Wow. Never thought of that

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.. )

.. 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.

Ferry flights are available on CoN.

....and at ferry-flights.come ...

......................................................................................

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.

Your idea seems realistic and logical enough, and I agree with it

Agree ... My unit mix would be approximately 80% ground units (LT's, Infantry, Artillery, etc.), 10% Navy (about 1/2 destroyers, 1/2 capital ships) and 10% air units (60% bombers, 40% fighters) ...

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.

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.