Best posts made by regularkid

Hey Gargantua, I definitely see where you are coming from about France.

Although PTV and BM both remove substantial disincentives to liberating france (e.g., eliminating the repeat-capital-plunder dynamic of G40, adding US NOs for mere presence in Normandy, etc.), it remains the case that France is all-too-frequently seen as a no-go zone for the Allies until after the fate of Western Europe is already decided.

One way to help rectify this problem would be to give France a national objective (for example, +5 for controlling France, Normandy, Southern France), putting more Allied income on the table for a liberated France, than without it.

I am apprehensive about the idea of a “liberate” button for France, both because of the coding challenges it would present, and because it introduces yet another faction-specific dynamic, which we generally try to avoid unless necessary.

I have added the proposal of the French NO to the list of ideas for us to consider in version 5 of the map.

Regarding the penalties for Japan’s DOW on Russia (and vice versa), we’ll likely wait to see how things play out in further playtesting before making any further.

Things I will personally look for: how frequently and how early Japan and Russia declare war, and the most common outcome of that conflict. If it appears that an early JOW of Russia by Japan (or vice versa) becomes the “routine” move in most games, I think we will definitely look at making changes (including, possibly, reverting back to the lend lease incentive).

But since it doesn’t seem to be a problem so far, we’ll hold off.

@trulpen oh I see now. I misunderstood. And yes your idea makes some logical sense for BM3. Of course in PTV it’s a nonissue cuz the mere Dow cancels Russia’s Mongolia boost. Gotcha.

@aequitas-et-veritas I think there is a game mechanic like that in total world war. Except it is confined to allied units that move into archangel I think. Interesting idea

@WindowWasher observes:

“Trying out P2V right now, I’m having trouble identifying an achievable goal with the US in the Pacific.”

I would make sure that you are playing the most recent version of the map (version 4.0), as it includes some subtle changes that impact the US’s strategic options in the Pacific–specifically: (1) reduction of carrier defense to 1; (2) limiting carrier scrambles to sea zones with defending surface warships; (3) the redrawing of Korea to touch Sea Zone 21; and (3) the addition of a US Marine to Hawaii.

More broadly, I would say that the United States needs to be working together with the other Allies to apply simultaneous pressure to Japan on multiple fronts. Both Russia and China have been buffed for this purpose (factory in Siberia + boosted Russian economy and a bigger, badder China). US goes for the islands and puts pressure of the fleet (just like in Global), while Russia puts meaningful pressure on the north, and China harasses Japan on the mainland, particularly around Yunnan. The Allies’ fortunes in the Pacific depend on a skillful and efficient marshaling of these forces.

@simon33 you are free to do anything you like, but don’t call it BalancedMod (BM).

@simon33 yes. AA is a combat unit that can be taken as a casualty in the course of battle, so is different than a transport, which is not.

@wizmark if u run the battle calc comparison on defense between G40 (with 11 tanks, 11 mechs) and PTV (10 tanks, 10 mechs), what you find is that the increased number of attacker casualties on the first round is less than 1. But with more units that the attacker has to kill in order to win the battle, the G40 purchase is actually much better defensively.

Below are two battle calculations. On the left is G40, with an attack of 12 inf and 12 artillery against 110 purchase of mechs and tanks. On the right is the PTV calculation for the same attack against a 110 purchase of mechs and tanks.

As you can see, the advantage goes to the G40 purchase.

One solution (as Adam alluded to with his mention of 1914 tech) would be a semi-directed tech tree–which gives you an element of control by allowing you to choose a research focus (e.g., land, sea, economy). without dictating specific technologies. What do you guys think?

@CaptainNapalm 1914 domination on TripleA

@Panther K. I edited the initial posts to reflect the noted changes. Thanks.

@Navalland

You could calculate the NO’s impact on balance by determining what percentage of each sides production in a typical game consists of NO income. That would actually be an interesting inquiry, but it’s not particularly relevant for our purposes. The main reason we retained National Objectives in PTV is for their positive effect on gameplay (they induce players to contest areas that would otherwise see little action, and provide interim goals on the way to victory), and to enhance historical accuracy.

As for the political standing of Ireland and Persia:

Historically Persia was invaded early on by the Soviets and British, and the entire country was commandeered and used as a base of operations by the Allies. Setting Persia to “Strict Neutral” would ensure that this historical outcome almost never happened in the game.

Ireland was technically neutral, but as cursory glance at the internet reveals, it leaned heavily towards the Allies in practice. . . they supplied men, they gave Allies preferential POW treatment etc. I have no doubt that if the UK were deadset on enlisting Ireland as a base of operations in the war effort, it could have done so. “Pro-Allied Neutral” correctly captures Irelands true standing in the war, in my opinion.

@freh i deleted the post because the Vichy colors are already included in the G40 BM map that you can download from the TripleA “Download Maps” section. There’s no need for a separate post addressing it.

@ksmckay @freh all good questions. I believe the ‘multinational force’ issue was already addressed at an earlier point, but since its been a while, I’ll provide a comprehensive response here.

1. The rules governing amphibious assaults from allied cruisers (i.e., friendly cruisers belonging to a different nation) are the same in all respects to the rules governing amphibious assaults from allied transports (except in the case of kamikazes, which is addressed below).

2. As with transports, a player cannot amphibious assault from an allied cruiser in a sea zone where there are enemy warships, unless that player brings along an escort force capable of destroying the enemy warships. If the enemy ship is a submarine, the player will have the option to ignore or engage with his escort force before making the landing. If the enemy ship is a surface vessel, a battle will, of course, result.

3. As Adam already mentioned, the possibility of scrambled air units will prevent the landing if they cannot be destroyed. Again, the player making the attack must bring along an escort force to deal with the threat before making the landing.

4. Kamikazes have no impact on amphibious landings from allied cruisers. The defending player cannot use his kamikazes against the cruisers in this ‘multinational force’ setting.

Hope that helps!

@Amon-Sul, we added Malaya as a VC (and increased the Pacific victory requirements to 7 VCs) in order to make holding Malaya essential to Japanese victory. This effectively gives the Allies another way to stop Japan from achieving its victory conditions. That was our main goal.

@simon33 thanks for flagging this issue. A new version (v 5.2) is now available for download (u must manually delete and reinstall the map), which has the connection between Afghanistan and Central India.

@ArmedAce fixed it.

@freh I never did answer this question. Yes I don’t think a carrier would do the trick, since the sub has to be destroyed before the amphibious landing can take place.

Cool ideas, but it would be more helpful for us if we keep the conversation focused on the specific proposals (A or B) mentioned in my prior post–i.e., increased cost with additional carrying capacity, or limiting the scramble to 3 per sea zone. Which is better? Thats what we’re grappling with right now.