Author Topic: Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)  (Read 3430 times)

Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #105 on: July 22, 2004, 09:13:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by phookat
We are now talking about a defensive fuel pork.  Are we agreed then that offensive fuel porking is not a good thing?

As far as defensive porking...see my response above.  Porking is not a good solution to hordes, because it has other bad effects.



   Oh yes, we can agree that offensive porking is just plain stupid.
Definately agree withyou there.

   I still have to disagree on defesive porking though.  It can or did shut down fronts and eliminated alot of agression.  Defensively it can be quite effective IMO.

Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #106 on: July 22, 2004, 09:16:16 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
Well then.  I doubt I would get many.  It seemed that the Yak-9U had 9 minutes of fuel using max cruise settings after taking off with 25%.

If I found a base that I could fly down from to get to an enemy base, I might get some.  There are bases like that on AKDesert, but that is kinda gaming the test.  Assuming bases at equal altitude with no mountain in the way and 25 miles between them I think I might get a drone or three, but there is no way I'd make it back.  There is also a decent chance that at those power settings I'd be slow enough not to get any.



Bear in mind that 25% now is actually 33% less than what it use to be.  Try it at 50%, what do you think?

Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #107 on: July 22, 2004, 09:21:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
For those of you fixated on the idea that the strat model used to be more realistic, answer this.  What part of kamikaze 'Stangs and Tiffes destroying an entire front's fuel was realistic?


Thousands of heavy bombers hitting the real vulnerable points, production and mass storage, had vastly less effect that a few dozen suicide 'Stangs and Tiffies had in AH1.

Have you guys actually ever spent time in AH1 on anti-Diver patrol?  I have.  It is tedious and if the guy(s) doing it are at all skilled it is almost impossible to stop.  Even another P-51D has an extremely difficult time intercepting a Diver.  Futher, the resourses dedicated to anti-Diver patrols need to be at a minimum three pilots for ever Kamikaze pilot.  One on one it is too easy for the Kamikaze to avoid.

   Bluntly, the affect was far, far beyond reasonable for the ammount of effort it took to accomplish.



  The key to anti diver patrol is do not sit over the base you are protecting, you need to intersept them before they get there.  A light p51D should be allover a heavy P51D.  You can almost never succesfull defend a place from being destroyed by being at thte location of that place.  If you intercept them even 10 miles out.  even numbers, its either going to be easy pickens or they will have to drop thier load, either way, defense successful.

Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #108 on: July 22, 2004, 09:26:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
Yup. 100% agree,



Me too,

No one has commented on change though.  

Here is an example, right now you can ake a field down to 75%, and it is still fairly easy.  I think maybe adding one or two more fuel cells to an air field to get that effect would be good.  Further more, I think if you hit the refinery that supplied the air field it should drop it 25% from whatever it is currently at.   That means if you leveled the refinery and hit some 6 - 10 fuel cells (Depending on the size of base)   It should drop fuel to 50%.  I do agree that 25% with the new model is to low.  Make sense?

Any thoughts?

Any one?

Offline phookat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #109 on: July 23, 2004, 01:36:50 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
Oh yes, we can agree that offensive porking is just plain stupid.
Definately agree withyou there.


OK, that's cool.

Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
I still have to disagree on defesive porking though.  It can or did shut down fronts and eliminated alot of agression.  Defensively it can be quite effective IMO.


Well, see there's the problem.  You can't have one without the other.  If you have fuel porking, it will be available for both offense and defense (and practically will be used for offense more often).  Hence my comment--pork is not a good solution to this problem.

You bring up the point that porking shuts down the front.  Once again, I see this as a bad thing from both an a2a and strat point of view.  Defensively, isn't it more fun to fight the horde than to have no enemies at all?

I guess what I don't see is where the satisfaction is in porking fuel.  From a strategic perspective, porking is not an intellectually demanding task--we're not talking chess here, right?  If the fuel is there, pork it...that's about it.  And now you don't have to worry about attacks from this sector.  OK, fine, but this is really pretty simple as far as strategy goes, and I don't see how you can feel a sense of accomplishment of defeating the enemy with this.

Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #110 on: July 23, 2004, 09:50:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by phookat
OK, that's cool.

 

Well, see there's the problem.  You can't have one without the other.  If you have fuel porking, it will be available for both offense and defense (and practically will be used for offense more often).  Hence my comment--pork is not a good solution to this problem.



Unless it is done at multiple air fields in a large area it is ineffective on the attack.  WHen a field is under pressure you rarely launch from the field under attack and expect to get to alt.  Usually you luanch from a nearby field, get to alt and then go over.  If you pork the fuel on an offensive then once you are done you have only screwed yourself because now you do not have the capability to carry on the attack and have stopped yourself.

Quote
Originally posted by phookat

You bring up the point that porking shuts down the front.  Once again, I see this as a bad thing from both an a2a and strat point of view.  Defensively, isn't it more fun to fight the horde than to have no enemies at all?

[/B]


From a strategic point when you are fighting an enemy the far outnumbers you its not a bad thing.

Quote
Originally posted by phookat

I guess what I don't see is where the satisfaction is in porking fuel.  From a strategic perspective, porking is not an intellectually demanding task--we're not talking chess here, right?  If the fuel is there, pork it...that's about it.  And now you don't have to worry about attacks from this sector.  OK, fine, but this is really pretty simple as far as strategy goes, and I don't see how you can feel a sense of accomplishment of defeating the enemy with this. [/B]



   Thats becuase you are probably the furball type of person and you can't see passed getting the mix on with other fighters.  On a heavy front it actually takes more effort and planning to navigate past all the enemy aircraft and get to target.  "Intellectually speaking" any one can say, there is the bad guy go getem'.  Toe to toe combat is not intellectual at all.  It took the British a long time to figure that one out.  With any battle the end result is to stack the odds in your favor and defeat the enemy on your terms if possible.  You could say much worse about the guys that fly over deack and air field and don't even try to capture it.  They just hover over it waiting to vulch.

   By your general rational why do we have strat targets at all.  Might as well be an online Nintendo game with nothing but a2a.
This is the best full view sim around.  It is not meant to be simplistic, easy, or have one way to play the game.  It is meant to be multiversed and have many ways to combat your enemy, both at tactical and trategic levels.  There are many other online games were if all you want to do is mix it up you can.  Or simply use that as your role in a joint effort on this game.  This game/sim is meant to recreat the challenges of warfare in that time.  Much more of battle is fought at a strategic level then tactical.   A wise man once said "Fighters win the headlines, but bombers win the war".

   End result if you can't beat them head on then you hinder there ability to wage war upon you.  Heck we do it all the time.  

« Last Edit: July 23, 2004, 09:54:55 AM by JRCrow »

Offline mars01

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4148
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #111 on: July 23, 2004, 10:13:05 AM »
Quote
Toe to toe combat is not intellectual at all.
That is where you strategery guys are all wrong.  There is a whole lot of intellectual aspects of fighting en-mass and you have to do it a lightning speed.

To be successful in a furball, you have to Calculate and consider many things.  These are just a few...

1)  You have to think about how you are going to enter it, to maximize your killing ability without sacrificing your survivability.  

This means looking at how the furball is moving, looking at where the cherry pickers are and what way they are moving and looking at what your teammates are doing.

2)  You have to identify and think about the fast moving targets from the slow targets.

3) You have to identify and weight the planes and how much of a threat they are in the situation you are flying into.

4) You have to think about your egress.

On top of all this you have to make these decisions with split second timing.  One wrong decision and you are dead.  You have to constantly rethink these things as the furball progresses.

One of the biggest mistakes non furball types make is believing that furballing is a mindless pursuit.  It might be for the many people that have very little experience or idea about how to survive and scoring kills in one but for the ones that are successful there is a lot going on.  

As for 1 v 1 the factors are different but there is still alot to think about.  

Most of this temporal processing takes place so fast that some may think there is nothing going on there, but then I would venture a guess that they are not very good at this game yet and still have a lot to learn about Air Combat.

Offline mars01

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4148
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #112 on: July 23, 2004, 10:23:17 AM »
Quote
Thats becuase you are probably the furball type of person and you can't see passed getting the mix on with other fighters.
Your making some long sweeping assumptions that show very little thought.  It's not that we can't get past the "mix on with other fighters."  It that we are past the launch heavy, climb high, hide from other fighters and kill non thinking, non moving, stationary targets.  

Sure you may think there is some great strategy going on, but without a country wide organisation the strategy is small and localised and that is why it is the country with the numbers that wins not the brightest strat guys.

Quote
On a heavy front it actually takes more effort and planning to navigate past all the enemy aircraft and get to target.
Effort, you mean higher altitude.  Planning you mean flying a route that takes you away from the enemy.  This isn't rocket science.  Also I don't count NOE as planning, it's just a sneak attack, very little planning needed other then route.

As I am sure you disagree, can you please give me one of your best strategic plans as an example of how intellectual this game is for you?

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I am actually interested in what your response will be.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2004, 10:25:19 AM by mars01 »

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #113 on: July 23, 2004, 11:00:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
The key to anti diver patrol is do not sit over the base you are protecting, you need to intersept them before they get there.  A light p51D should be allover a heavy P51D.  You can almost never succesfull defend a place from being destroyed by being at thte location of that place.  If you intercept them even 10 miles out.  even numbers, its either going to be easy pickens or they will have to drop thier load, either way, defense successful.

You say that like it isn't obvious.

The problem, you see, is that you need to position yourself out at the edge of your radar coverage and defend against two-three avenues of approach.  A skilled Kamikaze pilot will have his aircraft up to speed before he gets into your radar coverage.  Yes, your P-51D is faster, slightly.  Once he starts his shallow dive that pretty much goes away and if you're even a little out of position he'll get through.

The best I've ever done was shooting down 10 or so Kamikaze P-51Ds while flying the Yak-9U.  Another standout in my mind was the time that four of us managed to get all of one of them.  I was in a P-51B that time and got the single kill.

The problem is that if they are not trying low altitude runs (as in the case where I slaughtered them in the Yak-9U) you are pulled out of position and cannot climb back up to intercept the next one if you mess up your first pass.  The interceptor's job is much harder as one mistake can mean complete failure whereas the Kamikaze pilot holds the initiative.



Besides, all that skips my main question, which you did not answer, of what part of Kamikaze 'Stangs and Tiffies destroying all the fuel on a whole front was realistic?

Go on, answer it.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2004, 11:02:34 AM by Karnak »
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline phookat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 629
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #114 on: July 23, 2004, 11:43:58 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
Unless it is done at multiple air fields in a large area it is ineffective on the attack.  WHen a field is under pressure you rarely launch from the field under attack and expect to get to alt.  Usually you luanch from a nearby field, get to alt and then go over.  If you pork the fuel on an offensive then once you are done you have only screwed yourself because now you do not have the capability to carry on the attack and have stopped yourself.


Yet offensive porking is done anyway, and there's nothing you can do to stop it short of removing it from the game.  So, porking is bad for strat as well, for two reasons: the one you point out above, and the other reason that strat guys want to have opposition too.

However you slice this, porking is a large net negative--even from your perspective it seems.

Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
Thats becuase you are probably the furball type of person and you can't see passed getting the mix on with other fighters.  On a heavy front it actually takes more effort and planning to navigate past all the enemy aircraft and get to target.  "Intellectually speaking" any one can say, there is the bad guy go getem'.  Toe to toe combat is not intellectual at all.


Mars brought up a number of great points here, and I will leave it at that.  Suffice it to say that I don't think this is true, at all.

Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
It took the British a long time to figure that one out.  With any battle the end result is to stack the odds in your favor and defeat the enemy on your terms if possible.


