@oysteilo said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
how many rounds does a PtV game last compared to BM and OOB?
IME it’s the longest version. Almost never have either side achieving victory condition, but one side admitting defeat when it’s clearly over. Can easily go 20 rounds.
@malmessi74 Yeah we pretty much only play LL as well.
@malmessi74 I still think the Allies are favored as well, just not to the same degree as when we first started playing this version. Tried to apply OOB Axis strategy at first, which definitely doesn’t work. Would be happy to play a game sometime. Same screen name on triple A.
@simon33 I generally agree with the discussion regarding what Russia typically does, but that means Japan needs to leave all the Northern/Southern Manchurian and Korean units up north to defend AND add several more units, possibly some planes to defend. And doing that leaves Japan short handed against China. Realistically need to dump all 3 TTs worth of stuff and then get a factory going J1 with another J2 just to keep up.
We’ve had a small number of games where Russia marches the Siberians back to Moscow and it makes things so much easier on Japan I just can’t see many experienced Allied players ever doing that.
Up to 33 P2V games now between playtesting, 1v1s and 2v1s.
Nailing down optimal Axis strategy has been the hardest part, for a while we generally thought the game favored the Allies but things are finally starting to even out.
Tending towards thinking that G1/J2 is optimal. Russia is so buffed that starting to eat into their income immediately has big benefits. Also tends to force them to not spend much in Siberia or else pay the price vs Germany.
J1 is quite difficult given that the Allie are so incentivized to use the Siberian units against Japan. That, along with a buffed China, means you need to strengthen the mainland army before heading out for other objectives. OTOH, J3 just lets the Allies scoop up too much easy money and makes taking many of the primary objectives quite difficult as the Allies have time to reinforce them.
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
@simon33 i like it! you’d need to be prepared to sacrifice air in the Pearl Harbor battle to save the destroyer though, or risk of a 58% hit on the japanese fleet by wake (by my calcs). But otherwise looks pretty solid to me. I might try this in a game.
Well, you can reinforce on NCM if needed.
i think even with max reinforcement of the wake seazone on ncm, u still need a destroyer by hawaii to prevent a 50/50 on the wake fleet. perhaps i’m overlooking something tho.
Pretty sure he meant send the DD to Hawaii on NM, not Wake. We’re just saying you dont’ want to send anything extra during combat because if US doesn’t scramble those units would be wasted.
@trulpen My early reaction is that the game somewhat favors the Allies. However, I haven’t played nearly enough games to pass judgement at this point though. Optimal Axis strategies in OOB have been known for years, I’m not sure if there’s a consensus on that for P2V yet. So far, our games have been very long lasting indicating it’s pretty balanced, but in the end the Allies economic advantage tends to favor a long game.
The split of the SZ off Malaya is definitely rough on Japan. Honestly that’s part of the reason I’ve been trying to perfect a Pearl Harbor opener rather than going straight for India.
@trulpen said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:
This discussion makes me want to try out P2V again.
After reading through the rules and feedback threads I can see how someone would have had serious issues with this game before some of the key rule changes were made. Probably a good thing I only recently decided to try it out.
@simon33 Agreed on this, I move a DD on NM if needed. You don’t want to send extra ships in case US doesn’t scramble, they will be easy kills for US.
@simon33 I’ve played it out now a couple times and I agree some adjustments would be more optimal. Some thoughts based on my experience:
-Have both TTs that go the Philippines unload on Davao. That way the battle can be won without any planes. Getting the naval and air base can be pretty important for the J2 moves depending on where UK/AZ boats are. Manilla can easily be mopped up on J2.
-I think sinking the Prince of Wales is pretty important, so I would send 1 fig and 2 bombers there. Allowing that battleship to live when you’re only operating with around half your fleet strength in the south can be pretty limiting on J2/J3 if the allies get aggressive counterattacking. Makes it very risky to further divide the fleet.
-I’m fine with sending just about everything from Kwangsi to Yunnan. Sending an inf to Hunan and/or Kweichow isn’t really worth it, they are nearly guaranteed to be killed on C1.
-I still like using the Carolines CA/marine to take Gilbert islands. 5 IPC NO and it’s otherwise not an important area that you’re likely to be taking the fleet to any time soon, and by doing PH you’re also preventing US from taking it right back. It’s the same expected net payoff from taking Borneo (3 IPCs for J, -3 for allies, 33% chance of losing an inf if Borneo inf hits).
-As far as taking Wake, it’s not a necessity with the re-drawn map since planes can land on the Marshalls, allowing us to take damage on the carriers if US counter attacks. If they choose not to scramble at Pearl they can come back with 4 fig, 1 tac, 1 strat. Expected result is 3 damaged carriers and a lost plane. -43 IPC expected result for the US and will kill their offensive capabilities for a couple turns. OTOH, you could guarantee no counterstrike and prevent US from getting a 5 IPC NO by taking it.
Also I wasn’t sure what you meant by “if you attack from SZ24”. What would plan to even have there at the end of J1? It appears from your move list you are only sending 2 carriers land planes from the Pearl attack. In that case I would absolutely want to take Wake, as that fleet could be seriously damaged by a US counterstrike. My numbers above assume all 3. Also allows the 2 strats to be of more use on J2 strat bombing India or something.
