Author Topic: A fuel attrition model that reduces pork but retains attrition.  (Read 268 times)

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
A fuel attrition model that reduces pork but retains attrition.
« on: December 07, 2003, 12:04:02 PM »
Have described this elsewhere but the following puts some maths against it.

The following equation

FR^3/250+50

(Where FR is the % of fuel stores still available at a field)

provides a hyperbolic curve from 4050 gallons per plane (@100% field fuel) to a minimum of 50 gallons per plane(@ 0% field fuel).

Ideally the field would have many fuel objects and these via the above equation would provide a hyperbolic sliding scale of fuel available per AC per ride from 50 to 4050 gallons.

I have put all this on a spread sheet but looking at a few sample AC we see the following.

Basically the quantity of fuel per ride is calculated from the above and then this is expressed as a % of the rides maximum fuel capacity.

Taking the current 25/50/75/100/125 (125 for DT's) we can show what level of field fuel would allow the above.

For B17's the 25/50/75/100 is at 55/70/80/87 % field fuel.
For F4U-1D's the 25/50/75/100/125 is at 15/27/32/37/40 % field fuel.
For the FM2 the 25/50/75/100/125 is at 0/17/24/29/32 % field fuel.
For the P38 the 25/50/75/100/125 is at 24/34/40/45/48 % field fuel.
For the P51D the 25/50/75/100/125 is at 16/27/34/37/41 % field fuel.
For the Spit9 the 25/50/75/100/125 is at 0/17/23/27/32 % field fuel.
For the La7 the 25/50/75/100is at 0/14/22/26% field fuel.
For the Bf109G10  the 25/50/75/100/125 is at 0/10/19/24/27 % field fuel.
For the B26 B the 25/50/75/100 is at 36/47/55/62 % field fuel.


Effectively fuel attrition kicks in for different air craft based upon their varying fuel capacities........

hence each ac may use upto a calculated maximum of gallons per flight if it has the capacity to do so. ie fuel is shared out equally expressed in gallons instead of %'s

generally attrition starts to kick in...........

heavy bombers @ circa  85/87% field fuel

medium bombers @ circa 60/70% field fuel

heavy fighters @ circa  45/50% field fuel (with DT's)

light fighters @ circa 20/25% field fuel (no DT's)


Porking fields now has a much more adverse effect on thirsty large bombers.

I have chosen the 4050 to 50 gals curve because it seemed right to me.

A more aggressive curve is generated by

FR^3/350+50

Which gives a range of 2900 to 50 gallons hence

heavy bombers @ circa  95/98% field fuel

medium bombers @ circa 65/70% field fuel

heavy fighters @ circa  50/55% field fuel (with DT's)

light fighters @ circa 15/20% field fuel (no DT's)
Ludere Vincere

Offline Tarmac

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3988
A fuel attrition model that reduces pork but retains attrition.
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2003, 02:37:29 PM »
I'd love to see fuel porkage based on gallons, not percents.  Bombers that carry a thousand gallons of fuel should suffer from porked fuel more than a fighter that carries a hundred.  

nice plan.  got the math and all!

Offline meddog

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
A fuel attrition model that reduces pork but retains attrition.
« Reply #2 on: December 08, 2003, 09:56:50 AM »
I would like to see something in the neighborhood of a specific fixed amount of fuel and ordinance that would be decreased with usage.  For example a small base is supplied with a total of 1000 1k bombs.  If some one ups a flight of lancasters with a bomb load of 14 1k bombs then the total amount of 1k bombs available for some one else to use is reduced by 42 (14 x 3) for a total of 958  and so on. Once the the supply of 1k bombs reaches zero either through usage or destroyed by the enemy, than 1k bombs would become unavailable until resupplied but you still may be able to load 500 or 25o lbs bombs.  If a plane lands or rearms with surplus ordinance and/or fuel, those supplies would be added back into their respective total supply.  So, if that same flight of lancasters land with 7 1k bombs on board for a total of 21 (7x3) those 21 1k bombs would be added back in to the total supply increasing the total amount available to 979.   You could have seperate ammo bunkers that house each weight of bombs and rockets.  May be for a small airfield, 2 bunkers  for each bomb weight (each bunker housing 50% of total amount available for that wieght) and the game would only take from 1 bunker at a time until exhuasted then, take from the other bunker. In this case if the enemy comes to pork the ord, they only reduce the total availble amount buy what was stored in that particlur bunker at the time that bunker was destoryed.  The larger the base, the more total supplies available for use and the more bunkers needed to house them. I wonder if something can be done to increase the importance or the need of manual resupply.  I would also like to see MG, Cannon, HE and AP rounds have a limit as well along with the ability to have those bunkers destroyed too.  And for those that have complained that bases are too easy to pork,  with nearly 20 ammo bunkers at a small field this would increase the difficulty of base porking dramtically.  I dont know just a thought
« Last Edit: December 08, 2003, 09:59:58 AM by meddog »
Yes I know I suck, other wise youuuuu would be dead so stop bragging.

Offline Tilt

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
      • FullTilt
A fuel attrition model that reduces pork but retains attrition.
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2003, 10:33:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by meddog
I would like to see something in the neighborhood of a specific fixed amount of fuel and ordinance that would be decreased with usage.  


Its a truer logistical model......unfortunatly those maths (and the data tables) would have to reside on the server for every base. (as object/building damage does now) and HTC dont seem to like increasing the server load.

Plus interms of MA game play a base defence could be ruined by some silly players wasting the resources.............. which would induce(even more) green channel whinning and arguements.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2003, 10:36:55 AM by Tilt »
Ludere Vincere