Best posts made by regularkid

thank you all for your feedback to the proposed rule change! there does seem to be pretty much unanimous support (or at least no strident objections) to changing the bomber cost to 14.

Since proposing this change a few weeks ago, i personally played the updated mod at least a dozen times with good results. bombers were still purchased by both sides in most games (they weren’t prohibitively expensive), there were no instances of bomber spam, and a notable increase in use of tac bombers (especially in the European theater). I know Adam has also playtested the new mod (e.g., https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35038/bm3-bombers-cost-14-adam514-axis-vs-farmboy-allies-10/208), and it appears reasonable bomber buys and strategic bombing are alive and well, despite the increased cost.

Based on the foregoing, we will be updating the mod soon to increase the bomber cost as aforesaid.

Only one issues remains: should SBR damage receive a further boost to +3 (instead of +2) to offset the increased cost, or would this simply negate the benefits of increasing the cost to begin with. Y’all’s feedback would be appreciated on this last point. thanks!

cool game. will be following this one!

@sovietishcat on it!

thanks! I posted it here because it incorporates the feedback we received to Balanced Mod, as well as the Balanced Mod rules themselves. So it seemed topical. And these are the guys we made it for.

@crockett36 since not that many people play OOB G40 in league anymore, I don’t think there would be enough demand for an OOB variant of PTV to make it worth the effort. Takes alot of work to code NOs etc.

@aequitas-et-veritas. Hey, Veritas! Addressing your questions in turn:

Will this be playable in League?

I should certainly hope so. It is based heavily on Global 1940 and, it seems to me, would be a suitable game for League Play.

Will bombers cost the same?

Bombers are back to 12 PUs, because their attack power has been reduced from 4 to 3.

Does it have an official name?

Yes its officially called “Path to Victory,” but feel free to call it whatever you want, just long as you play it!

Will there be more starting units?

There are a few additional starting units on the board (a couple infantry here and there), but for the most part the major placements are consistent with Global.

Did we fix the sturdy med?

The way we addressed the Med is: (1) to put Malta and Crete on Sea Zone intersections (increasing their strategic significance and encouraging trading) and connecting Sicily to the Italian mainland, in order to make a drive through Southern Europe a more viable srategy for the Allies. Based on our play testing, this does seem to increase action and fun in the Med.

Enjoy it!

@crockett36 you needed to ask for scramble orders for normandy (the french fighter could scramble to defend there). I wanted to scramble there, so we need to reroll that battle. I’ll roll it for you and post the outcome. If anything needs to change about your noncombat let me know.

I went ahead a posted the Rules Discussion and Feedback thread in Variants, where the BM3-related threads currently are. All future discussion should take place there.

@Panther, would you mind pinning these in the league forum to increase visibility to the intended audience? Here are the links.

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35323/ww2-path-to-victory-rules-discussion

https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35324/ww2-path-to-victory-feedback-thread

Thanks again you guys. Adam and I are really excited to get to playing this with you!

Hey Crocket. The outcome of the battle:

ROUND 1

Germans attack: 3 artillery

Allies defend: 2 infantry, 1 fighter

Germans score 1 hit.
Allies score 2 hits.

I assume at this point, Germans would retreat with their single artillery. The scrambling fighter is required to land in Normandy since the carrier is damaged by the sub attack. If I’m wrong about the retreat, please let me know, and we can continue to roll the battle.

Hey @J-o-C . Its a TripleA map that is different from the Global map–.e.g, Russia, China, and the Pacific are drawn quite differently. But other than the map itself, I don’t think there’d be any obstacle to adapting for tabletop play with Global pieces. I’d be happy to provide a high-def map image for anybody that wanted to try it on tabletop.

@simon33 keep a land unit in Holland to complete the Atlantic wall NO (+3). . Germany needs every PU it can get for the war against Russia. Resend if u like.

@farmboy hey! Great point about complexity. Minimizing complexity was definitely a touchstone of our decisionmaking process in making this map, as well as Balanced Mod. In some ways, PTV actually decreases G40’s complexity–for example, removing the complicated territory/diplomatic rules regarding Mongolia and eliminating the tiered lend lease system for Russia.

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.

As for the considerations that went into each facet of PTV, there are frankly too many too enumerate in one post. But if there are any specific aspects that you would like to see addressed, I will be happy to do so.

Congratulations again on your triumph against Adam in G40 BM3. He was so crushed by it that he decided to make a new game that he can’t possibly lose. Jk Jk. Look forward to seeing your future matches on PTV.

Is there really enough interest to support separate playoffs for all three? I doubt it. Keeping the playoffs unified with a default map (probably the most played map from that year) prevents fracturing and ensures a robust pool of players. Also maintains the prestige of a single title of “league champion” rather than a bunch of mini titles that were contested by only a smattering of people.

Each game is different, but as others have state, the skillset you use to win is largely transferable between them–justifying a single title.

For this reason I support Gamerman’s proposal. Three separate standings. One end-of-year tourney.

@Amon-Sul No need for a major IC to build capital ships. That is correct. One of the reasons for the harbour restriction was to prevent undue exploitation of the Soviet IC in Siberia. With Russia’s boosted income, it was a concern. Another reason was to prevent what, to me, always seemed a corny scenario of USA pumping out carriers from newly built factories in Greece and Norway.

@gamerman01 said in League General Discussion Thread:

Actually, I think we do have the players and the interest to support a separate playoff by version

I gotcha. Well as the keeper of the books, you’'d probably be in a better position to judge that sort of thing. I have my doubts.

I see. So you’d want Russia to continue to be able to produce units even after its capital is taken. I believe world at war is like this?

its an interesting concept. But after a few games playing Germany, i’ll bet you will not be seeking a further buff for Russia. Germany definitely has its job cut out for it.

Adam514 (Axis) over Regularkid (Allies) in playoff game – Path to Victory, no bid. https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36347/2020-playoff-ptv-adam514-axis-vs-regularkid-allies/51?page=3

Well played, Adam! Bonne chance with the playoffs.

@Amon-Sul hey. It is probably too soon to know whether and what kind of bid is needed. Adam and I have been playing without a bid.

@trulpen I downloaded the savedgame, and was able to load it fine (even though I have the most recent version of the map, 6.0, installed). So feel free to update the map, since that is probably not the source of your problem. Also, make sure you have the most recent version of TripleA installed.

Let me know if the problem persists.

P.S. There is one cosmetic difference between 6.0 and 5.1 you should be aware of. After you download the new map, szs 56 and 45 will appear to be connected, since they were redrawn for 6.0. However, in your saved game, the actual sz connections will be unaffected.

@trulpen yes it should say “eastern India” in the objective panel. Adam and I are aware of the typo and will be fixing it the next version.