Bonus Movement is Unrealistic Nonsense

@polishpowerhouse

That is a great way to look at it. A fleet at sea or away from a fueling base has to rendezvous with a fuel tanker to refuel before moving full range. That rendezvous will cost the fleet time and fuel.

Meanwhile, a fleet departing from a naval base could be accompanied by a fuel tanker. Part way through your turn, the fuel tanker itself will need to head back to base to refuel that giant tank, but the fleet can continue on with the fuel it got from the tanker.

There wasn’t an option for refueling planes mid-air in the 40’s, but an airbase would have the resources and trained personnel to outfit your plane with one of these:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tank#:~:text=In aviation%2C a drop tank,often capable of being jettisoned.

Not to mention, as polishpowerhouse points out, taking off from dirt track is not the same as a proper airfield.

The shorter and less refined your runway, the more you’ll have to lean on the throttle to hit the speed you need for takeoff. The more you lean on the throttle, the more fuel you’re burning just to take off.

He gone !

@general-6-stars

Considering Poptech’s behavior I wouldn’t be surprised if they were banned.

@superbattleshipyamato lol

@Poptech

Thanks for letting me know.

In my view, we already gave numerous possible reasons, and I consider most of them valid.

It’s your problem if you don’t think they are valid.

Plus, who decides what is valid? What is the criteria? You?

“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???

@Imperious-Leader

:+1: :+1:

@Imperious-Leader

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

@Poptech

This is the center of logistical support in the Carolines:

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

@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.

@PizzaPete

Agreed 100%. 👍👍👍👍👍

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

@Imperious-Leader

Yes, we should.

@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.

@TheVeteran

Agreed.

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

@Imperious-Leader

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

@TheVeteran

We have a case of mistaken identity then.