Aircraft Movement - One way Trips

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Aircraft Movement - One way Trips

      Illustration

      A--------------------B--------------------C


      Point "B" is exactly in the middle of line AC. Same distance from AB as it is from BC.

      If an aircraft has enough fuel to travel AB, than travel BA to finish its trip, Why can it NOT travel AB.. then BC on the way back, since it's the same distance.

      Reason for this proposal.

      During WWII, by 1941, first trans-Atlantic transfers of US made aircraft were arriving in UK. The flights were one way and became the standard way to move aircraft from North America to Europe.

      This was no insignificant event, as it kept these aircraft safe from danger of U-Boat action in the Atlantic.

      Proposal
      Aircraft be able to perform a "One Way Movement" action, which allows it to travel 175% of it's Attack Range in a single direction if it has landing facilities available when it takes off. This action could not be used with Carriers to neither start or finish the manoeuvre. No actions can be performed mid-way on this trip such as Attack or Patrol, it must be started as a one way trip and end at destination. if the end destination is captured, the aircraft is lost as it has no place to land.

      Also the 100 map would need to accommodate such flights, be they direct or with stops in Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland then UK.

      If you can (100 map) travel through Siberia and the Amazon Rain-forest (which were impassable in the 1940's, you should be able to ferry aircraft over the Atlantic which was actually being done very early in the war)
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      Illustration

      A--------------------B--------------------C


      Point "B" is exactly in the middle of line AC. Same distance from AB as it is from BC.

      If an aircraft has enough fuel to travel AB, than travel BA to finish its trip, Why can it NOT travel AB.. then BC on the way back, since it's the same distance.

      Reason for this proposal.

      During WWII, by 1941, first trans-Atlantic transfers of US made aircraft were arriving in UK. The flights were one way and became the standard way to move aircraft from North America to Europe.

      This was no insignificant event, as it kept these aircraft safe from danger of U-Boat action in the Atlantic.

      Proposal
      Aircraft be able to perform a "One Way Movement" action, which allows it to travel 175% of it's Attack Range in a single direction if it has landing facilities available when it takes off. This action could not be used with Carriers to neither start or finish the manoeuvre. No actions can be performed mid-way on this trip such as Attack or Patrol, it must be started as a one way trip and end at destination. if the end destination is captured, the aircraft is lost as it has no place to land.

      Also the 100 map would need to accommodate such flights, be they direct or with stops in Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland then UK.

      If you can (100 map) travel through Siberia and the Amazon Rain-forest (which were impassable in the 1940's, you should be able to ferry aircraft over the Atlantic which was actually being done very early in the war)
      Wow. Never thought of that
      Ryan
      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum Lieutenant General
      Training Alliance Leader
    • Right, "Aircraft Movement - One way Trips" would be realistic, and has already been discussed many times before, but it would not match with other relations in this game, would make planes too superior on the map.

      If you were to double the range for relocation flights, then even interceptors level 1 could already reach airports which currently only reachable at level 6, and for bombers even more distant airports would be reachable -- .. and from there, they might attack then in usual range.

      As said, on one hand it's realistic and saves a lot of airports or carrier (respectively the cost of their construction -- and also the respective time required for refueling there) ..
      .. but more, and that's bad for the balance >> even planes on lowest level and already in the early game might reach provinces by flying, for which they should not yet be able to do due their level and the general progress in the game ..
      (..bad for the balance of the original strategic long-term game -- but maybe, by the already occurring transformation to a hit and run action shooter it may not matter at all.. :rolleyes: )

      .. so it would mean a massive intervention in the game balance especially of early maps (would cancel the "time-brake") >> while e.g. everything around is still on the lowest level planes at level 1 would have a mobility as level 6 planes has it now.

      Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money -
      - more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game sometimes.
      So beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps. :00008185:
      Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :whistling:
    • Restrisiko wrote:

      Right, "Aircraft Movement - One way Trips" would be realistic, and has already been discussed many times before, but it would not match with other relations in this game, would make planes too superior on the map.
      I agree, I was thinking of this subject just the other day. I feel the planes should have the double range with one way travel. But, as one who likes to use air power, it would just be too overpowering.
      Save the goldfish! They need your help! Goldfish are trapped in small bowls all across the globe!
    • I guess it goes without saying that Air Power IS OP in Real Life....

      WWI saw the battle lines stagnate to the tune of months and years with men sitting within spitting distance of each other.

      By WWII.... there was not a single trench dug since it would make a perfect beacon for aircraft to make firing runs into gutters packed with bodies...

      They did change the war... and to date... I've not had any difficulty wiping out an opponents who failed to use Air Power in their unit mix.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"
    • I presented this logical concept of "one way air travel') as a question when first learning the game (attempting to understand the ovals) as it only makes sense that if a plane is stationed @ point A and is capable of flying to point B and then back to point A that the same amount of fuel should allow the plane to fly in a single direction from point A to point C.