Once again, you are confusing this game with reality.  The *true* game analogue of the RL strategy you mention above is to shut down your computer and not play AH.

BTW, the above statement implies that you think overwhelming hordes are a good thing in AH.  Is that correct?

Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
You could say much worse about the guys that fly over deack and air field and don't even try to capture it.  They just hover over it waiting to vulch.


This is an issue related to people's behavior only, not game constructs.  We are talking about two different types of issues here.  Not relevant to this discussion. (and no, I don't vultch ;) )

Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
By your general rational why do we have strat targets at all.  Might as well be an online Nintendo game with nothing but a2a.


Incorrect, this is not my view.  To quote myself from above, "The "strat" in AH is a collection of elements which are semi-related to some real-life counterparts, and assembled together to form a game which provides context for people to team up and fight against each other in a variety of ways and roles."

Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
This is the best full view sim around.  It is not meant to be simplistic, easy, or have one way to play the game.


Neither AH1 nor AH2 are complex from a strategic point of view.  How do you come to the conclusion that AH is "meant" to be strategically complex?

As mars asked above, I'd like to know from you what strat complexity you see in AH.  To me it seems pretty banal.

Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #115 on: July 23, 2004, 09:09:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by mars01
That is where you strategery guys are all wrong.  There is a whole lot of intellectual aspects of fighting en-mass and you have to do it a lightning speed.

To be successful in a furball, you have to Calculate and consider many things.  These are just a few...

1)  You have to think about how you are going to enter it, to maximize your killing ability without sacrificing your survivability.  

This means looking at how the furball is moving, looking at where the cherry pickers are and what way they are moving and looking at what your teammates are doing.

2)  You have to identify and think about the fast moving targets from the slow targets.

3) You have to identify and weight the planes and how much of a threat they are in the situation you are flying into.

4) You have to think about your egress.

On top of all this you have to make these decisions with split second timing.  One wrong decision and you are dead.  You have to constantly rethink these things as the furball progresses.

One of the biggest mistakes non furball types make is believing that furballing is a mindless pursuit.  It might be for the many people that have very little experience or idea about how to survive and scoring kills in one but for the ones that are successful there is a lot going on.  

As for 1 v 1 the factors are different but there is still alot to think about.  

Most of this temporal processing takes place so fast that some may think there is nothing going on there, but then I would venture a guess that they are not very good at this game yet and still have a lot to learn about Air Combat.



This can all be summed up by situational awareness.

As far as the intellectual part by definition (the short version).

Intellectual - a person who uses the mind creatively

Now we are talking semantics, that is a no win situation.

As far as furballing goes, I have done my share, and I am fair at it, but it is not the only thing I do.  The only "Furballers" that agrivate me are the ones that fly over to a base deack it and sit there for hours on end vulching.  They never touch the city or anything else they are just looking for the vulch kill to score some points and make there name flash across the screne.  Those are the only "Furballers" that agrivate me.  Ofcourse mybe that do not rank the title of "Furballer" maybe they are just "Vulchers".

   I say again, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

   BTW do you think the only thing I do is fly around in bombers and attack craft hitting fuel?  NOT

   The whole point of the conversation is simply that fact that fuel should not be untouchable.  You could make it more difficult, make it more of a strat target like refineries.  Whatever, but not untouchable.  Once you do you loose that strategic element of war, plan and simple.  

   As far as furballing be a "Mindless pursuit" I think not.  I takes skill to do so.  The problem resides when that is the only thing they want to do.  Then little is acomplished.  The skill can be put to better use rather than going to the same place with the same plane, time after time after time, and shooting people down to no end.  Get an objective, work with you team mates and do it.  If you do that great hats off, welcome to the rest of the world.  

   And yes there are some days when you get on line and you don't care about crap and you just want to mix it up.  That is your choice.  I have had those days myself.

   Now where does that all come into play with the conversation at hand.  Hell if I know.  
   
