We have a name for this maneuver. It’s called “The Russian Cheezewhiz”
Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense
-
@surfer said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
This point has been made multiple times, but perhaps it should be re-emphasized again…
1 Turn is 3-6 months of war time not 1 day. In 3 months, a ftr can go around the world. These units are not single ftrs but squadrons. The range is how far the entire squadron can fly missions and project power over the 3-6 month term.When you are based at a fully functional airport with supplies, the squadron can effectively project power over a larger range. Thus the added movement bonus completely makes sense to me.
Similar arguments are made for fleets of ships.
Except that planes cannot land @sea or in enemy controlled zones where ships can be refueled at sea and tanks can just stop and continue driving. How do you explain a bomber flying from midway and bombing japan home islands? Does it land halfway in the ocean then refuel and take off again?
I agree that airbases would allow planes to be more effective ( scramble option, paratroops ). Their pilots will be better rested and the squadron will be more combat ready true. But it doenst give them the ability to refuel in mid air ( not during WW2 at least )Why didnt the US bomb japan from the start of the war iso wasting loads of men and materials on their island hopping campain. Or even build carriers. Just talk to stalin and bomb japan into submission from midway.
Why would germany even bother with subs if their bombers and fighters could reach all around the UK and well into the atlantic.
In the case of air units the bases are not the big problem its the general range they have.
For naval units. Do ships really go 50% faster if they have better logistical support? They might be repaired and provisioned easier and will be more combat ready but travel 50% faster? -
@shadowhawk said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
Makes you wonder why did the US bother with only 12 planes that where stripped of weapons to carry more fuel and fly them off carriers. Just fly from midway much easier.
There were actually 16 modified B25s that took off of the Hornet during the Doolittle Raid. Modified to increase the standard 1,200 mile range. They launched about 820 miles from Tokyo, 200 miles more than planned, due to being seen and reported by a Japanese picket boat. Midway is 2,548 miles from Tokyo. Since the bombers all crashed from lack of fuel they could not even make Tokyo from Midway less alone fly on to China.
One crew did fly on to Russia since they were dramatically short on fuel. They were interned and “escaped” a year later. Since Russia was not at war with Japan the crews were given orders not to fly to Russia.
-
@AndrewAAGamer said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
@shadowhawk said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
Makes you wonder why did the US bother with only 12 planes that where stripped of weapons to carry more fuel and fly them off carriers. Just fly from midway much easier.
There were actually 16 modified B25s that took off of the Hornet during the Doolittle Raid. Modified to increase the standard 1,200 mile range. They launched about 820 miles from Tokyo, 200 miles more than planned, due to being seen and reported by a Japanese picket boat. Midway is 2,548 miles from Tokyo. Since the bombers all crashed from lack of fuel they could not even make Tokyo from Midway less alone fly on to China.
One crew did fly on to Russia since they were dramatically short on fuel. They were interned and “escaped” a year later. Since Russia was not at war with Japan the crews were given orders not to fly to Russia.
Indeed that was my point. That bombers cannot reach tokyo from midway. Yet in the game there is no problem and you can ( given you must land in japan occupied areas. Since the bombers for the doolittleraid where modified you can even argue they where long range and then in game you can just bomb japan from midway.
The whole argument was that air range is way to big and that increasing their range is silly. The range on air units how you try to spin it is just not realistic. There is no way a WW2 era bomber could fly from midway to tokyo. Does not mather if it has 3-6 months to get there it just cant.
-
@shadowhawk without bonus movement it would take america two turns to get from eastern US to Africa (on some not all maps). Not saying I disagree with your idea but that maps were designed with bonus movement in mind.
-
@surfer said in Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense:
This point has been made multiple times, but perhaps it should be re-emphasized again…
1 Turn is 3-6 months of war time not 1 day. In 3 months, a ftr can go around the world. These units are not single ftrs but squadrons. The range is how far the entire squadron can fly missions and project power over the 3-6 month term.When you are based at a fully functional airport with supplies, the squadron can effectively project power over a larger range. Thus the added movement bonus completely makes sense to me.
Similar arguments are made for fleets of ships.
Agree. Its based on time frame that’s why they can make it that far based on turn times. LOL We have planes flying 4 (carriers), 5, 6 and 7 before AB +1 and bonus plus +1 tech. lol But we have this based on time frame and how thousands of planes were shot down, crashed or were lost. Also depends on how many sea zones you have.
At least in my game there is a lot of islands you can’t hit in 1 turn unless your maxed out in movement. W E works great in game if you want all action plus DF and ship AA. -
You do realize the US did exactly what you said, right?
But Stalin was like “no”, so the US had to find an alternate way of bombing Japan, and that’s by fighting through a lot of islands to get to Guam
The US certainly wanted to be able to use Soviet Far East bases to bomb Japan.
-
@shadowhawk
Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about real life and not the game. -
Germany still needs submarines in this game because, while aircraft can do a lot, they can’t attack those little convoys.
Only naval units can do that.
-
@shadowhawk stop arguing about this from a purely historical perspective - it’s a game first and foremost and doesn’t accurately depict history nor is it supposed to!
-
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.
-
-
I mean, I see it as being supposed to be an accurate historical simulator. You might say I’ve deluded myself over it.
-
Depressingly it would be accurate for the US to take two turns to get to Africa because Operation Torch was 1942.
However, the delay could be a case of the US preparing and building up forces rather than it actually taking a year to travel from North America to Africa.
So the game could srill be accurate.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato it’s really not though.
-
Agreed. What is “WE”?
-
Again, I’m delusional.
-
@SuperbattleshipYamato yeah but a whole turn to move ships only 2/3 across the Atlantic would make america less enjoyable. Some maps only had 2 spaces between east US and africa.
-
@Manzgame oh it would make America unplayable completely.
-
Those games had no naval bases (pretty sure you already knew that, but…).
As I said, it’s probably fine that US ships can move from Eastern United States to Morocco in one turn, because the US spent most of early 1942 building up men, not sailing across the Atlantic.
And others have already given explanations for naval bases.
-
Definitely.
Suggested Topics
