@SuperbattleshipYamato they also didn’t need them (again fewer sea zones / shorter distances )
@SuperbattleshipYamato I agree. My point ,i guess is that Eliminating the naval bases ruins the maps that have them, which I think everyone agrees. The older games worked without them but the sea zones were different.
Exactly.
Agreed.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
Agreed. What is “WE”?
What Ever
Thank you for clarifying and responding.
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
As I repeated, bombers from Midway cannot attack Japan.
It’s much harder than you think, landing in occupied areas.
Most of those territories that you can land in will be unflyable unless Japan is losing.
And the upgrades to B-25s are not the long range technology in the game. They were merely modifications so they can take off from a carrier at all.
The technology means the B-29.
It is correct that B-29s should not be able to bomb Japan from Midway.
Limiting aircraft range isn’t the solution though.
Limiting aircraft range makes it impossible for even B-29s to bomb Japan from Guam, when that historically wasn’t the case.
What should be done is add a sea zone or two between Japan and Midway.
You can bomb japan from midway, SZ25-16-6-japan-6-korea. Just need russia to occupy korea. So it can be done, this was no way possible in the real war.
I agree with you that the world is weird in A&A, some zones are way to small others are way to big.
The mentioned operation pedestail shows that the med is way to small. And maby the atlantic is to small as well.
But also russia, germany was in smolensk less then 6 months after the invasion but still in ukrain. Yet ukrain is 2 steps away and smolensk is 3 steps away.
So that would give tanks 1.5 turns to go 6 months in central russia but only 1 turn in the south.
There is no clear line how long a turn is really, time is flexible in this game, distances as well. Some bombers can fly 4000miles others can barely make 1000. Same bomber different part of the board.
Its just a bit unfortunate because it would be much more accurate if time and space was equal all over the board. This also affects air and naval bases, some just make the range accurate again, some make it insane.
@shadowhawk said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
@SuperbattleshipYamato said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
As I repeated, bombers from Midway cannot attack Japan.
It’s much harder than you think, landing in occupied areas.
Most of those territories that you can land in will be unflyable unless Japan is losing.
And the upgrades to B-25s are not the long range technology in the game. They were merely modifications so they can take off from a carrier at all.
The technology means the B-29.
It is correct that B-29s should not be able to bomb Japan from Midway.
Limiting aircraft range isn’t the solution though.
Limiting aircraft range makes it impossible for even B-29s to bomb Japan from Guam, when that historically wasn’t the case.
What should be done is add a sea zone or two between Japan and Midway.
You can bomb japan from midway, SZ25-16-6-japan-6-korea. Just need russia to occupy korea. So it can be done, this was no way possible in the real war.
I agree with you that the world is weird in A&A, some zones are way to small others are way to big.
The mentioned operation pedestail shows that the med is way to small. And maby the atlantic is to small as well.
But also russia, germany was in smolensk less then 6 months after the invasion but still in ukrain. Yet ukrain is 2 steps away and smolensk is 3 steps away.
So that would give tanks 1.5 turns to go 6 months in central russia but only 1 turn in the south.There is no clear line how long a turn is really, time is flexible in this game, distances as well. Some bombers can fly 4000miles others can barely make 1000. Same bomber different part of the board.
Its just a bit unfortunate because it would be much more accurate if time and space was equal all over the board. This also affects air and naval bases, some just make the range accurate again, some make it insane.
Well there ya go. Now you can make your own game and make it correct.
@General-6-Stars
O my bad, i though we had a mature discussion not 12yo trolling.
@shadowhawk said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
@General-6-Stars
O my bad, i though we had a mature discussion not 12yo trolling.
Hey just saying. It was a mature suggestion. Ain’t 12 y old and ain’t a troll.
While all that is true and valid, if you want to talk unrealistic rules, I don’t think anything comes close to the fact that all the countries stay idle until its their “Turn” to do things.
Some things have to be abstracted to make a game work.
It was only impossible to land in Korea because:
A. The Allies could never capture it.
B. Again, the Soviets weren’t in the war.
And in my experience the Soviets never get Korea unless they get significant reinforcements anyway.
Which is why hexagon-based maps are more accurate than normal maps.
Also why Battle of the Bulge is one of the most accurate Axis and Allies games.
Time and space are so weird.
Yep.
Yep.
Also logistics and resources. Also public support.
Wait… I think there’s a Larry Harris game that takes these things into account.
It’s called War Room!
@PizzaPete said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
While all that is true and valid, if you want to talk unrealistic rules, I don’t think anything comes close to the fact that all the countries stay idle until its their “Turn” to do things.
Some things have to be abstracted to make a game work.
Ofcourse you have to abstract things, planes are not a single plane, you dont get the resources of a area immediately. But these abstractions should be consistent all around. If a certain distance 500km takes a certain amount of movement points it should be roughly the same all over the map. Ships in the pacific dont travel any faster then ships in the atlantic or ships in the baltic.
Flying from LA to NY is a lot longer then flying from London to Paris, yet on the board London->Paris is 25% longer then LA->NY.
@shadowhawk sorry, but i completely disagree unless your desire is to make a realistic simulator of world war 2 vice a war game.
To be clear in my definitions:
It would also be unplayable.
No one would want to dedicate the time to play since the outcome would be virtually impossible to change with the number of Soviet troops and production capabilites of the US.
Axis and allies is based upon the conditions present in world war 2, but adjusts the reality of the situation (distances, production, poltics)
to create a game that maximizes the tension between the sides in a manner that allows both sides to win.
The brilliance of the game designers is that they made the game mechanics to allow the various countries to follow their basic strategies that were used in world war 2.
Russians = massive infantry
Germans = mobile land force
British = isolated groupings all over the map that need consolidation. Ship building and contested invasion of Europe.
Japanese = Initial fleet superiority that may give out over time to the US. Collect as much land before that.
US = out produce everyone.
The above tactics allow one to appreciate the sacrifices in personnel the Russians made to hold back the Germans (and perhaps the despotism of Stalin). The importance of carriers vs battleships in naval battles. Impact of subs on supply lines. Imbalance the scientific breakthroughs could cause (this last is so great that I don’t play with them).
So my hats off to the Larry Harris and the designers of the Global 1940 mods in that they made a good game that let’s one appreciate the broad strokes of world war 2 without making the end game a foregone conclusion.
@surfer 💯! Very well put sir!
@shadowhawk
Abstract means unclear - not the same …. So you can’t expect an abstract distance from London to NY to be the same as an abstract distance from San Fran to midway or whatever you wanted to compare distances. You can’t argue to have the same abstract anything.
Exactly.