   
   This is a full scope warfare game.  I ahte to see it erode to just another flight sim by taking out all the strategic values.  You can through notions back and forth all day long, I could pick out things that you may or may not do and call them skill less too.  For example..

   You are in a furball and get into a bad situation, out number low on e.  So you leave the battle get your e back up, get some alt and came back in.  Oh sounds totaly skilless to me  :mad:

  No that’s called using your head, accessing the situation and taking appropriate action.  If that requires me to fly higher, or a different course to get to my target.  Well then.  If I can go through the furballs and take some out in the process cool too.  Time, resources, numbers, and many more things all play a factor into those decisions.  If the situation dictates go low, and pull them down, cool.  Whatever.  At a "Furball" level your not going to put yourself in the position that sets you up for and easy cherry pick and your not going to get into a turn fight if you are flying a fast plane.  Right?

   So why the hell would you want to fly a Typhoon wit 2,000 lbs of ordinance through a bunch of enemy fighters that can waist you to no end.  B and Z, turn, you name it.  That would be pretty stupid in my book..  But some how you would criticize someone who does not.  That’s like criticizing someone who does not play into a turn fight when they are flying the faster plane with more e.

Follow?

Both sides of the battle field require skill to get things accomplished.  Team work overall is an essential part of that.

This is all good but still has little bearing on the conversation at hand.  This could go back and forth forever.  

The whole term of "furballer"  in itself is almost assigning.  Because once you set out to be a "furballer" you segregate yourself from everything else.  To me that is just plain silly.  I “furball”, I bomb, I goon, drive tanks, man ack, drive PTs etc.  I Believe that if you sincerely consider yourself a "furballer" all you have done it limit your options in the game as to what you can do.  There are many more options you have at your disposal.  Not that furballing is wrong and evil and people that do it Suck, bla bla bla.  But it is one element of many in the game.  I firmly believe that if this game was only furballing it would not be nearly as successful as it is.  It would be just another sim, like all the other sims that are out there to chose from.  Granted most of them are not online, with as much detail so on as so forth, but I guarantee you it would not be as successful.


2. intellectual - of or associated with or requiring the use of the mind; "intellectual problems"; "the triumph of the rational over the animal side of man"

3. intellectual - appealing to or using the intellect; "satire is an intellectual weapon"; "intellectual workers engaged in creative literary or artistic or scientific labor"; "has tremendous intellectual sympathy for oppressed people"; "coldly intellectual"; "sort of the intellectual type"; "intellectual literature"

4. intellectual - involving intelligence rather than emotions or instinct; "a cerebral approach to the problem"; "cerebral drama"

Take your pick, they all fit in one way or another.


Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #116 on: July 23, 2004, 09:38:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by phookat
Yet offensive porking is done anyway, and there's nothing you can do to stop it short of removing it from the game.  So, porking is bad for strat as well, for two reasons: the one you point out above, and the other reason that strat guys want to have opposition too.


So with that rational barracks get porked allt he time and there is nothing you can do to stop it so lets remove it too.

Quote
Originally posted by phookat

However you slice this, porking is a large net negative--even from your perspective it seems.

[/B]


Pros and cons to everthing.  To bad you have tunnel vision and can not see what I am trying to say.  Perhaps I am not as good of a communicator or something, you certainly take extreams to one side or the other.  Nice twist of words by the way.  Did you take argumentation in colledge?

Quote
Originally posted by phookat


Mars brought up a number of great points here, and I will leave it at that.  Suffice it to say that I don't think this is true, at all.

[/B]


Lost trake of this one so I will skip it


Quote
Originally posted by phookat

Once again, you are confusing this game with reality.  The *true* game analogue of the RL strategy you mention above is to shut down your computer and not play AH.

[/B]


Where the heck are you getting this from?  Shut down the computer and not play, your saying give up when the situation is not to your liking or something like that.  

Quote
Originally posted by phookat


BTW, the above statement implies that you think overwhelming hordes are a good thing in AH.  Is that correct?

