Path to Victory League Discussion

so does a disabled port prevent the production of capital ships?

@Adam514 said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

Important PSA for PTV players. It has now been 2 games that I’ve won with the additional PTV global victory condition for the Axis, and my opponents were not previously aware of this rule. This rule has existed since the first public release of the game so it isn’t a new rule, but it looks like it might have been overlooked. Here is an extract of the game notes with the global victory rule highlighted.

Not that Adam needed this rule to beat me, but he got me with this. Hell I can’t ever remember if an AB can defend/scramble to unoccupied adjacent sea zones. SMH…

@axis-dominion said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

so does a disabled port prevent the production of capital ships?

The intent is that it does prevent production of capital ships. I don’t recall if TripleA does that though.

@Adam514 said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

@axis-dominion said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

so does a disabled port prevent the production of capital ships?

The intent is that it does prevent production of capital ships. I don’t recall if TripleA does that though.

ok thanks for confirming. would be good to make that explicit in the rules then.

@surfer said in Path to Victory League Discussion:

So played a few games and in the middle of a few more, so my sample size for PTV is small, but I have a few observations that i’m curious what the group thinks about.

a) Adding the SZ around Malaya really does nerf the Japanese threat on India. Only a prolonged build up can win there–which I think was the idea: to make a longer game, i.e. one that isn’t really decided until T14+…but that leads to my other point
b) Italy must be defended well by the Germans. In OOB or BM4, you can solely focus on Russia as Germany and just use the Italians as can openers. If the Allies nerf Italy, eh, annoying, but not game changing since Russia will fall soon.
–That doesn’t happen in PTV. Russia may fall, but barring bad play by the Russians (or maybe I’m just terrible with the Germans), Moscow will hold for 12 turns. There’s just a lot of territory and the Russians have enough IPCs to stay in the fight for awhile. Thus, the Allies have plenty of time to control the Med and nerf the Italians. Add to the fact that Italy is an extra space away from France and W. Germany–critical to getting defensive troops into place, and Italy becomes indefensible

It seems the Axis got a triple whammy. No quick wins, and the added spaces make the defense of their areas that much harder, and yet the southern spaces are still easy to reach for the Allies. This means that it’s hard to get economic parity, and a long game that favors the Allies.

My point is that unlike OOB or BM4, it seems like there is a “formula” for the Allies to win PTV. Build up Russia, attack the Med, nerf the Italians, pick at the hard to defend Med landing zones, and wait until the money disparity allows you to just win attrition wars, which leads to overwhelming forces.

To stop this, the Germans have to spend Moscow invasion money early on bolstering Italy, which further delays Moscow falling and plays into the Allies hands.

I would say that Japan does ameliorate the above somewhat. They still cannot take India quickly, but they can grow rather large and dominant on the ocean, which could prevent an overwhelming force in the Med. But again, playing for the long game, the Allies just keep enough in the pacific to stay alive, nerf Italy and the game should go their way.

I agree with most of that, but I would say Axis can definitely win even if Italy is completely neutered. The 13 global VC rule helps with this. Normally if the Germans take all 3 Russian VCs you still need London or Egypt, which may be be impossible if the Allies have naval supremacy and there is no help from Italy. BUT, if Japan can get 6 VCs (one short of Pacific victory), then that’s an Axis win.

This post is to discuss Anti-Aircraft Artillery (AAA) and their use in the game, with some insights from the new North Africa game.

Introduction

One of my main squabbles with AAA is that they are almost always one-and-done units, and generally considered overpriced for the value they provide. I have purchased a couple across all my games of PTV, but they can be useful deterrents against the infantry & plane trading meta of almost every Axis & Allies game.

There was some discussion recently on the boards here about changing the cost of AAA to 4. I think this would be a good start, and certainly might see some more purchases than at the current price point of 5. However, I think there are problems with the unit beyond its cost.

Problems & Goals

AAA have an (in my opinion) overly emphasized luck component as they throw many dice but at the lowest odds. This makes them a prime candidate for unbelievable streaks of good and bad luck–I recall a game where a significant battle was decided almost before round 1 with 5 AAA hits out of 6; another game I was spectating recently had something like -5.00 Hits for Allied AAA by round 4.

