@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???
:+1: :+1:
:+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1:
@Imperious-Leader said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
“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???
None of that adds magical movement to ships or planes. Combat air bases can provide fuel, food and ammo. Cargo ships can supply fuel, food and ammo. If you want to model in logistics then add that in but magical movement does not do that.
Air and Naval bases are mainly supply hubs with repair facilities. Since capital ships can be damaged naval bases serve that function.
Centers of logistical support? What centers were there in the Caroline Islands or when a territory is surrounded?
Why would a fully fueled undamaged Stuka taking off from your driveway have less range than from an air base with paved runways?
I am not looking at anything backwards, the game has no logistics built into it outside of generic IPCs, blockading and the Burma road.
A US Naval fleet can attack Japan from Hawaii but the same fleet cannot attack Japan from sea zone 13 even though they are both the same distance and there is no logical reason why. Ships don’t get more propulsion from leaving a port.
Of course I am looking at the magical movement because that is what is different in the game. Air bases do not allow planes to fly farther.
This is the center of logistical support in the Carolines:
Which was considered by the US to be the biggest naval base in the pacific!
@Poptech Your point about a base being surrounded is a good one, though it undercuts your own argument.
Being surrounded doesn’t mean your fuel and ammo ceases to exist, it means it won’t be replenished and you have to work with what was already on hand. Seems to me that since fuel and ammo are stockpiled at naval and air bases, territories that have them would be at a huge advantage when surrounded vs a territory that doesn’t and is surrounded, and units stationed there would be better off.
But since you either failed to read the responses or just dismissed the reasons the bonus movement makes sense, maybe it would be better to come at it from another angle?
Do you agree that naval and air bases existed in the second world war? If so, why do you object to their inclusion in the game? If you don’t object to their inclusion, what benefits do you think they should confer?
If you can answer those questions for yourself, you have a clear path to if you want to set up your game with the markers included, and what those markers will mean for your play group.
If you feel you’re already there, and you want to convince the rest of us that your way of playing is better, you might find you’re better able to persuade people by first understanding where they are coming from. Asking a question, failing to acknowledge the responses, and then acting like you’re the one who is not being listened too is not very persuasive.
Agreed 100%. 👍👍👍👍👍