      This logical thought process was reached well before I was ever able to actually utilize a plane for offensive purposes - lol. It simply only makes sense.

      The replies received when asking this question (more than once - lol) were less than satisfying for my logic-based brain, but helpful in that they clarified how to plan for their use once I learned better how to operate them and what would be needed in order to utilize the planes at the front (number of AB's required to get there).

      I agree that in Version 1.0, the ability to have "one way travel" would allow for planes to arrive to the front much more quickly and therefore have a much larger impact on the game than they already have.

      However, the counter to air power is AA, which imho is always underdeveloped by most players in early game as the emphasis seems to always be on armored units (for the newbies and less experienced players - that is).

      The simplest solution(s) to resolve the argument of too much early game influence of air power because of "early deployment" of air power (ability to travel further distances) would seem to be to just increase the defensive strength and travel speed of basic AA (higher speeds for all infantry units might be interesting to consider) and also provide for an earlier availability of SP AA.

      For strategic bombers, the one way travel distance to the front could be balanced by decreasing their overall strength (HP's) from their currently very high total number of HP's to a very low number of HP's making them much more fragile to operate. The damage to an urban area could be increased to continue to make their use (and short term life span) attractive while making their production cost significant so as to slow down an early deployment to the front. As well, research timelines / availability could also be adjusted.

      In version 1.5, where early air power has been neutered completely, what with the one hour refueling requirements (for lower level planes) combined with the short distances of air travel capability, changing to the "one way travel" concept would be a nice way to create a more balanced approach to the game mechanics and might (again) result in the need for an investment in AA by players which I did not see much of at all in the V1.5 Event games.

      Having participated in three V1.5 games, I can say for certain that the ability to utilize air power when invading another continent has basically been eliminated because of both the ridiculously long refueling requirements (for lower level planes) and the requirement to have to construct all new aircraft production facilities (including upgrading for each additional level).

      When making preparations for invading a country utilizing (very heavily) RRG's, when considering what units would be best to counter with, ACC's with high level air power combined with higher speed armored units (and/or mechanized infantry units) seemed like an effective way to deal with the long range ability of the RRG's.

      However, because of the long travel time to bring (resupply) the higher level planes carried on the ACC's, and had the defender included any significant amount of AA within the RRG's stacks; the lower level air power I was able to construct after successfully landing and creating a beach head by capturing an urban area would never have been capable of defeating the RRG's.

      And (getting back on topic now) the number of AB's that were required to be built due to the smaller travel range of the lower level planes I was able to get constructed would have been significantly less than what I actually had to develop.

      All in all, I support the argument for "one way air travel" to be more thoroughly evaluated by the Dev Team as they move forward with implementation of future changes for both Version 1.0 and Version 1.5.
      wb

      The post was edited 1 time, last by white bird: Correct typos. ().

    • white bird wrote:

      The simplest solution(s) to resolve the argument of too much early game influence of air power because of "early deployment" of air power (ability to travel further distances) would seem to be to just increase the defensive strength and travel speed of basic AA (higher speeds for all infantry units might be interesting to consider) and also provide for an earlier availability of SP AA.
      I'd say that the simplest solution would be to make this "special ability" available ONLY to aircraft at Lvl 4. if landing on Carriers can't be done till Lvl 4 is researched, why can't this "Long Range Move" maneuver not become available until then as well?

      Solves all the Day 1 OP concerns and has the bonus of being historically accurate. First trans Atlantic ferrying of military aircraft did not begin till 1941. So approx 2 years into the war. Lvl 4 TB's become available on Day 12, that's almost half way through the tech tree (which is accurate as most games I've played are over by day 30.. though won the last one on Day 18)
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

      The post was edited 1 time, last by OneNutSquirrel ().

    • white bird wrote:

      The simplest solution(s) to resolve the argument of too much early game influence of air power because of "early deployment" of air power (ability to travel further distances) would seem to be to just increase the defensive strength and travel speed of basic AA (higher speeds for all infantry units might be interesting to consider) and also provide for an earlier availability of SP AA.
      No. The simplest solution if wanting to implement a higher range of planes for relocating than for attacking/patrolling without messing up the (in CoW1.0 perfect) balance between air and ground units is to at the same time reduce their effective combat range.
      Like:
      * Range for attacking or patrolling: 85% of what it is now.
      * Range for the new order "relocate": 170% of what it is now.


      P.S.: @Restrisiko is right this has already been discussed several times, for example in --> this thread <--.
      Just as a reminder for all of us: Before opening a new thread, we should first search whether another one on the topic already exists.