Fuel Multiplier.. is it neccesary? Why? Why not?

[Fishu]

Checked those values in MA.. all were 0  
(do I believe? nah..)

[-lazs-]

Well.. I don't know how much of an advantage long range planes should have in AH but it should be something.   In the War long range fighters played a huge role.   One of the reasons Japan was able to do so well in the beggining and hold on so long was, the range of it's planes.   The reason the LW was  destroyed was that they were relegated to a defensive role against the bombers who in turn, were only able to exist because of long range fighters.  

Still... The way AH is set up now, fast climbing planes which are also typically, short ranged, gain a huge advantage fuel wise.   Also.. if there were no multiplier.. when a base was down to 25%, a 1300 lb lighter Corsair or Hellccat might be the only viable plane anyway.   As for drop tanks... If they had em let em have em in the game.  I don't use em.   i fly the short ranged fighters for close fields and field defense and the long range ones for longer operations.   Seems about right to me.
lazs

[straffo]

 

Originally posted by -lazs-:
Well.. I don't know how much of an advantage long range planes should have in AH but it should be something.   In the War long range fighters played a huge role.   One of the reasons Japan was able to do so well in the beggining and hold on so long was, the range of it's planes.   The reason the LW was  destroyed was that they were relegated to a defensive role against the bombers who in turn, were only able to exist because of long range fighters.  

Still... The way AH is set up now, fast climbing planes which are also typically, short ranged, gain a huge advantage fuel wise.   Also.. if there were no multiplier.. when a base was down to 25%, a 1300 lb lighter Corsair or Hellccat might be the only viable plane anyway.   As for drop tanks... If they had em let em have em in the game.  I don't use em.   i fly the short ranged fighters for close fields and field defense and the long range ones for longer operations.   Seems about right to me.
lazs

Have you ever heard of another front line ?
You know between German and Russian ?

There was not need for longe range fighter like the P51 in this kind of battle.

And I strongly  doubt the P47 were doing jabo with drop tank (except with Napalm  )
near the frontline.

Frankly I think that the fuel multiplier is just a little high I don't pretend we need to be on a 1/1 ratio but more an 3/2 ratio but certainly not a 5/2...

You said realism ?DROP TANK for the Typhoon ...  

[Vermillion]

Dowding, the MA fuel burn is set to 2.5

The MED SEA when setup for Afrika Corps, is set to 1.8

Its an illusion that the Tiffie has more range in the MA.

Why? You ask.

The MED SEA is 4 times larger than the MA, in square area, and 2 times larger linearly. When looking at the map, it looks like you are going the same distance as in the MA, but actually you are going linearly twice the distance.

Hence the illusion.

Sector distance is the same from arena to arena, so count the sector distance for a comparable result.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

[Fishu]

Fuel multiplier will be a squeak when and if we get jets...
Those german jets likes to eat gas from their underrated tanks  

[Dowding]

Aaaaaaaah!

Thanks Vermillion - should have thought of that.  

[lazs]

straffo.... the reason that the rooskies could even have fighter planes in the "front" was because their factories were out of range of german ac.   If anything, the Eastern front proves that short ranged fighters are indeed short sighted and viable only if the enemy is equally short sighted.
lazs

[funked]

Wow Lazs are you that ignorant of anything outside of the Pacific Theatrer?  

What the Eastern Front proves is that tactical air power can be a critical factor in a ground campaign.

And in the West, the German factories kept on increasing production despite the bombing campaign waged by the poor 8th AF.  But their products couldn't get to the front because of marauding "short range" 9th AF and 2nd TAF aircraft which made road and rail transport a nightmare.

The impact of "strategic bombing" aka terror bombing of the Reich is vastly overrated.  The only clear victory for this camapaign was that the 8th AF was able to force the Jagdwaffe into a war of attrition against a foe which was willing and able to sustain horrific losses.

[-lazs-]

funked.. I think you are discounting the very real affect that long range (daytime) bombing had on the LW.   short ranged planes climbing up (they didn't have the range to loiter) to intercept ESCORTED bomber formations.

  Before you throw the word "ignorant" around I think you should look at how poorly the LW did aginst said escorts and what their losses were.  Shooting up supply lines would not be possible without the long range campaign.   Perhaps, even the D day invasion would have turned out differently.

I think that long range bombing in Russia would have had a simular effect.   Stalin was scum just like hitler but... He would not have just let his cities (and factories) be bombed without attacking those formations and therefore tying up (and losing) his fighters.

Oh... while fighter production did continue in germany it did not continue at the rate that it would have and the PILOT loses were devestating.   The escorted long range bombing killed off the LW.   It even caused them to stike out desperately with everything they had at the (pitiful) extreme of their range.   Russia would have fared no better in such a situation.  

 I may indeed be "ignorant" but if I ever had to face an enemy in an air war I would hope that he embraced your ideas of short ranged tactical strikes.
lazs

[straffo]

Lazs I think we can agree on the fact that we can't agree ...

AH is based on somes compromises for
playability, and as the prime market is the US (ask HTC how many customer they have outside USA) so I think the compromise is more US plane friendly ...

BTW I've perhaps asked before ?   DROP TANK for the Typhoon !

[funked]

Well maybe ignorant is a strong term, but if I ever have to face an enemy in an air war, I would hope that he throws away 20,000 aircrew just to kill some civilians.

[-lazs-]

Well funked... your last statement may be a tad harsh and.... simplistic.   I doubt that you would like to face around the clock bombing.   Certainly tho, you would have the option of ignoring it.  It does seem odd tho that unmolested (and backward) Soviet factories produced more artillery, aircraft, and tanks by '43 than germany did with 4 times the steel.   The ratio just got worse as the war went on.

Long range had it's advantages.   I believe that AH has set it self up in a time period where those advantages should be apparent.   It has and they are....  The way it is set up is a comprimise but what in AH isn't?

Still... It wouldn't be bad if the multiplier were less and all the U.S. planes could then take off with 10% fuel and a drop tank and weigh 3/4 of a ton less than fully fueled... Also, with the silly pinpoint bombing of airfields...  "you may only take 25% fuel" would be no hindrance at all to the long range planes, in fact...   Long range bombers and long range planes might then become the only planes available/usable unless a country was dilligent in killing all the suicide bombers.  
lazs