@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Ok. Probably should be something added to the notes for that.
Since it’s a rule change, I’d say it’s called for.
@trulpen will add to the next update!
Hey guys. Adam brought something to my attention that I just fixed. An AA gun was inadvertantly removed from United Kingdom (it should have four, not three, AA guns at the start). I updated the map to reflect this change, so if you download it now it will have the correct number of AA guns.
If you are using the older version, you should definitely add an AA gun to UK before beginning, because that was not an intended change. Thanks!
Was the man on Borneo an intended addition?
@gamerman01 Yes it is.
Hehe, you’re so fast I didn’t get a chance to delete that dumb question. I now see men on other islands added as well -
anyway, thanks Adam!
@regularkid ,@Adam514 when you scroll down in the objetive panel, I realized that the VC marker aus missing.
Is that intentionell?
I liked it as a tool to confirm if I have reached the VC goal.
Are you planning on bringing it back up?
hey @aequitas-et-veritas. Yah that was removed from the objectives panel because it is actually inaccurate in GLobal BM. The reason it is inaccurate is because the victory conditions change for Axis depending on whether Berlin or Tokyo are allied controlled. In BM, Japan requires an extra VC if Berlin is allied controlled, and Germany requires an extra VC if Japan is allied controlled. That is true in PTV as well (see game notes)
So since it is inaccurately reflected in BM, we removed it, the thinking being that people can track their VCs easily enough in the Players tab.
But if there is high demand for it to be added to the PTV objectives panel, we will put in the work do so, and will fix it in BM as well.
Noticed a bug in the map, which I’m sure you’re aware of, but I find it best to point it out anyway:
The mIC did not disappear when J conquested Siberia.
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
Hey guys. Adam brought something to my attention that I just fixed. An AA gun was inadvertantly removed from United Kingdom (it should have four, not three, AA guns at the start). I updated the map to reflect this change, so if you download it now it will have the correct number of AA guns.
If you are using the older version, you should definitely add an AA gun to UK before beginning, because that was not an intended change. Thanks!
And Italy should have 3 aa, not 4?
Found another bug. When I try to move land units (1 inf, 1 art) from Tambov to Saratov, it won’t let me, but claims that I want to move the units through Tula. Or is there some kind of iron curtain between Tambov and Saratov?
And it’s the same the other direction.
@trulpen Italy is by design, rest have already been fixed if you reinstall the map.
Thanks, will do.
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.
)
@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.
Good changes.
I would suggest a further restriction on CV scramble. The sea zone to be protected must have a combat ship and not just a transport. Celebes used to be a black hole in the DEI to retake. To go there, you were isolated and gave up control of much of the surrounding space.
Now you can park there and send transports to take the other islands, and defend everybody on 3 of 4 money islands + Philippines. Eventually, the Allies can build forces to push on the Japanese, but early game there’s not even the opportunity to trade territory. But 3-4 rounds of the Japanese = 70+ IPC is a very tough hill to climb.
@surfer yup agreed. It will require a combat ship.
Then with land-scramble an aa won’t do the trick?
