That sounds like the way i understand the rules. Moving to an adjacent sea zone then moving to a land territory in that sea zone is 2 moves. Therefore not allowed.
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.
- 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.
- It allows the Japanese to invade Pearl Harbor, Mainland Alaska and Canada from Japan in one turn instead of just the Aleutian islands.
- It makes defending the Mediterranean near impossible for Italy;
- It allows the UK and US to attack ships in the Mediterranean with bombers from mainland UK specifically sea zone 94.
- It allows the US to move troops to Gibraltar in one turn.
- It allows an invasion of mainland Italy from Gibraltar in one turn.
- 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.
-
It’s realistic through. Naval bases are especially well built ports.
Planes can fly further from air bases because the airfields are especially well stocked with fuel.
Ships can fly further from naval bases because the ports are especially well stocked with fuel.
Don’t forget that each turn is six months. Of course you can sail to Hawaii from Japan in six months. More surprising is why you can’t sail from San Francisco to China in six months when it can be done in weeks or three months at most.
-
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.
-
There is a sub-forum for house rules. You are free to change the game however you like when playing with your friends. I personally enjoy naval and air bases. They enhance the strategic options.
-
@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.
-
Again, it’s over six months.
For aircraft, it may look like flying to Novorosibrisk, but in real life they would’ve stopped in multiple territories first.
-
Yes, they only partially fill up the ship or airfield, because there isn’t enough fuel. Remember Yamato.
As for fuel tankers just imagine it’s applied inconsistently, like it applies for the magical move to Hawaii but not for other things.
Again, these are Naval bases, not shipyards. The shipyards are part of industrial complexes.
-
@poptech Its a game with 6 month turns, if it were 4 month, everything would still be ok. I suspect when you see an infantry unit—thats ONE GUY, or a tank is ONE TANK. The pieces and movement are representative of quantity and time. Thats it. Nonsense ended.
-
Absolutely perfect way of saying it.
I mean if it was really one infantry or one tank the armies of the world would have serious equipment to man ratio problem.
-
@superbattleshipyamato Stopped in multiple territories to REFUEL. Airbases do not magically make planes fly farther.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@poptech said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
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.
It is a radical change for the strategy, especially for the United States which now must industrialize SE Mexico, Brazil, and Central America to shorten supply lines both to the Pacific and the European theaters. Is that any more realistic than the version that you are complaining so much about? That seems completely silly and unhistorical. To me, it isn’t any added fun. I don’t think that you will find more than a handful of players who want to turn off the bonus movement option so they can adopt your house rules.
Do you have an example TripleA savefile where you played this through quite a large number of turns (15-30)?
-
In fact the large games are the most historic. In 1941 (the small one), planes can fly from Berlin to Manchuria.
-
They don’t. The game is just simplifying. Just imagine they stop in multiple territories to refuel.
-
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.
-
It depends on what you define as a poorly designed game.
-
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.
-
Exactly. Anyhow, I find way more unhistorical aspects beyond this. I still enjoy the games though as games.
-
Here are some more realistic games for the Pacific War of World War 2 (haven’t played any yet).
Suggested Topics
