Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Imperious-Leader

:+1: :+1:

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Imperious-Leader

:+1: :+1: :+1: :+1: :+1:

[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.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Poptech

This is the center of logistical support in the Carolines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuuk_Lagoon

[PizzaPete]

@SuperbattleshipYamato

Which was considered by the US to be the biggest naval base in the pacific!

https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/npswapa/extcontent/wapa/paradise/paradise4.htm#:~:text=Truk Lagoon was regarded by,the war in September 1945.

@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.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@PizzaPete

Agreed 100%. 👍👍👍👍👍

[Imperious Leader]

@SuperbattleshipYamato everything is now resolved so this never will be brought up again…

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Imperious-Leader

Yes, we should.

[TheVeteran]

@Poptech im sorry but this is ridiculous and as the game has been out for over 10 years its quite obvious the official rules aren’t changing and naval bases and air bases are a part of the game. if you don’t like that then play with people who agree with you and only those people but leave the rest of us alone please - you wont convince anyone who doesn’t already agree with you. i also don’t agree with you and enjoy playing with harbours and airfields.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@TheVeteran

Agreed.

[Imperious Leader]

@TheVeteran I’m glad you finally see the light and agree. whew!

[TheVeteran]

@Imperious-Leader

What? I never disagreed with you guys - only pop tech.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@TheVeteran

We have a case of mistaken identity then.

[General 6 Stars]

IL, Your memory pills are getting weak ! Ya The Vet wasn’t the guy.
Its Poptech.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@General-6-Stars

😂

[MarshmallowofWar]

@Poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:

The worst part about AAEurope, AAPacific and AAGlobal is the bonus movement granted by airfields and shipyards. The entire game plays so much more unrealistically when using bonus movement. Not to mention it makes no logical sense how a ship could travel farther from leaving a shipyard or how an aircraft gets more range from leaving an airfield.

1. This makes the Japanese Air Force even more ridiculous, they can fly bombers from Japan to Novosibursk in one turn or Bomb the West Coast of the US from Japan or Land bombers in Australia from Japan.
2. It allows the Japanese to invade Pearl Harbor, Mainland Alaska and Canada from Japan in one turn instead of just the Aleutian islands.
3. It makes defending the Mediterranean near impossible for Italy;
4. It allows the UK and US to attack ships in the Mediterranean with bombers from mainland UK specifically sea zone 94.
5. It allows the US to move troops to Gibraltar in one turn.
6. It allows an invasion of mainland Italy from Gibraltar in one turn.
7. It allows the UK to invade Egypt from South Africa and West India in one turn etc…

I have been playing with the bonus movement off in TripleA and it plays so much better in my opinion. I believe it should be removed from all future versions of A&A.

@Poptech For what it’s worth, I understand your points.

I think it’s important to realize that this board game is first and foremost an abstraction of a very large, immensely complicated situation. Take 100 players and we’ll come up with 100+ things that are not totally accurate about the game.

The goal of the game is to simplify the complex down into something that a group of friends can do in one day (albeit a long one!). The more rules that are added to the game, the more complicated it gets and the longer it takes to play. If you think Axis & Allies is not realistic enough, you might enjoy “The World at War” which is extremely complex to set up and play through.

Proper logistical support for naval and air forces is important for those forces to operate a full effectiveness. This is not just fuel, but other critical supplies and facilities to properly maintain and repair those forces as well as meet the needs of their crews.

The choice made for aircraft and ship logistical support made by Larry Harris and crew was increased movement from proper support facilities. As someone else pointed out, perhaps it could have been phrased differently and more clearly in the rules as this being the normal movement and the absence of a base shortening the movement, but none of us are perfect and I’m willing to forgive Larry’s phrasing.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with you desiring more realism in a game based on historical events, but at what point do you sacrifice brevious playability for realism?

I think we all welcome polite and informed discussion of how the game could be made better, but at the same time I would challenge you to consider exactly how you would have represented those logistical needs and how they’re met if you had been in Larry’s place.

Marsh

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@MarshmallowofWar

👍

[Imperious Leader]

@SuperbattleshipYamato :clap:

[Imperious Leader]

I think this whole exercise was sarcasm, he (POPTECH) really doesn’t believe his views, rather he’s trying to argue the opposite in order to sharpen his forensics of debate, taking a far less traveled road.

[SuperbattleshipYamato]

@Imperious-Leader

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. :+1:

In that case he still has some work to do, as he certainly wasn’t convincing enough for me to get on his side, and I was very open/vulnerable to these arguments, being a stickler for historical accuracy.

If only he was more, I guess, chill about it, I might have actually agreed with him.

Instead his antagonism gave me no choice but to stand against him.