Best posts made by regularkid

Hey, hey, guys. We need feedback on an important issue. Some have expressed concerns about the new scramble capabilities of carriers creating theater stagnation (e.g. with a stack of carriers in adjoining szs, blockers are harder to clear, islands are harder to take, etc.).

There are currently two proposals on the table on how to address these concerns in the next version of PTV. We would like to hear from you, to see which has more community support.

1. Proposal A: Increase the cost of carriers (to 20 PUs or so), and increase their plane capacity to three, while still limiting the scramble capacity to one per carrier. The upshot is there will be fewer carriers on the board, and therefore less scramble potential.

2. Proposal B: Keep the carrier costs and scramble/plane capacity the same. And limit the maximum number of planes that can be scrambled from each sea zone to three planes, regardless of how many carriers are there.

We would appreciate your responses to this. Please state which proposal you prefer, and why.

Hey, hey guys. We are pleased to announce the release of version 6.0 of WW2 Path to Victory, now available for download on the TripleA Download Maps page. If you already have PTV installed, you can update to the latest version by clicking the “Installed” tab under “Download Maps,” and then selecting “Update” on PTV.

Based on your feedback and playtesting, version 6.0 incorporates the following substantive changes:

1. Carrier scrambles are now limited to a maximum of three planes from each sea zone adjoining the battle (player enforced);

2. Convoy blockade zones have been added to sea zones 43 and 38; and

3. Sea zone 46 (by Dutch New Guinea) has been redrawn to further differentiate the reach of the Malayan naval base from sea zone 38. The redrawn sea zone is shown below.

We hope you enjoy the changes and look forward to future games.

Hey, hey guys. We are pleased to announce the release of version 6.0 of WW2 Path to Victory, now available for download on the TripleA Download Maps page. If you already have PTV installed, you can update to the latest version by clicking the “Installed” tab under “Download Maps,” and then selecting “Update” on PTV.

Based on your feedback and playtesting, version 6.0 incorporates the following substantive changes:

1. Carrier scrambles are now limited to a maximum of three planes from each sea zone adjoining the battle (player enforced);

2. Convoy blockade zones have been added to sea zones 43 and 38; and

3. Sea zone 46 (by Dutch New Guinea) has been redrawn to further differentiate the reach of the Malayan naval base from sea zone 38. The redrawn sea zone is shown below.

We hope you enjoy the changes and look forward to future games.

@adam514 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

@simon33 I don’t understand the first part of your comment, but if you had the correct amount of landing spots on the board for the attack, after that you can land anywhere you want.

The rule was changed to prevent gamey carrier builds and as a slight nerf to carriers generally.

There’s also a real world consideration: a carrier-based WW2 fighter could sortie for seven or eight hours max–not enough time to construct a carrier for the eventual landing.

In practice, the unavailability of this “emergency carrier build to land a plane” is an improvement to the game’s realism and requires more careful advance coordination for naval/air movement. Its a win/win.

@oysteilo said in G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download:

@aequitas-et-veritas said in G40 Balance Mod - Rules and Download:

@oysteilo it came with the updated versions of BM3

OK. I still dont understand

Great question.

Answer: There is no chance of a conflict.

Yes, you have an older version of the map installed. You would need to delete and reinstall the map to see the 14 bomber cost on new games you start from your computer.

However, saved game files are imbedded with the xml data that started the game. Therefore, if someone else starts a game with the new version of the map, when you load that saved game, you will see the 14 bomber cost, because TripleA is drawing upon the the embedded xml data, rather than your local xml.

Conversely, if you were to start a game from your computer, and share a saved game with another person who has the updated map, that person would see the 12 bomber cost, because the saved game would contain your xml data.

make sense?

Hey, guys. Version 6.1 of PTV is now available for download. There were no substantive changes. We simply corrected game notes and objectives panel to reflect: (1) that the Iraq/Persia National Objectives for Italy and Germany include Southern Persia, and (2) that Japan’s garrison requirement for China excludes AA guns. Enjoy!

@trulpen said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:

That’s not exactly what I suggested though. Marines could still be on a damaged battleship. Not really advocating the idea, but responding and explaining how I considered it.

I think the rule should be ONLY damaged battleships can do amphibious assaults.

Kinda like beaching a ship in its last death throes, and pouring its crew onto land. Epic!

@simon33 assuming PTV has ebbed slightly in popularity (I do not concede this point!), one reason might be vocal detractors who unfairly and inaccurately malign it on public message boards.

