WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread

I most changes with P2V. Makes for quite a different and in many aspects interesting game. For me though, this thing we speak about is a disappointment. Anyway, it’s just a tiny part of everything that’s going on.

I’m inclined to agree with regularkid’s point about the mIC in Siberia* being the main change which has affected the dynamic. Without much game experience to back that up though.

• I would question the historical accuracy of this - wouldn’t the factories have been in the western Siberia, not the eastern. Are there even any roads in this part of the country?

I don’t like markdown. That was supposed to be the explanation of the asterisk, rather than a bullet point.

More near Timguska or east of Vladivostock for the Soviet war production though?

I think the factory could work in Sakha or Buryatia but did you want it on the coast so it could be taken out more easily?

@simon33 this is counting peas as german would say if something is not a 100% accurate…

From my perspective of 2 PTV games, I agree that the dynamic is very different, and significantly favoring an early RDOW. There factory allows Russia to build offensive units early in the game and attack. There is virtually no downside, maybe the convoy loses 2 extra ipcs, but it forces J to engage far to the north at a time when it is still attempting to consolidate in the south. RDOW is probably bad for Russia individually, but opening another front is important to the allies overall strategy. Japan is a monster in this game, with significant positional advantages, and this is a good tactic to reduce that.
In the BM3, game losing additional lend lease dollars was a big deterrent for Russia. If the goal is to prevent early conflict between the two countries, there needs to be more incentive for Russia to stay neutral. However, i think because of the other changes in the game, the existing scenario allows for more balanced play.

I never thought of this game as an accurate reflection of world war II operations, but an interesting strategy game with an asymmetric map and individual goals, so not bothered by historical deviations. Heck, most games don’t even involve a Pearl Harbor attack…

Regarding tech, one thing I hate about it is that it isn’t directed. Doesn’t it make more sense to be able to specify which technology is being researched?

@simon33 Perhaps it makes more sense that way, but then tech would become very predictable, you’d research the same order of tech for each nation from game to game. Doesn’t sound interesting.

@Adam514 Directed, but not predictable, because the breakthroughs would still be on a dice roll.

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@simon33 Perhaps it makes more sense that way, but then tech would become very predictable, you’d research the same order of tech for each nation from game to game. Doesn’t sound interesting.

I disagree with this argument. It may be more predictable than with random tech but no one is saying that the game is too predictable without tech even though the tech tree is therefore 100% predictable.

@simon33 Maybe predictable isn’t the right word. I guess the term is repetitive. There will be a clear order of good to bad techs for each nation, which removes choice from the player.

@Adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@simon33 Maybe predictable isn’t the right word. I guess the term is repetitive. There will be a clear order of good to bad techs for each nation, which removes choice from the player.

I understood what you were getting at, I just don’t think you are looking at it the right way. It’s like saying that there will be an optimal path without tech so therefore the game isn’t fun without tech. Which is clearly ridiculous. Maybe I’ve overstated the point there but I don’t understand why you are defending undirected tech. Do you like playing with tech? Can’t remember ever seeing you use it.

@simon33 I’m saying an obvious choice is not an interesting choice, so it would be a waste of tech implementation if it were added in that manner.

Other games have fun tech like in the 1914 map. I don’t play with tech in G40 variants though.

@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.

My experience in playing wargames over 40 years is there are two main camps regarding the philosophy of wargaming. One camp likes a game more based on strategy and predictability and the other camp prefers more randomness and thus want things more dice oriented. You may call it the chess people and the gambling people.

Those people who fall into the predictable camp want directed technology. Tech all be itself is already a risk because I may or may not obtain it. I am already taking a risk going for Tech, why would I have to risk what type of tech I am going to receive? This just makes the game more random and lessens the strategy aspect of the game. This group, if they had their way, would pick a purchased Tech approach which you see in some games. I pay X and I get Y. This makes the game all about strategy decisions and not dice rolling.

The gambling people want every game to be different. They either want, or are willing to have, bad dice in one game and good dice in another game to achieve their goal of randomness. They want Tech to be very good if they are lucky or spend a bunch of money on nothing, or of little value, if dice go bad. The “newness” of every game is more important than the finding and playing of a predictable boring strategy game.

For me, as I want as little dice as possible in any game, I prefer the predictability of knowing what I am doing is going to work assuming my strategy is valid. I may lose the game but if I lose it is because my strategy is flawed and the choices I made did not work rather than I just rolled poorly. Conversely if I win it is because of my good strategy and good decisions rather than just getting lucky dice.

Knowing I am in the predictable camp I NEVER play with technology because all the Axis and Allies technology solutions are very random in nature and are thus not attractive to me. If a technology policy had to be implemented, I would propose directed research AND the technology does not go into effect till the Turn after it is discovered. Both limit the randomness of technology.

@AndrewAAGamer I think we are all somewhere along the spectrum of luck versus strategy. I find both extremes boring and unsatisfying. I am closer to the strategy extreme, than the luck, thus I would prefer directed tech. But I think buying tech, rather than rolling for tech breakthroughs, sounds boring, and simply unrealistic for what we are supposed to be simulating. If tech was directed(I chose what tech to research), but random(I can’t be sure if/when my scientists will have a breakthrough), I think it could add a lot of fun variety to the game.

I have a system for tech along those lines on a shelf somewhere. It’s however not fully honed. Perhaps I should bring forth the broomstick and dust it off anyway? Could be the final process of developing.

For me anything that lessens the randomness of Tech but allows the ability to slightly adjust strategy based on achieving Tech is a good thing.