Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense

@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.

@shadowhawk

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.

@shadowhawk

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!

@shadowhawk

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.

@AndrewAAGamer

👍👍

@TheVeteran

I mean, I see it as being supposed to be an accurate historical simulator. You might say I’ve deluded myself over it.

@Manzgame

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.

@General-6-Stars

Agreed. What is “WE”?

@TheVeteran

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.

@Manzgame

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.

@TheVeteran

Definitely.

@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.

@TheVeteran

Exactly.