@simon33 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:

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

@simon33 you haven’t explained what’s wrong with the change. And others have said that it dramatically improves the Pacific Theater. I welcome further discussion of this and any other aspects of PTV, but a bald assertion that a perceived drop in popularity is due to the split in the Malaya sea zone does not pass scrutiny.

I feel that I already have. I am surprised you suddenly want to talk about it. Bids were already being put in for axis before this division. Japan seemed weak enough already. You have commented that a lot of Axis victories have been as Japan but I am inclined to think a lot of those have been because of inexperience; e.g. your victory over me after claiming Hawaii early on and me having an insane amount of trouble reclaiming it.

Anyway, those are some brief thoughts. I may have felt differently if other changes had been made that helped the axis and reduced the bids at the same time. I have posted previously that I don’t really like the way the China redraw plays.

Bids are not, in and of themselves, a bad thing. A small bid to decide who plays which sides, and to satisfy the players in regard to balance, keeps the game fresh. Further, the division in the Malayan sea zone was not for balance per se, but to improve the dynamics in the South Pacific theater, and for historical interest.

@trulpen i haven’t studied this game to see if this is the precise issue, but just wanna clarify generally:

It is legal to land air on newly built carriers in PTV. What is not legal is to make a combat move that is only possible because of a newly built carrier. Therefore, the question of legality is determined at the combat phase. If the move is legal in the absence of a new carrier, then whether you ultimately land the planes on the carrier, during noncombat/placement, is irrelevant.

The TripleA engine does an excellent job of enforcing this. It generally won’t permit you to make a combat move that requires a new carrier. So, as a rule, if the engine permits it, its legal.

if anybody wants to play and is in need of a teammate, I’ll do it.

in a perfect world, historically significant islands would sit at the intersection of SZs so that they would have added in-game strategic importance, without the need for NOs or arbitrary PU values–i.e., if an island were at the intersection of two or more seasons, an airbase there would give you air-range that you couldn’t get from a carrier. Alas, redrawing the map is somewhat outside the purview of Balance Mod.

Marines can be loaded onto transports the same way infantry can. . . that is, two to a ship. We can make it explicit in the next iteration of BM.

@trulpen said in 2 vs 2 tournament: A&A (G40, BM3, PtV):

I’ll set you up with regularkid then. It will be great fun

!!! YES !!! ::rubs scheming hands together::

Regarding Chinese guerrillas, because coastal territories in China are exempt from the garrisoning requirement, the possibility of guerrillas doesn’t put that much of a dent in Japan’s efforts to close the Burma road early on, speaking generally.

Its only if Japan elects to plunge deeper into China that the garrisoning requirement entails obvious trade offs (e.g.,a slower takedown of India, reduced ability to harass Russia). And those are precisely the kind strategic choices that Balance Mod is designed to create.

@AndrewAAGamer hey dudes. We added the Austria mech and removed the British inf (restoring the original Global set up for UK) because it appeared, based on play testing, that Germany needed a slight buff. Uk should be alright against Sea Lion if it makes a reasonable UK1 buy. If Germany still presses ahead with Sea Lion, even with a reasonable uk buy, It will have a real problem with Russia.

@trulpen should we start challening now?

NEW PROPOSED CHANGE TO BALANCE MOD

Hey all. The Mod Squad is contemplating a new change to Balance Mod, and would like to solicit your feedback. The proposed change: increase the cost of strategic bombers from 12 to 14 PUs.

The rationale for this proposed change is as follows: It appears, from the increasing number of BM league games wherein players have agreed to an Allied bid (albeit smaller bids than we typically see in vanilla games) and from the slightly skewed win/loss ratio in favor of Axis, that our goal of balancing the game hasn’t been totally realized.

One of the reasons for this is the Axis’s continuing positional advantage on the map; they are able more readily to project threat across the board, to multiple key points at once. This advantage is particularly pronounced when it comes to bombers, with their long range, high attack value, and added utility as strategic bombers. We tried to nerf some of this, in the current mod, by giving fighters a 2 defense on air raids. But bomber spam remains a viable strategy, and continues to be OP, especially for Germany.

Increasing the cost of strategic bombers to 14, we think, would more accurately reflect the unit’s strategic value and go a long way to rectifying the foregoing issues. We would be interested to hear the community’s thoughts on this.

Thanks!

@Misterblue wooo. dodged the bullet. lol

@gamerman01 was referring to another game, where Adam and I played Axis, and Drake and General played Allies.