339/12mths in 2021
84/5mths in 2023
28.25/mth in 2021
16.8/mth in 2023
So even if you adjust for less total games being played, as a proportion PtV is less popular than it was. But I have a real problem with that argument. PtV is the newest and shiniest version and I would expect as a proportion that people would gravitate towards it.
Anyway, I consider my point proven. But you don’t seem to care.
Speaking for myself as an Axis player, I’ll do a G2 DOW only if the situation arises. A bit like Sea Lion I guess. Normally, you need to buy some mobile forces G1 to have enough to prevent a counter attack. The other thing is losing the peace NO and USSR gaining its NOs a turn earlier. I guess that isn’t a big deal though.
I think he can’t tolerate the guerrilla fighters in BM.
@regularkid said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
People haven’t stopped playing PTV. To the contrary.
Oh yeah?
16 league games completed in the first 5 months of 2023 for 3.2 games per month
87 league games completed in 2021 for 7.25 games per month
I give you the first few days of June as a bonus.
@trulpen said in Thoughts on Allies Strategy:
To turn the perspective back to the thread subject, I’d be rather happy with Russia for an extra round of full mobilization.
Good point. As USSR you should really be making sure to block the G2 DOW.
You don’t really need to use Italian aircraft if you just want to NCM 2 more ground units to Baltic States, although if you want to amphibiously assault Novgorod, and can’t stand in SZ112 as Germany, I guess you do.
@DizzKneeLand33 said in Simon33 (A+9) vs DizzKneeLand33 (X) BM3 L20 Game 2:
take two! lol
Sounds like I only just got it in on time.
@gamerman01 said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 I think it’s great that you replied to the last post on this PTV thread that was made a year ago, and instantly revived fun and spirited discussion!
I don’t understand why you liked both my post and Adam514’s contrary post.
@Panzer-V said in Allies cannot lose.:
I see so much talk about how the allies need a bid to win (G40 2nd ed). I don’t see how the allies can lose. With good play, axis is always defeated by allied player. Again, Larry Harris makes sure allies win. It is closer for sure. But allies cannot lose with solid play. I wonder why so many here think allies are lost? I play first many games and think axis are totally dominant, but after time and many more plays, allies cannot be defeated with good play. Where is the justification that axis always wins without bid?
The allies can’t defend the most vulnerable capitals, which are Moscow and Calcutta. Once those two capitals have fallen, it’s unlikely that the allies can maintain their edge. Arguably, London is more vulnerable than Moscow but Moscow is a bigger swing and very much harder to take back.
@DizzKneeLand33 said in Simon33 (A+9) vs DizzKneeLand33 (X) BM3 L20 Game 2:
Oh, but I really like the idea of being able to change both quickly before dice are thrown. That makes complete sense. Probably a programmer’s nightmare, but great in ftf competition.
That was actually the first thing we house ruled in ftf games.
Ok, that is an interesting viewpoint. I tend to think high bids are a limitation. The change from BM2 to BM3 (+3 to Japan for holding Okinawa and Iwo Jima)I consider to be a mistake.
It’s better to stack Vyborg than Karelia if the German TT is in SZ112. Otherwise amphibious troops can attack - cruiser can block Vyborg.
But I will add, thanks for the game.
@mikawagunichi said in WW2 Path to Victory - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 But why complain about any NO that favors the Axis as long as you think the game is currently skewed in favor of the Allies overall? What do you believe is an appropriate bid for P2V under the current rules?
Fair call if you are talking about P2V although in the case of BM I think it is a valid complaint.
I think two UK economies is awesome and I have no idea why anyone wants to revert to a single economy.
The post above is an interesting exploration of why Canada as its own power isn’t much fun to play. In the Canada mod at least you get an no for clearing the Atlantic of German subs. Getting fighters to Moscow would be very difficult unless the allies have Scandinavia. If the axis don’t go sea lion, Canada doesn’t have much to do.
Honestly, I’m more worried that UK has to buy all inf turn 1 or sea lion becomes too easy. Perhaps that isn’t a problem in other people’s minds.
@DizzKneeLand33 said in Simon33 (A+9) vs DizzKneeLand33 (X) BM3 L20 Game 2:
Take care, and I hope that you are up for that best 3/5 once I have 10 games in! Again, it was a complete pleasure on my end.
You too.
One other point of feedback if you’re interested. I didn’t like that you allowed me to counter attack French Indo China after a J1. That territory needs to be defended to allow the minor factory to be built on it J2. That counter attack was well worth the transport that it cost me. I was also surprised that you didn’t reclaim it but even better to take it J1 and keep it, normally with a naval block in SZ36.
@fasthard said in G40 Balance Mod - Feedback Thread:
@simon33 Thx for your answer. Just wanted to make sure that Japan can’t attack there without DOW on the soviets.
If there are soviet units in Persia, Japan must dow on ussr to attack Persia.
@barnee said in 18L MrRoboto (Axis) vs JWW(Allies) BM3 Game 2:
@Panther
Idk want to spend too much time searching. I’ve gone through the rules and looked here as well.
Question is:“In triplea 3 subs kill an aircraft carrier and subs are then asked to retreat” I’m thinking they shouldn’t be given the option ? I should add that a plane was scrambled to the SZ, so maybe that’s why triplea gave it that option ? I guess I can test that.
At any rate, what do you think ? Plane legitimately offers the subs a chance to retreat ?
No, there was a rule update - both sides need units which can fire at a valid target for the attacker to be able to retreat. Or both sides having only transports (for some strange reason).
I don’t really feel that they add value but they are there and seems like they will stay there.
1st para, p8, 2nd sentence:
“When the rules refer
to the “original controller” of a territory, they mean the
power whose emblem is printed on the territory.”