Best posts made by CaptainNapalm

@regularkid

My only critique, is I think the carrier scramble should be limited to 3 maximum planes. One of my current opponents has 15 US carriers against me, for example. It’s a bit stifling to the game action, as it allows multiple blockers to be placed, and only risk losing one or two, rather than all blockers. Blockers are already a broken part of the game, but they always have been. So, if you don’t want to fix the blocker problem, like Global War 36 and Bloodbath Rules do for example, you could at least help not making it worse, which is what carrier scramble does.

Lest you only feel you are getting negative feedback, let me just say that I enjoy PTV very much! Many in my gaming group love it so much that one had a map printed out so that we can play face to face! I hope you take each game played as positive feedback, even if the participants are not voicing their opinions. To play, is the greatest compliment you could receive!

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

PS. The current game of 15 US carriers is not a PTV game, but my impression of the stifling nature, and blocker boost allowed by carrier scramble in other games of PTV, is still valid.

@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.

@sjelso Infantry require a factory to place and militia are cheap cannon fodder, are two of the many reasons.

It seems to me the added cost of mechs will dissuade Germany from spamming 30+ mechs in their rush to Moscow. It is still a valuable unit, for the cost, but it only realizes that value when paired with tanks. So, no mech spam. Brings the unit into balance, in that you now need to buy a balance of units, rather than one type.

@chris_henry if FEC are allowed to attack the CCP, I don’t see why FEC couldn’t attack a warlord. As stated, it’s an attack on all of China. If the game developers don’t want interference in the Chinese Civil War, similar to the Spanish Civil War, the rules should say so…with any exceptions listed. Japan, USSR, etc.

@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.

@rellhaiser Great! My brain hurt a little bit trying to read that rule, but I agree that it answers my question and simplifies the game! Thank you for pointing me back to it.

@Canuck12 said in BATTLE IN VANCOUVER! IT'S ON! Nov. 23-25. Who will survive?:

@Mill-Creek

kylemcewen12@hotmail.com

Should be the one.

Thanks for putting in the time to set this all up!

Well, I can’t figure it out. I started a forum, got the successful dice server email, but I can’t post the game to the forum. My patience is gone. Sorry.

@Panther I posted the issue on GitHub.

@regularkid “The main source of increased complexity, would, of course, be the application of scramble rules to land battles and carriers. However, since this is merely an extension of an already existing and well-understood game mechanic, i would describe as more of elegant addition, than a complexity.”

Reading the game notes, I don’t see the ability to scramble to land battles listed. Is this in the game, or just an idea?

@sjelso We purchase LOTS of militia, but the initial setup has so many militia, spread out, that those seem to get consolidated/eliminated/upgraded faster than the new buys. Leaving us with more spare militia tokens than we have after setup.

The hit differential is posted at the end of each turn. Is there a way to access the numbers for the entire current game?

Regarding carrier scramble:
Can scramble into land territories, only if there is a friendly land unit in the territory.

Does this apply to sea zones? I assume no, or you’d have stated such, but just want to be clear.
So, assuming this “friendly unit needed to scramble” rule does NOT apply to sea zones, would a lone transport NOT be able to make an amphibious assault adjacent to an enemy carrier based aircraft, without being vulnerable, but WOULD be able to make a non-combat landing adjacent to an enemy carrier based aircraft?

After typing this out, I realize carrier scramble is likely, simply the exact same as airbase scramble, but limited to one plane per carrier. Which is why you called it a simple expansion of an existing game feature. But, hey, I’m not going to erase this whole post! I wasted my time, writing it. Now I’m going to waste your time by reading it. (And it might actually clarify some things. hehehe)

@sjelso As for upgrading, for $2 you may be able to upgrade an out of position, useless militia, into a useable infantry, and save $1.

@tcnance
Major industrial complexes can be built only in originally controlled (not captured) territories with an IPC value of 3 or higher.

A minor industrial complex can be upgraded to a major one at a cost of 20 IPCs. The industrial complex to be upgraded must be located on an originally controlled (not captured) territory that you have controlled since the beginning of your turn and that has an IPC value of 3 or higher.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

@axis-dominion yah, i’ve never really been a tech guy for A&A tbh. But I definitely think it could be a worthwhile pursuit as a mod to PTV, if someone else has good ideas for a tech tree.

I’ve never been a tech guy, either. Because it’s always been an expensive, random, gamble, and I want to win with strategy, and minimize random luck. I don’t want to try for advanced artillery, and get improved shipyards, instead. That being said, unless we are playing low luck, we face random chance, every battle, every game. We take that chance, because we like the odds versus payoff. TECH IS FUN! If done right, which is apparently difficult, as I’ve never seen it, it could be a great improvement to the game!

I’ll leave it to those more creative than I to debate WHICH tech should be in the game, but I want to weigh in on HOW tech should be developed in the game.

There are two systems, that I’ve seen, that got close enough for me to consider investing in tech. A&A 50th Anniversary Edition has expensive, random, tech tokens(die rolls), but if you miss, you keep your token(s), and roll each round, until successful. Global War 1936 has inexpensive, non-random tech, but a missed roll is a complete loss.

Combining these two, I can imagine a tech system that I would want to invest in:
Inexpensive - GW36, $2, rather than 50th, $5
Non-random - GW36, I chose the tech I want, and invest in THAT tech.
Return on investment - “If we aren’t winning, we are learning.” My proposal would be an improved chance at success, each successive round, following a failure. One die pip more likely to succeed, perhaps. The 50th system, of carrying your token over each round, until successful, would also work for me.

I also like that GW36 requires a series of successful rolls, to achieve the new tech. I don’t want to lose my Japanese navy, because, in one round, the US got super subs, jet fighters, and heavy bombers.

For those unfamiliar with Global War 1936, I’m attaching a picture of one of their tech charts. You can see they use a 12 sided die, but I don’t think that’s required. You’ll also see that some tech requires better die rolls for success. I like this, as I imagine it next to impossible to evenly balance a dozen technology breakthroughs, covering all the varying aspects of the game. Just make it more difficult to get a successful breakthrough on the more powerful tech.

I look forward to everyone’s feedback!

@trig proposing that roundel idea, is not going to go over well, in my current game. With me playing the UK, the German player will surely cry foul!:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

@Sovietishcat said in Sovietishcat (Allies+$12) vs CaptainNapalm (Axis) Bal Mod 3:

@CaptainNapalm you could have pity for the allies and let me take it with french :face_with_rolling_eyes:

Oh, I didn’t see this comment! It went on the second page. Sorry, better luck next time.

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

@regularkid Wow, 5 pages after a week from the original post is impressive.

I think it can be said that Outer Mongolia was for the Soviets almost what Inner Manchuria (Manchukuo) was for the Japanese.

If the game doesn’t want to add scarcely worthwhile complexity, the most reasonable way to represent all of what we today know as Mongolia is simply as Russians but originally owned by none (or Chinese). However, the importance of the Mongolian military itself was negligible.

By the way, when (in violation of the non-aggression treaty) the USSR declared war on Japan, “Mongolia” was a base of operation for the invaders. So, the Russians didn’t need to have someone else declaring war on them, to turn their Mongolians into Russians. That already practically happened before the start of WW2, regarding the Russians ability to move freely within Mongolia.

I’m picturing Mongolia as a pro-Allied neutral, from what you described, but that takes away from the purpose of the somewhat complicated rules, which try to penalize aggression between the USSR and Japan.

@hbg-gw-enthusiast said in The FAQ Thread:

@captainnapalm If a unit starts in the desert, it has its movement reduced to 1. Are you saying that when it moves into the clear terrain, you believe it gets its movement increased to 2? I’m trying to understand.

I’m saying that a unit that starts in the desert DOES NOT have its movement reduced to 1. It only has it’s movement reduced when moving INTO terrain. Just like an attack. You are not subject to mountain rules when attacking OUT of mountains. You are subject to mountain rules when attacking INTO a mountainous territory. You do not suffer a river penalty when the river is in your territory, only when you are attacking INTO a territory that has a river to cross.