Further reducing their utility, AAA are typically immediately picked as casualties since they cannot continue to defend; generally, the only time it is optimal to not select AAA as first casualties are in cases where there is a strafe attack on the territory before the hammer falls.

Also, as AAA for defending infrastructure is modeled as part of those facilities, it is not being affected by changes to this unit.

In combat, AAA could and would be used against ground targets, especially vehicles. The infamous FlaK 88 and the US 90mm gun M3 were both examples of this dual-role capability.

Therefore, I believe a redesign should achieve these goals:

• AAA should continue to fire at aircraft until lost as a casualty.
• If aircraft are not available as targets, AAA changes to ground fire.
• If an area is saturated with AAA defense, it should not be wasted if the enemy only has a single unit for air support. If anything, it should all but guarantee a much higher casualty rate for that materiel.

Lessons from North Africa

In my limited experience playing Axis & Allies: North Africa, AAA are great purchases. A couple reasons why:

They only cost 3 in that game and they roll Air Defense at a 2 on a D10 - about 20% better odds than 1 on a D6. They still get the first-strike ability that immediately removes selected air units from the battle, and roll up to three dice each. The higher defense value makes attacking a position defended by AAA even riskier if using aircraft, and the Stacking Limit in North Africa often makes supplementing attacks with aircraft crucial.

For comparison, the odds of getting at least one hit in Global with a single AAA against 3 aircraft is 42.13%. In North Africa, it is 48.8%. Odds for two hits is 7.4% and 10.4% respectively, a very meaningful difference as well.

Another concept introduced, is the Targeted Fire ability for Anti-Tank Guns and German Bombers. These units force the opponent to take tanks as casualties in the case of an Anti-Tank Gun hit, and for the German Bombers, the German player gets to select their choice of land or sea unit. I believe BBR, a tournament version of Global many are probably familiar with, has something similar to this. Anti-Tank Guns only receive Targeted Attack for the first round of combat, while the Bombers ability is always in effect.

Re-Design Thoughts

These are our goals:

• 1. AAA should continue to fire at aircraft until lost as a casualty.
• 2. If aircraft are not available as targets, AAA changes to ground fire.
• 3. If an area is saturated with AAA defense, it should not be wasted if the enemy only has a single unit for air support. If anything, it should all but guarantee a much higher casualty rate for that materiel.

Proposed Changes:

• Add Targeted Fire (Aircraft) to AAA.

Rather than a separate phase occurring before the regular Combat rounds, AAA rolls on the defender’s turn—after the Attacker has rolled, and Defender selected their casualties. Using the Targeted Fire ability, any hits scored by AAA (these dice need to be rolled separately as long as there are valid targets!) must be assigned to Attacking aircraft. Even better, I believe this handles all three goals in a neat package. It is just as easy as the original rule to understand and play with, and also intuitive; perhaps more intuitive than the original rule.

New AAA Unit (using language from the A&A:NA rulebook)

An example of what the stats might look like. I picked 4 for cost as a discussion point:

• Targeted Fire - Aircraft: Anti-Aircraft Artillery may target aircraft with their fire, so they must be rolled separately from other units. For each die that scores a hit, the firing player has the option of requiring the opposing player to choose any of their aircraft as the casualty.
• Cannot Attack: Units with this characteristic cannot move in the Combat Move phase.

In summary, I think a re-design of AAA has the potential to be a great change for the game. Playing with the special Targeting rules in North Africa are a lot of fun and make the German 88s & Stukas fearsome units for the British to grapple with. I think some of these new ideas have the potential to be adapted to our beloved variants and improve them for the years to come.

Also - I have not tried coding combat round/dice rolling phases in TripleA so I am not sure how much work this would be to implement in a test environment. If someone knows how to make the AAA guns roll separately kind of like subs, but without the immediate destruction, please reply/DM!

@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 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.

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.

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

@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.

@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

@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.

i keep losing london in ptv lol

@axis-dominion

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

@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.

@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.

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

@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.

@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 :)

@axis-dominion I have faith in you

@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