Again, it’s over six months.
For aircraft, it may look like flying to Novorosibrisk, but in real life they would’ve stopped in multiple territories first.
Yes, they only partially fill up the ship or airfield, because there isn’t enough fuel. Remember Yamato.
As for fuel tankers just imagine it’s applied inconsistently, like it applies for the magical move to Hawaii but not for other things.
Again, these are Naval bases, not shipyards. The shipyards are part of industrial complexes.
@poptech Its a game with 6 month turns, if it were 4 month, everything would still be ok. I suspect when you see an infantry unit—thats ONE GUY, or a tank is ONE TANK. The pieces and movement are representative of quantity and time. Thats it. Nonsense ended.
Absolutely perfect way of saying it.
I mean if it was really one infantry or one tank the armies of the world would have serious equipment to man ratio problem.
@superbattleshipyamato Stopped in multiple territories to REFUEL. Airbases do not magically make planes fly farther.
@superbattleshipyamato Show me in historical documents where US planes were only partially filling up with fuel. That is total nonsense. Fuel supplies limited how often planes could fly not how far. Airbases did not magically extend the RANGE of aircraft. The game does not properly simulate logistics or fuel supplies. If that was true only the Allies would have effective unlimited fuel. Nothing you have stated explains why a fully fueled plane leaving from an airbase can fly farther than one taking off from a road.
@imperious-leader I suspect you have no idea what I am actually thinking as I thought no such thing. I have read all sorts of explanations that they represent everything from divisions to corps. What does that have to do with anything? None of which addresses buildings giving units magical movement abilities not based on any logic. I have yet to hear a valid explanation for why a fully fueled plane leaving from an airfield can fly hundreds to thousands of miles farther then one taking off from a road.
I have been playing hundreds of AA games on TripleA and the bonus movement makes those games all play the most ridiculous and least realistic. It also cripples all the smaller factions like Italy and makes Japan an unstoppable monster which is why you have games giving the Allies these idiotic bids. What is funny is that I expected the larger games to be more tactical and strategic, instead those games play best using silly strategies that are the least historic. This is what happens with a poorly designed game.
@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
games all play the most ridiculous and least realistic. It also cripples all the smaller factions like Italy and makes Japan an unstoppable monster which is why you have games giving the Allies these idiotic bids. What is funny is that I expected the larger games to be more tactical and strategic, instead those games play best using silly strategies that are the least historic. This is what happens with a poorly designed game.
It is a radical change for the strategy, especially for the United States which now must industrialize SE Mexico, Brazil, and Central America to shorten supply lines both to the Pacific and the European theaters. Is that any more realistic than the version that you are complaining so much about? That seems completely silly and unhistorical. To me, it isn’t any added fun. I don’t think that you will find more than a handful of players who want to turn off the bonus movement option so they can adopt your house rules.
Do you have an example TripleA savefile where you played this through quite a large number of turns (15-30)?
In fact the large games are the most historic. In 1941 (the small one), planes can fly from Berlin to Manchuria.
They don’t. The game is just simplifying. Just imagine they stop in multiple territories to refuel.
The game doesn’t simulate logistics. It’s extremely inaccurate. Take your anger out on that, not air bases and naval bases.
And sure, planes usually topped out with fuel. But with bigger, more developed air bases you dan probably stuff more fuel in the planes (overloading them, more than normal).
If you think it’s inaccurate (it is) you’ll need to do way, way more than just removing the abilities of naval and air bases.
It depends on what you define as a poorly designed game.
It always interests me from among the many, many things that are abstracted in the broad-brush approach of these games what certain players home in on as “unrealistic”. I guess it depends on either what each individual’s pet interest is or what game mechanism they dislike the most. In any case, the bonus movement from bases is simply a very broad abstraction of the logistical advantage they provide, and, like it or dislike it, they do add an element of strategy to the game.
Exactly. Anyhow, I find way more unhistorical aspects beyond this. I still enjoy the games though as games.
Here are some more realistic games for the Pacific War of World War 2 (haven’t played any yet).
@krieghund lol surprised you even replied. My favorite is when he says it should be a permanent rule change LMAO !
@superbattleshipyamato 1941 is the worst edition. It is supposed to be an introduction game but is the least forgiving to any mistakes.
@arthur-bomber-harris You don’t have to industrialize anything new, it just requires one more step of transport movement. It is not “my” house rules but a setting that has been in TripleA for a long time. People seem to play this with house ruled “bids” all the time, instead of addressing the actual problems with the game like the nonsensical bonus movement which breaks so many historical aspects of it.
You really think it is historically realistic that Gibraltar is an invasion point for both mainland Italy and Germany? With bonus movement off the Allies actually have to invade the mediterranean first to take Italy. With the magic movement rule they can just park a big fleet in the Atlantic and stack a million troops in Gibraltar.
@superbattleshipyamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
The game doesn’t simulate logistics. It’s extremely inaccurate. Take your anger out on that, not air bases and naval bases.
And sure, planes usually topped out with fuel. But with bigger, more developed air bases you dan probably stuff more fuel in the planes (overloading them, more than normal).
If you think it’s inaccurate (it is) you’ll need to do way, way more than just removing the abilities of naval and air bases.
This makes no sense. You cannot magically fit more fuel in a fuel tank because you are refueling at an airfield. The game abstracts movement but the movement is uniform for the units except for the airfields and shipyards which take a historic game and turn it into pure fantasy. There is no logical reason for the bonus movement to break the uniformity of the games established unit movement.
@krieghund said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
It always interests me from among the many, many things that are abstracted in the broad-brush approach of these games what certain players home in on as “unrealistic”. I guess it depends on either what each individual’s pet interest is or what game mechanism they dislike the most. In any case, the bonus movement from bases is simply a very broad abstraction of the logistical advantage they provide, and, like it or dislike it, they do add an element of strategy to the game.
No I read the rules of the game and found the bonus movement the most unrealistic thing ever added to this series BEFORE I played a game with it. There is no “logistical advantage” that either gives to making a plane fly farther or a ship sail further. Airfields reduce maintenance on aircraft allowing them to fly more often NOT further. They do not magically give aircraft larger fuel tanks. Shipyards again are used for maintenance, they do not increase how far a ship can sail.
Bonus movement is the most destructive element to historical accuracy in this game series. You are not learning some new strategy but using an unrealistic exploit. The larger games should strive for more historical accuracy not less.
