZ38. What was that!?

Primarily to make it harder for J to pressure everything, including Calcutta, in the early rounds.

I also asked about it and even questioned it, but now I actually think it’s an ok change in line with the rest of the version. The recent change of z46 was very good limiting accessability.

Japan is already weak enough without the partition.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Japan is already weak enough without the partition.

I kind of agree.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Hey hey guys. Have been following the recent discussion with interest!

My two cents: Between Germany and Japan, I would definitely say Japan is the stronger nation. In fact, most of my Axis victories have been in the Pacific.
IT DEPENDS ON HOW USA PLAYS, KJF OR KGF…
CHINESE CUERRILLA IS A NIGHTMARE FOR JAP, THAT’S SURE

Also, this may reflect more on my own idiosyncrasies as a player, but I personally find Axis much easier to play AGREE (and win DO NOT AGREE :blush: ) in PTV than Allies. I think as players become more familiar with the nuances of PTV and finetune their strategies, you will see a gradual shift in the Axis’s favor. That was certainly true in the case of Global 1940. . . the optimal strategies emerged over time, until it became clear that the game favored Axis.

As it stands now, I’d gladly take Axis without a bid. INTERESTING

One last point warrants mention: Low luck would naturally create imbalances in the game because it strongly favors the attacker–i.e. the Axis. For a more balanced gameplay experience, I strongly recommend regular dice. OPS, WAS GOING TO CHALLANGE YOU BUT LLUCK IS NOT AN OPTION AS FAR AS I CAN SEE…

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Hey hey guys. Have been following the recent discussion with interest!

My two cents: Between Germany and Japan, I would definitely say Japan is the stronger nation. In fact, most of my Axis victories have been in the Pacific.

Also, this may reflect more on my own idiosyncrasies as a player, but I personally find Axis much easier to play (and win) in PTV than Allies. I think as players become more familiar with the nuances of PTV and finetune their strategies, you will see a gradual shift in the Axis’s favor. That was certainly true in the case of Global 1940. . . the optimal strategies emerged over time, until it became clear that the game favored Axis.

As it stands now, I’d gladly take Axis without a bid.

One last point warrants mention: Low luck would naturally create imbalances in the game because it strongly favors the attacker–i.e. the Axis. For a more balanced gameplay experience, I strongly recommend regular dice.

Interesting thoughts. I do agree that optimal axis strategy will take more time to figure out. A big issue in our games has been that Russia’s income stays too high for too long and Germany can’t get enough of an edge in total land units on the board to push much beyond Leningrad, and certainly not enough to split the army and hold both Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Regarding low luck, I’d argue that’s a feature not a bug in P2V. Axis need some help so that helps balance the game IMO. Also, I generally see dice a way of making the game more random, less mundane following the same exact strategy every time, but that’s more of an issue for OOB. P2V already allows for much more variation. Plus LL gives a better test of strategies without as much of a luck element, and there is still much work to be done regarding strategy development.

@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

@daaras And this has been made much worse with the partition of SZ38. What was that!?

Primarily to make it harder for J to pressure everything, including Calcutta, in the early rounds.

I also asked about it and even questioned it, but now I actually think it’s an ok change in line with the rest of the version. The recent change of z46 was very good limiting accessibility.

I also really like the SZ change, along with the money being shifted from the “Money Islands” to the airbase islands and such through NO’s.

Maybe we need many more games, but this version is starting to feel brutal for the Axis. I would agree, that Japan is slightly favored over Germany, but they are both quite difficult. No one has really answered my prevailing question though: HOW did the axis win if it wasn’t through an Allied error?

@Daaras
Italy getting big in the Med and pushing into the Middle East, and Japan also pushing into the Middle East after taking Calcutta. Might be enough to pressure Russia on another front, or they could hit Africa? More based on guesswork than expereinced as I’ve only played a couple of games.

@flyingbadger I do also agree that it’s basically required for Italy to actually play the game for Germany to have a chance, but that is way easier said than done. I do tend to agree with @mikawagunichi

Interesting thoughts. I do agree that optimal axis strategy will take more time to figure out. A big issue in our games has been that Russia’s income stays too high for too long and Germany can’t get enough of an edge in total land units on the board to push much beyond Leningrad, and certainly not enough to split the army and hold both Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Holding Stalingrad is just about impossible, since it’s only 2 moves away from Moscow. Cutting the Middle East off from Germany doesn’t seem very difficult as well. Which again leaves me at a loss as what to actually do with Germany…

Russia only has to counter pressure from the east and south with minimal resources. The great prize for Russia is grabbing german territory to the west.

My main strategy for Germany is to make as strong push as possible towards Russia early. I usually wait to DOW until G3 though, since Russia get a strong boost from NO’s. The two turns will be focused on mobilizing slow-movers (inf and art).

I only buy the amount of mechs needed to pair with existing tanks. If I buy new tanks, which is rare for me in P2V, I usually do it together with the mech-combo.

This is actually one of the huge differences to OOB/BM3. Germany can’t afford a mech-spam and mech only really shine together with tanks. I think this solution is quite a beauty.

Anyway, Germany really needs to get swift control over Leningrad and Ukraine, with priority to the former because of the NO and highly strategic position.

When this goal is accomplished there should be enough force to keep on pushing and Germany may start to invest in fleet and land to protect the western front.

With Japan I usually try in the early game to contain China and grabbing key objectives, like the DEI and FIC (great place for a mIC and ab). In P2V it’s also lucrative to go after other islands, but Japan is hard pressed to do so early on, so it’s more for the mid-game if the previous expansion has been successful.

Islands are much more susceptible to counter-attacks and Japan can more or less trap the US into losing their valuable land-units when grabbing i e the Carolines on the cheap. Without pesky land threatening islands, Japan can breathe a lot more easily.

Carriers and des is the main early build. I usually go with 1 mIC in Shantung and 2 tr as the opening-build.

I also don’t care squat about the northern russians. If Russia DOWs, Japan will start to adjust to a northern conflict, but will be happy enough if Russia abstains. The southern objectives are so much more important.

Just played another game today, with what appears to be another resounding Allied Victory. I was the Allies and just went straight into the Med with both USA and England. Slaughtered Italy, and just annoyed Germany enough to keep their income down.

Eventually, the ipc’s spent in the pacific were just too much for Japan to keep up with. Japan started out super strong, but with the EruoAxis losing that fast it wasn’t the longest of games.

So, how do you propose the Axis defend themselves from an earlyish American assault in the med? This strategy has been almost impossible with deal with as the Axis, because if the entire Luftwaffe is parked in the Med, they obviously aren’t in the Motherland. Which sets Germany back there…Please help

How did you get 60 days for recording ? For me I only have 14 days unless I’m missing something new now