WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

[regularkid]

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

Ok, this is last part is for another thread (namely feedback for BM3), but I think a good change would be that Russia not only has to DOW in order to go into Korea after a US-landing, but that soviet prescence in originally owned japanese territories bordering Mongolia should also put the defence pact out of play.

Hey, Trulpen, both BM and PTV already restrict Russian movement in Asia when not at war with Japn. The rule is that Russia may not move its units anywhere east of Baluchistan (Eastern Persia in BM) unless it is at war with Japan. That would include all of China.

[regularkid]

Regarding the penalties for Japan’s DOW on Russia (and vice versa), we’ll likely wait to see how things play out in further playtesting before making any further.

Things I will personally look for: how frequently and how early Japan and Russia declare war, and the most common outcome of that conflict. If it appears that an early JOW of Russia by Japan (or vice versa) becomes the “routine” move in most games, I think we will definitely look at making changes (including, possibly, reverting back to the lend lease incentive).

But since it doesn’t seem to be a problem so far, we’ll hold off.

[trulpen]

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

Regarding the penalties for Japan’s DOW on Russia (and vice versa), we’ll likely wait to see how things play out in further playtesting before making any further.

Things I will personally look for: how frequently and how early Japan and Russia declare war, and the most common outcome of that conflict. If it appears that an early JOW of Russia by Japan (or vice versa) becomes the “routine” move in most games, I think we will definitely look at making changes (including, possibly, reverting back to the lend lease incentive).

But since it doesn’t seem to be a problem so far, we’ll hold off.

Not a problem, just less entertaining.

The restriction of movement I’m aware of, so it’s not applicable here in P2V. That comment was for BM3, where Russia can keep a stack waiting for a US-landing in Korea. Then RDOW and ruskijs enter. My point was that if Russia moves into either Korea or Manchuria the Soviet-Mongolian Defence Pact should terminate as well.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

Allied units entering Russian ground while Capitol (Mosow) is still under russian control will change/ transform imnediately into russian units.
Problem solved for BM and PtV.

Hey Guys, just ask…😉😄

[regularkid]

@trulpen oh I see now. I misunderstood. And yes your idea makes some logical sense for BM3. Of course in PTV it’s a nonissue cuz the mere Dow cancels Russia’s Mongolia boost. Gotcha.

[regularkid]

@aequitas-et-veritas I think there is a game mechanic like that in total world war. Except it is confined to allied units that move into archangel I think. Interesting idea

[trulpen]

@aequitas-et-veritas said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

Allied units entering Russian ground while Capitol (Mosow) is still under russian control will change/ transform imnediately into russian units.
Problem solved for BM and PtV.

Hey Guys, just ask…😉😄

I’m sure that can be exploited. For instance it would have the effect that such land units can move two times before J. Spontaneously not so keen on that solution.

[trulpen]

I also want to add that I really like the change that strategic bombers cost 12 but has a hit probability of 1-3. They of course still got great range, but now I feel they’re more focused on SBR than an overall threat wall.

[Avner]

I admire the effort you have made to create this board :)

I’m still practicing BM3 but I can’t wait to try this version too.

[gamerman01]

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

I also want to add that I really like the change that strategic bombers cost 12 but has a hit probability of 1-3. They of course still got great range, but now I feel they’re more focused on SBR than an overall threat wall.

Totally agree

The first version in the 80’s had nuclear weapons… you could get multiple techs in the same turn if you rolled more than one 6, and the 6th tech was… heavy bombers. 3 dice per bomber and you could score 3 hits per bomber. And when you did SBR, it directly destroyed their cash on hand. (They did cost 15, though, which would be half of the UK’s starting economy!) I just had to share that since you told me you’ve been playing A&A for just a year or two :) :)

[gamerman01]

BUT - when a transport could only take 2 infantry OR a tank, and cost 8 IPC’s, you kind of needed the heavies to take down a huge stack on Japan at the end.

[aagamerz13]

@gamerman01 I’m seeing an illegal state exception. Image Not Found:flags/Neutral_fade.png when i load the game now. Anyone else see this? Using latest triplea

[simon33]

@aagamerz13 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@gamerman01 I’m seeing an illegal state exception. Image Not Found:flags/Neutral_fade.png when i load the game now. Anyone else see this? Using latest triplea

Perhaps the map package has been corrupted somehow. Lack of disk space???

Back to topic, has a level of bid been established yet?

[aagamerz13]

@simon33 I have more than enough space. I even deleted and reloaded map. Error is still there.

[regularkid]

@aagamerz13 what version of TripleA are you using?

[aagamerz13]

@regularkid 2.1 20365

[trulpen]

@aagamerz13 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@regularkid 2.1 20365

Had that problem with that one as well. Upgrade to a later version. You find it as pre-release.

[simon33]

One change I’m not sure about is increasing the price of Mechs from 4 to 5. I didn’t really think Mechs were over powered at 4IPC cost. Is there really much point in buying them when for 1IPC more you can have a tank?

[trulpen]

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

One change I’m not sure about is increasing the price of Mechs from 4 to 5. I didn’t really think Mechs were over powered at 4IPC cost. Is there really much point in buying them when for 1IPC more you can have a tank?

Definitely. They defend as good as tanks and attack with one less when combined. Think the cost-difference reflects that. They’re still cheaper and hence protect the more expensive unit, while having pretty good fire-power in itself. I’m sure they crunched the numbers thoroughly. I like the change.

[simon33]

Hmm, maybe I should reserve judgement.