This discussion makes me want to try out P2V again.
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
This discussion makes me want to try out P2V again.
After reading through the rules and feedback threads I can see how someone would have had serious issues with this game before some of the key rule changes were made. Probably a good thing I only recently decided to try it out.
Played a few games during L20 and I enjoyed it. Dropped off though after the split of the sz by Malaya. Just felt like Japan got grinded to dust from the bat.
Ah, yes, and it was before the limitation of sea-scramble.
@trulpen My early reaction is that the game somewhat favors the Allies. However, I haven’t played nearly enough games to pass judgement at this point though. Optimal Axis strategies in OOB have been known for years, I’m not sure if there’s a consensus on that for P2V yet. So far, our games have been very long lasting indicating it’s pretty balanced, but in the end the Allies economic advantage tends to favor a long game.
The split of the SZ off Malaya is definitely rough on Japan. Honestly that’s part of the reason I’ve been trying to perfect a Pearl Harbor opener rather than going straight for India.
Mikawa released his ships to operate independently of his flagship, and at 01:31 he ordered "Every ship attack."
Yep, that split makes it quite a difficult task to go towards Calcutta by sea, since it then leaves the central Pacific wide open. So unless US screwes up big-time, that’s a no go. A bit unfortunate, if you ask me, since Japan needs to be offensive having 5 nations to struggle against.
Anyway, going back to the subject, I’d like to applaud the feat of finding a way of maybe making PH viable. That’s just very cool also in a historical sense.
@mikawagunichi My brother here seems to forget that our last game was a decisive Axis victory, led by yours truly. I believe I was threatening to win on both sides of the map, but the US probably could have prevented one side from winning.
As far as balance issues are concerned, we’ve basically played 1 where the Allies player massively punted (oops), and then 2 real games, with those being 1-1. I think Japan is definitely weaker in PTV, which is probably a good thing. The extra SZ off Malaya is vital to making the game more interesting imo, by giving India a real chance at survival.
We need more play testing obviously, but every time he does his PH attack, I feel like Japan is out of units pretty early on. China, and Russia are bigger issues in this version than any others. What are your thoughts on waiting to declare war on J2 or even J3 to deal with them first, and maintain a significant foothold on the mainland.
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
@simon33 i like it! you’d need to be prepared to sacrifice air in the Pearl Harbor battle to save the destroyer though, or risk of a 58% hit on the japanese fleet by wake (by my calcs). But otherwise looks pretty solid to me. I might try this in a game.
Well, you can reinforce on NCM if needed.
i think even with max reinforcement of the wake seazone on ncm, u still need a destroyer by hawaii to prevent a 50/50 on the wake fleet. perhaps i’m overlooking something tho.
@trulpen hey Trulpen. you might find my current game with AAgamer interesting: https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36323/regularkid-axis-v-aagamer-allies-ptv-no-bid/98?_=1614079196471
Japan was able to pull of a J5 takedown of Calcutta, with ships launched from Malaya.
It is also the first PTV game I have seen involving a Neutral Crush. AAgamer took me completely by surprise with that one. I’m looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
Sounds exciting!
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
@simon33 i like it! you’d need to be prepared to sacrifice air in the Pearl Harbor battle to save the destroyer though, or risk of a 58% hit on the japanese fleet by wake (by my calcs). But otherwise looks pretty solid to me. I might try this in a game.
Well, you can reinforce on NCM if needed.
i think even with max reinforcement of the wake seazone on ncm, u still need a destroyer by hawaii to prevent a 50/50 on the wake fleet. perhaps i’m overlooking something tho.
Pretty sure he meant send the DD to Hawaii on NM, not Wake. We’re just saying you dont’ want to send anything extra during combat because if US doesn’t scramble those units would be wasted.
@daaras said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
What are your thoughts on waiting to declare war on J2 or even J3 to deal with them first, and maintain a significant foothold on the mainland.
The later Japan declares war, the more trouble UK_Pacific is. If it waits until J3 to take FIC, in PtV it has real trouble getting an mIC on it which really makes it difficult to deny the Burma Road which in turn makes China a real problem.
Some thoughts after trying a J1.
The main one is that China is very much stronger. I would go back to placing a Kiangsu IC J1, and a 2 TT buy. Malaya is not a good location for an IC because you can’t reliably hold it.
Other thoughts are that hold the Carolines are probably even more important with more NOs in that part of the Pacific.
In general though, I think the move is very strong.
Up to 33 P2V games now between playtesting, 1v1s and 2v1s.
Nailing down optimal Axis strategy has been the hardest part, for a while we generally thought the game favored the Allies but things are finally starting to even out.
Tending towards thinking that G1/J2 is optimal. Russia is so buffed that starting to eat into their income immediately has big benefits. Also tends to force them to not spend much in Siberia or else pay the price vs Germany.
J1 is quite difficult given that the Allie are so incentivized to use the Siberian units against Japan. That, along with a buffed China, means you need to strengthen the mainland army before heading out for other objectives. OTOH, J3 just lets the Allies scoop up too much easy money and makes taking many of the primary objectives quite difficult as the Allies have time to reinforce them.
@mikawagunichi said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
J1 is quite difficult given that the Allie are so incentivized to use the Siberian units against Japan.
This is a pretty reasonable point, although also a solvable problem. Presumably USSR will vacate Amur USSR1 and leave 3 inf either in Buryatia or Sakha (more likely the latter). Also mobilise some land units in Siberia. There just wont be enough units to take either Northern Manchuria or Korea USSR2 even with only the 4inf starting on Korea defending Northern Manchuria. If Siberia is under defended USSR1 or troops are left in Amur (unless 1 as bait?) then an attack J1 is probably justified. The problem is round 3. Normally Amur and Siberia will be stacked up enough to not be a worthwhile attack so Korea needs to be defended or surrendered. TTs around the Philippines can be used to retake Korea, together with ones bought J1. But this means they aren’t taking the money islands.
I have pondered if a Southern Manchuria IC would be advised, and probably it would be superior to the Kiangsu IC. Both may be overkill. Including an FIC IC, 3 mICs was too much in OOB and BM in the average game, IMO. Possibly it could be fair in PtV although I doubt this.
I still think not pumping units out of FIC is a death sentence for Japan. Although it doesn’t stop you from winning in Europe.
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
oubt this.
I still think not pumping units out of FIC is a death s
Really great analysis from both @simon33 and @mikawagunichi. When I play Axis in PTV, I generally do G3 and J3 DOW, with decent results. But in my current game with @aagamerz13, I am facing a G2 DOW, J2DOW against Russia that is actually proving more challenging than i expected. So a G1/J2 might be viable as well.
@simon33 I generally agree with the discussion regarding what Russia typically does, but that means Japan needs to leave all the Northern/Southern Manchurian and Korean units up north to defend AND add several more units, possibly some planes to defend. And doing that leaves Japan short handed against China. Realistically need to dump all 3 TTs worth of stuff and then get a factory going J1 with another J2 just to keep up.
We’ve had a small number of games where Russia marches the Siberians back to Moscow and it makes things so much easier on Japan I just can’t see many experienced Allied players ever doing that.
@mikawagunichi said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
Up to 33 P2V games now between playtesting, 1v1s and 2v1s.
Nailing down optimal Axis strategy has been the hardest part, for a while we generally thought the game favored the Allies but things are finally starting to even out.
Hello, still think Allies are favoutite in P2V, played 10/12 games, just one victory as Axis…
Curious to play a game as Allies to see your Axis strategy
:blush:
