Why fuel burn is back to 2 ?

[Replicant]

Will AH2: TOD have the same burn ratio as AH2: Classic?  Can Classic be set to the current AH1: MA settings and AH2: TOD be the x2 burn?

Karnak wrote:
My only problem with P-51s and other long range aircraft taking 25%+DTs is this:

A Spitfire Mk IX or Bf109G-10 and a P-51D are on climbout. The Spit/109 has 100% fuel+DT and the P-51D has 25% fuel+DT. During the climbout they meet an unexpected raid and both aircraft drop tanks. Now the Spit/109 is at a fully laden 100% internal fuel load and the P-51 is at a light 25% fuel load. That is a combat advantage that never would have happened as DTs never would have been used without maxing out the internal capacity.

It is fine to offer less than 100% fuel loads and it is mostly fine (except for altitude) to have FBM of 2, but the long range aircraft should suffer their penalties right along side the short ranged fighters. They should not be able to dump DTs in an unexpected combat situation and find themselves in an extremely light configuration where the short ranged fighters cannot do so.

I very much agree with this.  Reality doesn't work here since a P51 in WW2 would not be carrying 25% fuel; it would most likely be carrying 100% with DTs, yet in AH it will have the advantage of being able to load DTs and only 25% fuel and still have more range than other thirsty aircraft.

If DTs are to be used then the aircraft must be loaded with 100% fuel.

Obviously my main concern is the Typhoon.  This is about the only plane I really enjoy flying and if we get terrains where the nearest field is more than 35 - 40 miles away (and at alt) and I want to fly as a Jabo then it's hardly worth flying at all since I doubt I'd RTB.  Like Straffo I'm only really interested in 2 TAF (RAF) aircraft and that only leaves the Typhoon and the Mosquito.  The RAF have already been penalised in having the Spit14 (supposedly equivalent to P51D and 190D9, but hey the Spit isn't American or German right?) and Tempest perked so what's left?  I only really fly Jabo sorties and carrying bombs is going to make the plane use more fuel if flying to a suitable altitude (mostly because the terrains are unrealistically too high - an airfield at 500ft ASL in WW2 was high!!).

[Batz]

Originally posted by Virage
I am saying that the fuel mod in AH2 set at 2 is better ( longer duration)  than the fuel mod in AH1 set at 1.5 for the 109g6.

AH1 @ 100% = 25 min @ 1.5

AH2 @ 100% = 30 min @ 2.0 ( on deck)

I don't know what you are complaining about.

Non-sense, the 109g6 gets 25 min of fuel in AH1 at with the fuel mod at 2, not 1.5. You can test this yourself.



There were a host of fuel consumption issues in AH1, the 109s were one and the la7, as Tilt points out, was another. The Ju88 is yet another.

I don’t fly in the AH1 main because of fuel issues. Mostly because of fuel porking... I have made similar posts about the fuel mod in AH1 saying it should at least be set to 1 on large maps. I even said that in AH1 all planes should up with 100% fuel at minimum.

So don’t act like this is a recent issue, it’s been long standing. It appears that HT has addressed the consumption issues in AH2.

Now this thread is about AH2 and what the fuel mod should be. I didn't start this thread or even reply until 2 pages in.

Complaints? I stated my reasons for wanting a lower fuel mod. If you don’t like that that put me on your ignore list.

[Batz]

since some designers never bothered to leave some room for fuel in their planes, to make them playable in AH, we do have to go easy on the fuel burn rate. So in order to enable the to participate in a 2 sector radius fights I think the modifier SHOULD be slightly less than 2, but over 1.5 to represent the limitations.
how does 1.75 sound?

Still better then 2

Its up to HT though....

[Edbert]

Originally posted by Batz
I don’t fly in the AH1 main because of fuel issues. Mostly because of fuel porking...  

I agree with you completely there Batz (although I do still log 99% of my time in the MA), the fuel porking thing is WAAAAY outta hand. What does the burn rate matter if all bases within 3 sectors of your enemy are down to 25%? Even the Pony cannot up, fight, and hope to RTB with that crazyness. Some times the pork-potatos don;t seem to out in too much force, other times one must decide to switch countries or log off it is so bad.

Since this is the AH2 section lets figure out away to ameliorize this aspect of the gameplay. Are the fuel bunkers going to be hardened or anything? Any talk about limiting the porkability to 50% or so?

[6GunUSMC]

Originally posted by Pyro
we don't want people to have to fly for an hour or more just to get into a fight.

Then build maps with bases closer together...  I predict a LOT of pony raids with this setup - In fact, I witnessed a few yesterday.

[Pyro]

Originally posted by Edbert MOL
Since this is the AH2 section lets figure out away to ameliorize this aspect of the gameplay. Are the fuel bunkers going to be hardened or anything? Any talk about limiting the porkability to 50% or so?

Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base.  No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.

[Batz]

Great news...

Thanks Pyro!!!!

[Virage]

Originally posted by Batz
Non-sense, the 109g6 gets 25 min of fuel in AH1 at with the fuel mod at 2, not 1.5. You can test this yourself.
[

I thought AH1 was 1.5.. my bad.  But the durations are as I listed.

Doesn't change my point that in AH2 you have a longer duration for the g6 than in AH1.

[Pyro]

Originally posted by Karnak
My only problem with P-51s and other long range aircraft taking 25%+DTs is this:

A Spitfire Mk IX or Bf109G-10 and a P-51D are on climbout.  The Spit/109 has 100% fuel+DT and the P-51D has 25% fuel+DT.  During the climbout they meet an unexpected raid and both aircraft drop tanks.  Now the Spit/109 is at a fully laden 100% internal fuel load and the P-51 is at a light 25% fuel load.  That is a combat advantage that never would have happened as DTs never would have been used without maxing out the internal capacity.

This scenario keeps being brought up, but I think it's not the issue it is purported to be.  You're saying the P-51 has a combat advantage.  I don't see it that way.  I would take the Spit or 109 in the above example.  Here's why.

Let's say this dance takes place at and around 10k.  When the 51 discards his tank, at 25% he's left with 62 gallons of fuel.  With a 2x multiplier at 10k, his 5 minutes of wep will burn 34 gallons leaving him with 28 gallons which equals 5 minutes of military power until he is a glider.

I find it ironic that people can look at a flight profile of an interceptor that is limited to short amount of combat like that before he is forced to RTB as a big disadvantage and then turn around and say it's a big advantage for the P-51 to limit itself in a worse way that doesn't leave him with any gas for the return trip.

Also, a P-51 would never enter combat at 100% internal fuel, even when carrying drop tanks.  In a max fuel loadout on the P-51, the aux tank would be drained before the drop tanks.

[straffo]

Originally posted by Pyro
Yeah, we are going to limit the amount of fuel porkage that can be inflicted on a base.  No DT's and 75% fuel will be the most that fuel supplies will be limited to.

Very good news !

It's enought to please me, my beloved Yak won't be anymore a hangar queen.

[F4UDOA]

Karnak,

Your point about the combat advantage for the P-51 over a Spit IX or 109G-10 is actually not an advatage at all but an evening of the playing field that was unrealistic in AH1.

Consider this.

25% fuel

P-51D
Gallons 269 total
67.25 gallons at 25%

Spit IX
Gallons 102 total
25.5 at 25%

BF109-G10
Gallons 106
26.5 at 25%

So why should the P-51D be penalized bacause it has a higher fuel capacity?

All three A/C have similar engines and fuel consumption it so happens the P-51 is larger with large wet wings.

Giving the same duration of flight is penalizing the P-51 and eliminating it's historic advantage.

Besides, even at 25% fuel it carrys more weight than either of the short legged A/C. The P-51's advantage would be even more significant if we had a slider bar instead of a  fixed percent selection.

[straffo]

Originally posted by F4UDOA
So why should the P-51D be penalized bacause it has a higher fuel capacity?

Because it has an highter fuel capacity.

Your historic advantage is an inconvenient when fighting at short range.

Actually it's not .

And worst it has been transformed in an advantage compared to plane that should be avantaged because of their short range.

Don't forget your are not fling over the Reich you are flying over the MA.

[F4UDOA]

Because it has an highter fuel capacity.

Your historic advantage is an inconvenient when fighting at short range.

Actually it's not .

And worst it has been transformed in an advantage compared to plane that should be avantaged because of their short range.

Don't forget your are not fling over the Reich you are flying over the MA.

Actually straffo you have got that backwards.

Three things.

1. The P-51D had the historic advantage. Not the Spitfire or 109.

2. The P-51D had a higher fuel CAPACITY not penalty. There was nothing that said this Airplane can't takeoff with less than a full tank. How much fuel do you think the P-51D took of with when flying from bases in France? Maybe we should make it carry DT's all the time too?  Should the 109 always fly on fumes like the BoB?

3. When the P-51D was fighting at close range why would ground crew fill it to the top? What weight was the P-51D fighting at by the time it reached combat? Less than 100% I bet.

The bottom line is that the P-51D had the historic advantage. Turing that into a disadvantage for gameplay reasons is "Gamey".

Saying the P-51 should fly heavy because it did so for long missions is like saying that the P-51 should also have an altitude advantage because it always arrived at 30,000FT.

[Batz]

The p51 pilot can fly around in the main until he burns some fuel off, just like they did in rl...

The guy with more fuel can decide for himself when he wants to fight, his combat time isnt adversly impacted by a fuel mod. A yak cant cram more gas in, but a 51 can fly around and burn it off.

See the difference there? Its up to the 51 piltot to decide when he wants to engage....

Also the main is "gamey" after all its a "game". WW2 isnt being fought in the main....

Time to alt is a factor as well, a 109, spit etc burn more fuel with a fuel mod  to get to alt... Planes with a large fuel capacity don't suffer to the same degree....

[GScholz]

Even when flying from bases in France the Ponies would be fully fueled up (perhaps with the exception of the aux tank). I don't think ANY fighter took off without a full tank of gas.

The 109E does fly on fumes in AH.

The point that is being discussed (on the P-51) is that it is extremely "gamey" to bring DTs along while not having a full internal tank. In the MA the Pony driver should of course be allowed to bring less fuel along, as should anyone, but not with DT's.