Posts made by Poptech

@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.

@Panther said in A&A Anniversary 1941 Sea Lion Strategy:

@Poptech said in A&A Anniversary 1941 Sea Lion Strategy:

Whatever moves I put under “combat move” were allowed in TripleA and all moves listed were allowed in TripleA.

Just for everybody’s information:
TripleA is not rules compliant in many aspects. Allowing NCM during CM-Phase is one of the non-rules-compliant behaviors of TripleA.

TripleA-players always should keep in mind:
“Don’t always trust TripleA when it comes to rules questions. Know the rules before you start TripleA … and better check what TripleA has done.”

I am aware of that and the Europe, Pacific and Global TripleA maps restrict that kind of movement. I understand the idea behind restricting it but it is more for unit movement tracking in the board game. When playing digitally it only makes it easier to forget to unload or reposition troops.

@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@general-6-stars

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.

@Smoke

Whatever moves I put under “combat move” were allowed in TripleA and all moves listed were allowed in TripleA.

Northwestern Europe is adjacent to sea zone 5 so the move is no different than taking an infantry from Germany. The purpose is to move as many units as far east as possible while still saving 16 ground units near sea zone 5 for round 3.

Any good Japan player is going to roll through India if you waste all you money money on a UK navy instead of defending India.

Most UK players attack the German navy with the UK’s starting fighters and bomber turn one but the German carrier negates that.

Even if the UK focuses completely on their navy, Germany can continue to build up their navy (with mainly subs and the two carriers) and not leave sea zone 5 but statistically be able to win any naval battle against the UK. This certainly means the UK are not defending India or Africa and that will let Japan get out of control.

If the UK builds up in sea zone 6, then Germany simply builds a second carrier and as many subs as necessary to counter the UK instead of transports, this usually leaves left over PUs for infantry. The UK cannot statistically wipe out the German navy on their own this way.

The advantage here to Germany even without sealion is they now have 4 free reusable offensive units (fighters) to relentlessly attack Karelia, Baltic States, East Poland, Belorussia and Archangel and counter attack into Poland, Czech, Bulgaria, Finland, Norway, NW Europe, France and the Balkans if necessary with cheap infantry. This will eventually wear Russia down, especially once Japan starts attacking Russia from the east.

This also allows Germany with subs and the 4 fighters be able to keep sea zones 3, 6 and 7 clear of everything but a very large naval presence.

In most games by the time Germany buys the 7 transports the UK and US will be out of position to defend against it because they only have one turn to do anything.

It is easy to say what you are going to do knowing what I am doing but the whole point is most people are not going to know.

@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.

@superbattleshipyamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@poptech

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.

@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.

@farmboy Actually no the bonus movement is not an abstraction of anything, it is a magical power. Something you find in fantasy games.

The game is largely unbalanced because of Japan and Russia and a total lack of proper play testing. When people do not know how to design a game they add in nonsense instead of fixing the actual problem.

It is not about prioritizing realism, it is about making things semi-logical. Nothing about bonus movement has been argued successfully by anyone here.

@govz said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

the most unrealistic thing

It’s a game. With little plastic pieces. That uses dice to simulate combat.

In that case can we add UFOs?

@imperious-leader said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@poptech LOOK. Airbases are established centers of aerospace logistics. Bombers don’t fuel in open fields, fighters don’t get supplies of ammo and payloads of bombs they precision drop on tanks from mountaintops. Centers where military airbases are located need to be featured in some detail in a game like this. Military bases are not civilian bases. Bombers need long runways to fly off with tons of bombs.

Also, you need some mechanism to damage them just like factories. The idea is not unrealistic. Naval bases have a similar function.

I would have taken it a step further with railroad concentrations that can also be damaged.

Go to Ukraine and see the problems associated with keeping an airbase operational during wartime.

But never complain about this again until you do.

That is nice except you just need a road and supply trucks to make a combat airfield and in most cases just a flat open field.

The German’s had no problem refueling bombers in open fields.

All of your arguments are about WHERE aircraft can take off NOT how far they can fly.

The shipyards already have a useful function, repairing capital ships which is historically realistic and the airfields allowing for a scramble ability is fine. Those do not break the game with fantasy movement.

Ukraine is a second world country with modern jet aircraft not WWII Germany or Japan. The aircraft they have was not designed for combat airfields like WWII aircraft. WWII airframes were built far different than modern aircraft outside of modern aircraft like the A10.

@barnee said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@krieghund lol surprised you even replied. My favorite is when he says it should be a permanent rule change LMAO !

Yes it should be a permanent rule change, the game plays better without it. It allows Italy to actually have a chance to control the mediterranean and Africa, slows down Japan’s airforce and requires the Allies to strategically invade Europe instead of just stacking Gibraltar with millions of troops. Bonus movement allows silly things to happen all over the map, mostly involving bombers flying to insane areas.

@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.

@superbattleshipyamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

@poptech

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.

@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 1941 is the worst edition. It is supposed to be an introduction game but is the least forgiving to any mistakes.

@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.

@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.

@superbattleshipyamato Stopped in multiple territories to REFUEL. Airbases do not magically make planes fly farther.

@arthur-bomber-harris I am aware I can play the game how I wish and am not interested in house rules but having a discussion about making this a permanent change to the game. TripleA specifically has a setting to turn bonus movement off so clearly there are other people who do not like it either which is who I am looking to discuss this with. I do not see anything “strategic” about giving units magical movement abilities. This is one of many reasons I believe the anniversay edition is superior but also one that makes Italy totally useless.

@superbattleshipyamato

Fuel? Using that logic all ships and planes should run out of fuel unless they return to an airfield or shipyard each turn. What do you think happens when a tanker refuels a ship at sea during wartime they only partially fill the tank? The same with combat airfields do they only partially fill the planes from fuel trucks/planes? I don’t think so.

Leaving a shipyard does not give a ship magical range the same for a plane leave an airfield.