@regularkid

My only critique, is I think the carrier scramble should be limited to 3 maximum planes. One of my current opponents has 15 US carriers against me, for example. It’s a bit stifling to the game action, as it allows multiple blockers to be placed, and only risk losing one or two, rather than all blockers. Blockers are already a broken part of the game, but they always have been. So, if you don’t want to fix the blocker problem, like Global War 36 and Bloodbath Rules do for example, you could at least help not making it worse, which is what carrier scramble does.

Lest you only feel you are getting negative feedback, let me just say that I enjoy PTV very much! Many in my gaming group love it so much that one had a map printed out so that we can play face to face! I hope you take each game played as positive feedback, even if the participants are not voicing their opinions. To play, is the greatest compliment you could receive!

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

PS. The current game of 15 US carriers is not a PTV game, but my impression of the stifling nature, and blocker boost allowed by carrier scramble in other games of PTV, is still valid.

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

Hey guys, we’re close to releasing a small update to the map to address some minor clerical issues (spelling errors in game notes, a more aesthetic placement of the sz 20 kamakaze marker, etc.)

One issue we would like to address in this update, based on play-testing and player feedback, is the question of carrier capabilities vs. unit cost.

The first change we are considering is to reduce carrier defense from 2 to 1. This would place the focus on the carrier’s capability as a floating airbase rather than as a combat unit unto itself.

The second change would be to forbid carrier scramble to empty sea zones (similar to the rule against land scramble to empty territories). This change would allow easier capture of islands/territories from sea zones that are not defended by ships.

The overall aim of these changes is to bring carrier capabilities more in line with their cost.

We welcome your feedback to these proposals.

)

I have only played one game of PTV, but I’d say the second option would be better. It makes the rule at sea, the same as on land, and is a bigger nerf to an OP unit. Defense dropping from 2 to 1 would be barely noticeable, IMO. The carrier scramble is a fun rule, but it took one of the strongest units in the game, and made it much stronger. Thus, I think the bigger adjustment is called for.

@sjelso Infantry require a factory to place and militia are cheap cannon fodder, are two of the many reasons.

It seems to me the added cost of mechs will dissuade Germany from spamming 30+ mechs in their rush to Moscow. It is still a valuable unit, for the cost, but it only realizes that value when paired with tanks. So, no mech spam. Brings the unit into balance, in that you now need to buy a balance of units, rather than one type.

@chris_henry if FEC are allowed to attack the CCP, I don’t see why FEC couldn’t attack a warlord. As stated, it’s an attack on all of China. If the game developers don’t want interference in the Chinese Civil War, similar to the Spanish Civil War, the rules should say so…with any exceptions listed. Japan, USSR, etc.

@Adam514 Who is to say what is obvious? Is it obvious that Japan should attack the ANZAC destroyer and transport? That Germany should attack one, or both, UK navies? The answer differs for different players.

Directed tech allows me to choose what I want to do. I may fail, and lose my Japanese destroyer for nothing, or I may take out 2 boats and still have a destroyer left over. But at least it was my choice.

Undirected tech is like trying to attack Paris, and not knowing if I’m actually attacking Morocco. It makes no sense, strategically.

Directed tech, success determined by a die roll, fits the game, is not predictable, but is strategically variable.

@rellhaiser Great! My brain hurt a little bit trying to read that rule, but I agree that it answers my question and simplifies the game! Thank you for pointing me back to it.

@Canuck12 said in BATTLE IN VANCOUVER! IT'S ON! Nov. 23-25. Who will survive?:

@Mill-Creek

kylemcewen12@hotmail.com

Should be the one.

Thanks for putting in the time to set this all up!

Well, I can’t figure it out. I started a forum, got the successful dice server email, but I can’t post the game to the forum. My patience is gone. Sorry.

@Panther I posted the issue on GitHub.

@regularkid “The main source of increased complexity, would, of course, be the application of scramble rules to land battles and carriers. However, since this is merely an extension of an already existing and well-understood game mechanic, i would describe as more of elegant addition, than a complexity.”

Reading the game notes, I don’t see the ability to scramble to land battles listed. Is this in the game, or just an idea?

@thrasher1 Our group plays China at War, Turkey at War, Fighting Railways, and Diplomacy. We have played others, but those 4 are our favorites. Diplomacy is starting to wear out it’s welcome a bit, as far as I’m concerned. It adds a lot of fun to the game, but it heavily favors the Allies. Some games it can really swing things.

@kmtnt Per the developer, “The short answer is that you can think of it as an extension to the “US-involvement” rule at 35IPP. It has nothing to do with threatening US mainland. I won’t go into more detail, but note that all of this has been changed for v4.”

@kmtnt said in USA income determined actions 50 ipp:

@kmtnt another question. After allies retake Paris does that become the free French capital, and return to regular France

No. Paris does not become the capital again, while the war still rages. It does turn Free France back to a major power, though. Tech roll(s), Strategic Naval Movement, Lend-Lease, etc.

@kmtnt Agreed, I’m not sure. I’ll ask on discord. But remember, below 50 IPP, nations can get even closer.

@kmtnt Looks like 3 sea zones away to me. So, I’d say, no. Not sure if that’s been clarified, elsewhere.

Is there a complete rules, including objectives I can print out? OOB, built up to BM, built up to PTV, has me unsure where to look for the complete rules, without having to refer back to different rules/pages/links. Thanks! Playing F2F, tomorrow.

@plasticknight It may make more sense to you if you rethink one part. The UK navy CAN attack the subs. The difference is the subs MAY submerge before the UK navy gets to fire. So, they aren’t moving into an empty zone, or doing a non-combat move. They are attacking…just likely to fail in their attack, as the subs are likely to submerge. But it’s still an attack. The subs might fight! Take on the whole navy! They have target select. Maybe they risk it all for a shot at a loaded transport, damaged battleship, etc.

There is also a note in the combat movement section that says, “Note that combat may not always occur as sometimes one or both players will be given the choice to engage in combat or not.” You may combat move anywhere combat MAY occur…no matter how unlikely.

PS. Shameless plug, but this confusion would all be eliminated if there was only one movement phase, rather than both a combat and non-combat movement phase.

@jbuckbuddy Yes

@trig Yes, and those are two things I don’t like, and would like to eliminate.

Why have a combat and non-combat movement phase? Axis & Allies: 1914 used this method, and I think it simplifies the game in many helpful ways, as well as eliminates many seemingly “gamey” maneuvers. This would be a big change, so I’d love to hear some feedback.