[/B]


Way off base again, there is no way I ever implied that hords are a good thing.  You must have taken a class, this is exactly the kind of stuff they teach.  Twist, confuse, set off base, reinforce.

Quote
Originally posted by phookat


This is an issue related to people's behavior only, not game constructs.  We are talking about two different types of issues here.  Not relevant to this discussion. (and no, I don't vultch ;) )

[/B]


Feel free to expand on this one, it is hard to keep trak of all this stuff.  I'd like to hear the geneal philosophy behind it.

Quote
Originally posted by phookat

Incorrect, this is not my view.  To quote myself from above, "The "strat" in AH is a collection of elements which are semi-related to some real-life counterparts, and assembled together to form a game which provides context for people to team up and fight against each other in a variety of ways and roles."

[/B]


Ok, thats cool, why eleminate the variety?

Quote
Originally posted by phookat

Neither AH1 nor AH2 are complex from a strategic point of view.  How do you come to the conclusion that AH is "meant" to be strategically complex?

[/B]


Again more twisting.  I never said it was meant to be strategic, however that element is in the game, as well as the tactical end of things.  Why the heck els would you include Fuel, ordianance, Barracks, Radar, Head quarters, refineries, troop training facilities, Hangers,  These are all Strategic in value

Quote
Originally posted by phookat

As mars asked above, I'd like to know from you what strat complexity you see in AH.  To me it seems pretty banal. [/B]


  Seems pretty what?  oh you mean obvious and dual.  Well the same could be stated towards any number of things in this realm depending on your point of view.  Individual perception is truly individual reality.  I am sorry you can not open your mind to the possibilities and continue to attack other peoples perceived points of view to no end.  No matter what I say the outcome will be twisted to your side.  This really is a simple endeavor, and you still have not answered my question from above, I am sure it was not even given a second glance as your mind is truly affixed on one thing.

 I do not think you have clearly heard any of what I have said accept what you want to hear.  Of course that is merely my opinion.


Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #117 on: July 23, 2004, 09:43:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
You say that like it isn't obvious.


Besides, all that skips my main question, which you did not answer, of what part of Kamikaze 'Stangs and Tiffies destroying all the fuel on a whole front was realistic?

Go on, answer it.


   Thats funny I don't ever recall saying it was realisitc.  However it keeps being pointed out to me that this is not real so that should have no effect.

   To answer your question though I have already stated several times that it should not be so easy that should be changed.  Yet people have simply discounted it and continued down  a set path.

Offline JRCrow

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 88
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #118 on: July 23, 2004, 09:47:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Karnak
You say that like it isn't obvious.

The problem, you see, is that you need to position yourself out at the edge of your radar coverage and defend against two-three avenues of approach.  A skilled Kamikaze pilot will have his aircraft up to speed before he gets into your radar coverage.  Yes, your P-51D is faster, slightly.  Once he starts his shallow dive that pretty much goes away and if you're even a little out of position he'll get through.

The best I've ever done was shooting down 10 or so Kamikaze P-51Ds while flying the Yak-9U.  Another standout in my mind was the time that four of us managed to get all of one of them.  I was in a P-51B that time and got the single kill.

The problem is that if they are not trying low altitude runs (as in the case where I slaughtered them in the Yak-9U) you are pulled out of position and cannot climb back up to intercept the next one if you mess up your first pass.  The interceptor's job is much harder as one mistake can mean complete failure whereas the Kamikaze pilot holds the initiative.

Go on, answer it.



Attackers allways have the initiative, and manuver on the battle field is allways a variable.  Nothing is ever perfect no matter what.  Eleminating 10 of the in a single flight is quite succesful though.  Thats a 1 to 10 ratio in effectiveness.  :aok

Offline straffo

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10029
Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)
« Reply #119 on: July 24, 2004, 03:59:28 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by JRCrow
Bear in mind that 25% now is actually 33% less than what it use to be.  Try it at 50%, what do you think?

sorry ?
How is it possible , I don't understand :confused: