@superbattleshipyamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
Sure. Of course they can refuel in normal fields.
But there are significant benefits for having an airfield, which is why the countries built one in the first place.
Those “advantages” have nothing to do with magically allowing planes to fly hundreds to thousands of miles further.
Honestly even removing the bonus movement still keeps it unrealistic. If you think one plane moving is the equivalent of one flight, then it doesn’t make sense for strategic bombers to fly from Perth to Kenya in one turn. Even the B-29 is off by 500 kilometres (using ferry range), to say nothing of lesser planes. The Indian Ocean is bigger than what the game simulates.
I never said removing the bonus movement made the game “realistic”, I said it made it more realistic which is something a larger version of this game should being move towards not away from. Everything else you mention are additonal problems.
@govz said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
In that case can we add UFOs?
Would they get a bonus movement from an airbase?
I am going to refer to it from now on as magic movement.
Also they should allows tanks to be able to blitz 3 spaces if they leave from a factory something that happens in real life because you can strap fuel cans to the back.
That’s less realistic. Also straw manning and not answering the question.
@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
I never said removing the bonus movement made the game “realistic”, I said it made it more realistic which is something a larger version of this game should being move towards not away from. Everything else you mention are additonal problems.
True.
Now you’re just assuming things and saying thing you have no proof of about the development of this game.
I already told you how that was possible. There’s more fuel in air bases so you can stuff more fuel in a plane, allowing it to fly further by taking off more often.
@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
Those “advantages” have nothing to do with magically allowing planes to fly hundreds to thousands of miles further.
I already said why that isn’t the case.
If you don’t choose to accept my explanations that’s your problem. It’s also your problem if you keep playing a game you hate so much. I’m fine if you merely dislike certain parts of it, but you sound like you outright hate it.
@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
@superbattleshipyamato You can put more barrels of fuel in a plane anywhere it can land. Here is an aviation fuel dump in China during WWII;
Show me any documentation that planes leaving from an airfield can now magically travel hundreds to thousands of miles further.
This shows you based on time frame this does give you a added move bonus which is all tied into the turn and time frame.
Yes I’ve tried to play with no bonus move from an airbase but 90% of people and in group want the extra move. Based on spaces on map and time frame of a turn.
So what you need to do is come up with your own map or G40 map and make your own game based on your inputs that you want.
You made your point of what you want and think but the bashing about it just needs to end. Prove to every body you can come up with a game with all your ideas and test the hell out of it. G40 has a lot of fantasy and other unrealistic stuff but 90% just want to play this game. Believe me they don’t want the changes.
Well said. Agreed. I’ll actually play his game if he can make it as accurate as possible.
Here’s a discussion I made way back about this very topic:
I gee i can land in this field but i have no ammo, no fuel, no nothing. I think i will eat the tree bark today, the Fuhrer told us it was delicious! Yea right. No bonus movement for planes wanting for lack of fuel…in this measure they can only travel as far as the fuhrer believes it can go…perhaps can wave down a passing benz and accommodate its fuel so i can complete my mission…
@poptech maybe a better way to look at it is that the longer range of the bases is the norm, and without them your range is decreased. A fleet can move 3times when well supplied. Otherwise they have to stop more often and those moments not captured in the game show up as moving 2x. Aircraft are performing recon patrols etc. So maybe the base doesn’t extend their flight range but allows full capacity of it’s range. Short of desperation I don’t see a commander sending an attack out to use every once of resources available. The airbase merely accounts for the abundance of supplies so units can use their full capacity. Just flip the concept in your head of extra range to allowing full use of their range
I think that makes a lot of sense. Definitely a better explanation than mine. 10p% agreement.
That is a great way to look at it. A fleet at sea or away from a fueling base has to rendezvous with a fuel tanker to refuel before moving full range. That rendezvous will cost the fleet time and fuel.
Meanwhile, a fleet departing from a naval base could be accompanied by a fuel tanker. Part way through your turn, the fuel tanker itself will need to head back to base to refuel that giant tank, but the fleet can continue on with the fuel it got from the tanker.
There wasn’t an option for refueling planes mid-air in the 40’s, but an airbase would have the resources and trained personnel to outfit your plane with one of these:
Not to mention, as polishpowerhouse points out, taking off from dirt track is not the same as a proper airfield.
The shorter and less refined your runway, the more you’ll have to lean on the throttle to hit the speed you need for takeoff. The more you lean on the throttle, the more fuel you’re burning just to take off.
He gone !
Considering Poptech’s behavior I wouldn’t be surprised if they were banned.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
Considering Poptech’s behavior I wouldn’t be surprised if they were banned.
Nope, just waiting for someone to come up with a valid explanation for buildings giving magical movement to planes and ships. No one has done this yet.
Thanks for letting me know.
In my view, we already gave numerous possible reasons, and I consider most of them valid.
It’s your problem if you don’t think they are valid.
Plus, who decides what is valid? What is the criteria? You?
“just waiting for someone to come up with a valid explanation for buildings giving magical movement to planes and ships. No one has done this yet.”
Thats the easy part of the problem… centers of logistical support (Rail, Fuel stocks, Quick industrial pathways, established airports that can handle the numbers of planes, centers of trade, population centers of the military industrial complex).
A Batteship cant just park at the Malibu pier and fuel up. If it did , it would have limited range unless Malibu can supply 4 months worth of food, fuel, ammo, etc. It has to go to San Diego or Hawaii, or Puget Sound.
A B17 cant land at Santa Monica Airport and have anything available. It as to go to Paterson, or a military base where an airport with sustainable services exists.
So the real movement of ships is 3, the real movement of planes is +1, the fact that sometimes a Stuka takes off from my driveway, means it has less range than leaving Tempelhof. You and people like you are looking at everything backwards. Planes are being held back in movement and their full capabilities are only seen in terms of range, if they leave an established centre that provides support, parts, fuel, ammo, training, Tikka Masala,etc
Do you not understand now???
