Best posts made by regularkid

@pejon_88 I’m E. Will shoot u a message

@trulpen no. its just southern caucasus. Will be clarified in future release.

@pejon_88 yes i’m getting the emails

@CaptainNapalm Hey Captain. No oil in North East Persia. Was intentional

Just checked again. Its actually 25% of league games. Not too shabby!

@trulpen not retarded, just ‘differently abled.’

@pejon_88 yes the airfield must be operable.

@CaptainNapalm Hey Captain. We will be putting out an updated version of the map with supplemented game notes in the next couple of weeks. The Great Purge/Civil War Penalty was inadvertently omitted from the original notes.

@pejon_88 editted 1 inf placed in Eastern Sinkaing (realized ur india bomber can reach)

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

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)

I feel your pain, and would have plowed forward as well. Land-scramble is permitted if there is any friendly defending unit (land, air, AA gun, etc.) in the defending territory. Note, this even applies to pro-neutrals! Hope that clarifies.

Why tweak G40 when these other games (New World Order, World At War, etc.) are already out there, with different unit mechanics, etc.? The answer to your query is pretty simple. I don’t like those games; I wanted to like them! I really did. But they just weren’t love at first play (like G40 was).

I love G40. Ever heard that song “I love you. You’re perfect. Now change”? Thats pretty much how it is with G40. After playing vanilla G40 a lot, I (and other G40 devotees) identified a few ways that an already awesome and deeply engrossing game might be made even awesome-er. Some of those ideas ultimately found their way into G40 Balance Mod. Others were tried and discarded. The end-product remains very much recognizable as G40, but with a player community’s firm imprimatur on it.

Even if a majority of the ideas are never implemented in any meaningful way, I think continued discussions about how to improve the game I love are always fun and sometimes even constructive.

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

Don’t really love the style of the new borders - they look like they were drawn by hand. Perhaps that’s a taste thing.

That’s because they were. lol. You should see the quick and dirty version that Adam and I started with. So chonky.

i look forward to watching this game!

@Amon-Sul

@Amon-Sul said in WW2 Path to Victory - Rules Discussion:

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

@Amon-Sul, I think the main one that would be impossible to carry out in triple A (without reliance on manual edits and out-of-game dice rolls) would be the Joint Strike NA (USA can use uk units for combat once during the game). I think you’d have to trigger a temporary change in ownership of all uk units on the board to US, but I’m not sure how you could track them for purposes of the eventual return to UK ownership.

Some of the others might be doable tho!

that one is not problem for doing manually once in a game, but for example destroyers carring inf , uk aa guns defending on 2, it could be great if it could be implemented in triple a, so u dont have to use edits all the time

UK AA defend at 2 - can definitely be done. Would have to create a new unit type (e.g., “UK AA”) availabe only to the UK that has unique defence value.

Tokyo Express - same thing. Unique unit type (e.g., “Jap Destroyer”) would do the trick.

@Stucifer that is so freaking epic! very impressive. how are you differentiating the marines?

@simon33 so the answer is: you cannot build a factory on Manilla, because doing so would be building a factory on an island.

Moving beyond the intuitive to the explicit, the rule can be stated this way:

Any grouping of fewer than three contiguous land territories that is surrounded by water constitutes an “Island” for factory-buiding purposes.

This statement of the rule has the benefit of requiring no exceptions, since both UK and Japan are part of three contiguous land territories, surrounded by water. Phillipines, being just two contiguous land territories (Davoa and Manilla) constitutes an island and therefore cannot support factory construction.

@Stucifer

I will make the thread

good ideas, Karl. If there is a general consensus behind them, we can definitely incorporate.

@trulpen In designing BM, we shied away from changing the unit roster too much because we still wanted it to be recognizably g40. That’s why we saved the major unit-cost overhaul for WW2 Path to Victory, which has all the changes mentioned above.

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.

)