That being said, you can do Borneo, Davao, and Gilberts if you skip Wake and given how costly it would be for the allies to do that counterstrike, it would probably be worth it to skip.
@regularkid Thanks. TBH, I’ve been playing OOB exclusively lately and totally forgot about the Chinese guerilla rule. Certainly some adjustments are in order, but glad to hear you think it’s at least viable.
@regularkid Play_Testing_P2v.tsvg
File attached. A few notes:
-I only played it through mid round 3
-Set on low luck
-I edited out the Japan attack on Hawaii J3 cause it was dumb and no allied player would allow that to happen
I’m new to P2V but like what I’ve seen so far and think this will be my favorite version of global.
I think the combination of the added NOs in the Pacific along with the Jap CA & marine at the Carolines brings back the possibility of the Pearl Harbor attack being viable. I did this in a play test vs myself with the following moves:
3 fig, 3 tac, 1 SS, 1 DD to Pearl
CA + marine to SZ 33/Gilbert Islands
TT from SZ 7 to SZ 32/Wake Island
2 BB, 1 CA, 1 DD, 1 SS, 2 TT to SZ 36, take both Philippines territories
NC all 3 CVs to SZ 32 to land planes, replace any lost with those from Japan (should be 1)
1 DD to SZ 27 to block
1 CA left in SZ7 to pick up Marine built J1 which will take Guam on J2. CA/Marine that took Gilbert on J1 will take Wake on J2. That gives you both Pacific Island NOs.
Japan made 48 IPCs J1, 62 J2. The fleet that went to the Philippines J1 can take Borneo/Celebes J2, and Java/Sumatra J3 and kill the tiny UK or AZ fleets that may get in the way. By doing the PH attack you’ve taken out 2 of the 4 US ships which can carry troops and delayed their advance in the pacific by a turn. Also pretty much forces US to spend in the Pacific which helps Germany.
The re-drawn map has it’s advantages and disadvantages. The attacks I’ve laid out allow for single ships to take islands without fear of counterattack due to the extra SZs and the islands bordering multiple SZs. Since a Calcutta Crush is impossible with the extra SZ off Malaya, I think a more methodical strategy by Japan is optimal. Use your initial advantage to kill as many Allied ships as possible, thereby saving money which may otherwise be spent on ships to get more land units into China and heading south on TTs.
@adam514 I read through the game notes but I still haven’t found what I am looking for. The change log notes all of the changes since the original iteration of P2V, but does not cover the changes from other versions of the game.
For example, a Japanese cruiser has been added to the Carolines fleet. 1 fig and 1 tac have been removed from Manchuria (Southern Manchuria in this map) and apparently moved to Kwangsi. Is there anywhere that all of the changes to the initial setup are covered? Thank you.
@adam514 Thanks I’ll check it out
Is there a post where we can read about the changes to the initial units relative to either OOB or BM3? Just getting into P2V for the first time here.
@andrewaagamer said in Beating J1:
@mikawagunichi said in Beating J1:
I’m not. If the UK wants to sacrifice their only transport to take back FIC for one round instead of a higher value use in ME/Africa/DEI that’s fine with me.
Not sure what you mean by higher value.
Taking Persia gives UK Europe $2 and sets up a take of Iraq on UK2 instead of UK3 so it is basically a $4 play. The transport survives.
Assisting an attack on Ethiopia takes a high chance battle to virtually a guaranteed battle saving probably on average an infantry or $3. The transport survives.
Taking Sumatra gives UK Pacific $4. The transport dies.
Hitting FIC results in a standard 83% take or 98% if a fighter is lost if necessary. The transport is lost. Japan has no ground units to retake Yunnan so China is helped and without control of FIC Japan does not get a mIC in the south for one entire Turn. UK Pacific gains $2.
Of those four choices number 4 seems to be the highest value.
Also allows the Persian factory to built on UK2. Getting as money UK $ spent in the ME is critical in any non-sea lion game.
You’ll want to have at least 2 land units survive the battle so that you can take back Kenya from Italy on UK2. If you don’t, you’ll lose the original territories NO plus 1 for Kenya. So there’s 6 IPC.
Also gives the chance of killing precious Jap land units when they take it, instead of allowing them to walk in to all DEI on J2. May even prevent them from taking it on J2 if you get lucky.
Depends on how much you value getting a factory in FIC right away. Could just put one on Kwangtung.
Also for 1-2 we should be adding in another 7 for the TT itself.
I’m not. If the UK wants to sacrifice their only transport to take back FIC for one round instead of a higher value use in ME/Africa/DEI that’s fine with me.
Agreed. I usually only send the fig and 2 strats. Save the cruiser with the borneo group. Need as many escorts for those TTs as possible.
If you read Andrew’s original write up, some units were moved back to SZ6 to protect the newly built units there. Could have done with less if a blocker was used but for some reason he didn’t want to do that, or at least prove it wasn’t mathematically necessary.
The OPs question was how to deal with a J1 attack, but there was no mention of what was going on in Europe. IME Germany is a much bigger threat to win the game than Japan and I personally like to use US money in the Atlantic early on, but that probably wouldn’t be a helpful response.