Posts made by mikawagunichi

If you have experience editing/creating games & maps on triple A, we have a project for editing an existing game we would like assistance with. Willing to pay for your time.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Still a bit surprised by going for PH with 3CVs when 2+1 bomber would do. Seems like a compromise to enable attacking the UK BB. Third CV is really useful around the DEI.

If you need to go for Guam to stop the US objective, does that mean you aren’t taking Wake?

And you still aren’t taking Borneo then. Dislike that.

We are taking Borneo. To be clear the TTs/marine are allocated as follows:

2 TTs to Davao
1 TT to Borneo
1 TT to Guam
Marine to Gilberts

I’ve found PH attacks with only 2 CVs to not accomplish much. Having all 3 off Wake forces to US to play less aggressively for a turn, which gives you an extra turn to build up in the DEI and FiC. Also, assuming you buy mostly TTs J1, you have a real threat of taking Hawaii if US doesn’t block. If you only have 2 you need to start retreating them immediately on J2.

As Japan I’m fine with Anzac attacking Gilberts, that gives me an easy kill of their TT, and also their CA if they send it for the bombard. And one less TT for the allies to retake any DEIs.

Lastly, regarding Wake vs Guam J1: Wake is far easier for the US to retake later. And a TT off Guam can get units into China J2, whereas a TT off Wake will need 2 turns to do anything useful.

@simon33 we normally play with a 6 bid. We also normally do take Gilberts with the Marine. Send all 3 Carriers to land planes that attacked Pearl Harbor so you don’t need to take Wake to prevent counter attack. Extra TT is used to take Guam to prevent US from getting that NO.

We don’t take Celebes J1, save that for J2.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

If the Bid is at least 6 to the Axis, adding a TT in SZ7 and doing a J1 should be pretty awesome. You can claim the Carolines objective as well as doing the Pearl Harbour attack. Main risk being if the Borneo attack goes bad (even though above it was listed as 100%, it should be 98%). This also means you don’t have to worry about claiming that objective in later turns, which saves hassle for Japan. It is likely this will delay getting the DEI but that isn’t so important any more and it is better to grab all the other islands to stop ANZAC and USA objectives.

This is a pretty popular bid use in our group, with a slight variation. We usually put the TT with the Carolines fleet to use the inf there that are normally stranded while increasing the amount available for TTs to pick up from Japan on J2/J3. You can still get all the DEI on J2 if you are willing to sacrifice a TT in 45 (worth it from a net IPC perspective). The rest of the southern fleet can consolidate in 42 and be safe from a UK or AZ attack.

@malmessi74 Yeah, understandable. I am in US as well. If you want to start one by forum we can just keep posting the game file.

@malmessi74 I just meant logging on to triplea at the same time and playing live vs playing by forum. Not against doing the latter, though if that’s the only way it works for timing.

@flyingbadger Great stuff, thanks for putting this together.

Anyone up for a live game on triplea sometime soon? We a regular play group of 3 people and looking to see what sort of strategies others play.

@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Strategies:

Hey hey guys. Have been following the recent discussion with interest!

My two cents: Between Germany and Japan, I would definitely say Japan is the stronger nation. In fact, most of my Axis victories have been in the Pacific.

Also, this may reflect more on my own idiosyncrasies as a player, but I personally find Axis much easier to play (and win) in PTV than Allies. I think as players become more familiar with the nuances of PTV and finetune their strategies, you will see a gradual shift in the Axis’s favor. That was certainly true in the case of Global 1940. . . the optimal strategies emerged over time, until it became clear that the game favored Axis.

As it stands now, I’d gladly take Axis without a bid.

One last point warrants mention: Low luck would naturally create imbalances in the game because it strongly favors the attacker–i.e. the Axis. For a more balanced gameplay experience, I strongly recommend regular dice.

Interesting thoughts. I do agree that optimal axis strategy will take more time to figure out. A big issue in our games has been that Russia’s income stays too high for too long and Germany can’t get enough of an edge in total land units on the board to push much beyond Leningrad, and certainly not enough to split the army and hold both Leningrad and Stalingrad.

Regarding low luck, I’d argue that’s a feature not a bug in P2V. Axis need some help so that helps balance the game IMO. Also, I generally see dice a way of making the game more random, less mundane following the same exact strategy every time, but that’s more of an issue for OOB. P2V already allows for much more variation. Plus LL gives a better test of strategies without as much of a luck element, and there is still much work to be done regarding strategy development.

@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.