@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
@poptech Everything about this game is unrealistic nonsense, but it is fun and plays well. Air bases and naval bases both help balance the game (without them the allies would be at even more of a disadvantage) and add to the complexity of the game. You don’t have to like it and can play without if you wish. There are other games that prioritize realism, and you can always try one of those if ‘realism’ is something that you want in a board game.
Sure you can. Just put more barrels in the plane (for refuelling at a smaller airfield). And there are more barrels of oil at more developed airfields to make that happen.
Facts right there.
Straw man fallacy!
Exactly. I even sent the guy some games that are more realistic.
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.
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.
Exactly. More often. And since as I said, a turn is 6 months, a plane can fly several times. Enough extra flights and stops and you’ll have moved the equivalent of an extra one territory/sea zone.
@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
In that case can we add UFOs?
Would they get a bonus movement from an airbase?
@farmboy said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
@poptech Everything about this game is unrealistic nonsense, but it is fun and plays well. Air bases and naval bases both help balance the game (without them the allies would be at even more of a disadvantage) and add to the complexity of the game. You don’t have to like it and can play without if you wish. There are other games that prioritize realism, and you can always try one of those if ‘realism’ is something that you want in a board game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_in_Flames
lol
You nailed it farmboy. I’m surprised I’m interacting lol
Looks so much fun! If only I had more time… maybe when I’m retired.
@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.
@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.
@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.
