Path to Victory League Discussion

[Stucifer]

@Daaras said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

@Stucifer Very well thought out and articulated post. I will attempt to give some thoughts.

Generally, I feel like all pieces in the game should be purchased, and the current model of AAA guns does not really qualify. Just like the cruiser from G40 essentially being ignored required change going into PTV.

I agree. Cruisers are still a very rare buy, but the addition of marines and price reduction to 11 means I’ve seen them occasionally. With battleships at 18, I almost always prefer to buy those as UK, USA, and Japan. That leads to the shore bombard mechanic which is a whole other discussion topic, but 1914’s amphibious assaults feel so much more treacherous and brutal. It’s lovely 😅

I have also thought it relatively dumb that AAA guns only fire once, it just never really made sense to me. So them continuing to shoot every round definitely has some lasting implications.
Would help with the plane spam that seems to happen in most games.

Definitely could see high attrition in battles lasting several rounds. I am not sure if the nature of PtV and most of the past A&A games would lead to a significant attrition rate, since most battles are either quite small or very large. North Africa has a lot more mid-size battles I feel like.

Also, after playing NA quite a few times, losing a plane to a 2 on a D10, just feels so much better than a 1 on a D6. I know it’s strange being only 3% different, but the NA aaa guns are so much more fun.

Yep! That 3% equates to 20% more likely to hit than the D6!

This would require significant testing for sure. Do your modified AAA guns still shoot at 3 planes or just 1 die per unit?

1 die per unit.

I think, as proposed, you might even see them on their own sometimes as blockers/trading pieces

[Stucifer]

@mikawagunichi said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

@Daaras @Stucifer Also adds some historical realism IMO. In G40 and it’s variants a lot of people play in a manner to try to almost never lose planes, but in reality losses were severe and unavoidable. Every country with the capacity to do so was building planes hand over fist to replace losses.

I would love to address this issue too. Plane attrition on the Eastern Front feels nonexistent in most games, save the occasional bomber shot down by infrastructure. In the war it was significant for both sides…

Quite the aside, but one of the ideas I’ve had for a spinoff variant (would be too much of a change from regular A&A I feel) is having planes have 2 hit points.

Attacking planes that are damaged do half damage on bombing runs and automatically retreat at the beginning of a new combat round. Defending planes roll at 1/2/2 for Strats/Tacs/Fighters.

Damaged planes that survive must be repaired (don’t require special infrastructure) for an IPC cost.

[axis-dominion]

i keep losing london in ptv lol

[mikawagunichi]

@axis-dominion

[axis-dominion]

i’m not sure i really follow that. how is losing london not worse than losing gib lol

[mikawagunichi]

@axis-dominion IME the axis getting control of gib and putting a fat stack of air/naval around it so the US can’t even come across the Atlantic has been one of the hardest strategies to counter as Allies.

Losing London can be overcome with a strong Russia if the Germans had to invest a lot to get it.

[axis-dominion]

@mikawagunichi said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

@axis-dominion IME the axis getting control of gib and putting a fat stack of air/naval around it so the US can’t even come across the Atlantic has been one of the hardest strategies to counter as Allies.

Losing London can be overcome with a strong Russia if the Germans had to invest a lot to get it.

understand, but still losing london can be a very hard blow, but i suppose a lot depends on just how much of a wipeout it was as well as how much of a footing russia ends up getting in europe, and so on.

gib strategy is hard to counter but there are ways around it that are viable. i think both scenarios can be tough and so it’s situational, and very much depends on the skill levels and other things going on in the game (eg my last game with adam i had both gib and egypt firmly conquered so that made things esp hard, but pulling that off against a very skilled allied player is no easy task.

[Stucifer]

As you have both said, I think it comes down to how much Germany has to pull from the Russian front to make it happen. Obviously losing London is worse, it’s a huge loss in income for the Allies. But it does stretch Germany’s strategic goals heavily in three different directions.

I think Germany has 3 goals once they capture London:

1. Hold London from being liberated,

2. Push for Leningrad for the extra NO money

• You have all those transports anyway, can also send a few to the Med for the next objective if you have Gib,

3. Give enough support to Italy so they can achieve the bulk of their NOs

#1 and #3 are much easier if Axis holds Gibraltar.

Focusing on a Gib strategy vs a London strategy costs Germany a lot fewer ground units for the Eastern front, and money spent on transports can be spent on combat units. Can usually convoy away some UK IPCs on top of that. Buy an extra strat if you lose one, pounding London major into submission is 👌👌

A small surface fleet around London, maybe a few ships in the Med (+ building subs in 95 asap) with planes in S Italy or Malta gives you a lot of deterrence against a combined fleet move to 93 or UK buildup in 100. I’ve seen a lot of allied fleets sunk there.

Axis NOs threatened by Allies at Gib:
Germany - Atlantic Wall, Swedish Steel, Control of Balkans (11)
Italy - Mare Nostrum, North Africa, Control The Mediterranean & Roman Empire (18)

Allied NOs potentiated by holding Gib:
USA - French coastal NO, North Africa (10-15) Rome (difficult)
UK - Original territories, No Subs, Mediterranean Convoy, Southern Europe Beachhead (12)

In most games you probably see a 25-point contribution towards Axis income parity from these NOs, plus the requisite territories
USA - North Africa (5) +3 territories
UK - Original, Subs, Mediterranean (9)
Italy - Roman Empire (5) + North Africa

[Stucifer]

@axis-dominion Do you feel that Germany can too consistently take London? I think the game is set up in a way that they can always have good odds to take it with the typical bid (9-15 IPCs, mostly given to Germany for subs and inf/art) and G1 naval buy. But there’s a lot of opportunity cost with taking London if they’ve bought units there, so 6inf/1 ftr or 9 inf UK1 usually deters me from going for it as Germany because the opportunity cost is so high.

[axis-dominion]

@mikawagunichi said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

@axis-dominion IME the axis getting control of gib and putting a fat stack of air/naval around it so the US can’t even come across the Atlantic has been one of the hardest strategies to counter as Allies.

Losing London can be overcome with a strong Russia if the Germans had to invest a lot to get it.

let’s see, if i lose both my games then you will be wrong. if i win both, you will be right. we both might be right if i win one and lose the other :)

[mikawagunichi]

@axis-dominion I have faith in you

[axis-dominion]

@mikawagunichi said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

@axis-dominion I have faith in you

is that mainly because that would make you right? haha

[mikawagunichi]

@axis-dominion I do legitimately like your positions. London falling and US getting original UK territories back from the axis and getting build infrastructure in places they almost never control in most games is another silver lining

[axis-dominion]

@Stucifer said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

@axis-dominion Do you feel that Germany can too consistently take London? I think the game is set up in a way that they can always have good odds to take it with the typical bid (9-15 IPCs, mostly given to Germany for subs and inf/art) and G1 naval buy. But there’s a lot of opportunity cost with taking London if they’ve bought units there, so 6inf/1 ftr or 9 inf UK1 usually deters me from going for it as Germany because the opportunity cost is so high.

yeah i agree with your assessment here, Germany seems to have an easier time compared to global/bm taking london with the bid and cheaper transports, etc. , but then it becomes a matter of how well the allies were prepared for that and set up for a strong push on the eastern front combined with the incoming american threat.