Air field Fuel Targets (Porking fuel)

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by phookat
Can you explain what you mean in the context of the AH strat game?  The "situation" I presume refers to having your fuel porked.  As a player on the defending team, what are you going to do with a bomber that will "turn the tides"?

   Not sure if this is what he is talking about phookat, but in the past (AH1) when fuel was down and numbers not good, I could up a flight of B26s, and usually shoot down 3-5 enemy aircraft.  Heck there were ocassions when I actually landed 8 kills.  This sets the numbers off, in a given situation.  That tactic has been used succesfully a number of times to get pressure off an airfield when the numbers were not in favor.  Not allways, but more often then not.  When you are heavilty outnumbered you are plain screwed, especially if you can't even get of the ground.

   Many times I have used this tactic and actually gotten to the enmey base and scored some hit.  A few trips like that, take there fuel out, and it pretty much shuts that front down or they atleast use a diferant base, whcih makes them travel farther, which equates to less pressure.

   The 25% also effects bombers too, which I am seeing differances now in as well.

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by phookat
Why would you want the enemy to run out of fuel in a multiplayer game?

The real effect of the AH2 change is that it makes capturing a base more difficult.  Isn't that better?  More of a challenge, say?

  My opinon is that you are not looking on the flip side.  WHen defending a base under extream pressure you are not going to fly very far and be engaged.  Many times as soon as you get off the ground.  Thus fuel is of no measure because in heavy pressure you will be shot down before you run out more often then not.  Now if it is only light pressure that is a differant story.

   Lets look at this kind of mathmatically (Strategic view)
the enemy has 15 air craft and has to fly 50 miles to get to you.
You have 5 air craft defending.  If the 15 enemy aircraft have an hour of fuel each and spend 10 minutes getting there that leaves 15 aircraft Vs. you 5 for 50 minutes.  Average it out 5:1 fuel ratio with 15 aircraft end effet is basically 12 of those 15 aircraft over your airfield.  Now if they only had 20 minutes of fuel, and spend 10 minutes getting there that leaves 10 min of hange time. half the time they are getting there, and half fighting,  end result now you are fighting 7 or 8 aircarft Vs your five.

    No it is not and exact science, there are variables, but in full scope that is the effect.  It makes the offensive much harder.

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by mars01
Ahh you were offended by the Grow a Pair.  Then I do apologize, but yes I would have said this in open conversation.  I guess a nicer way to have said this would have been "Suck it Up"

Thanks

Originally posted by mars01

My point is this game is about the journey not the end result.  It's about the fight not who died and who flew on.  It's about making it against hard odds to your target and dropping your ord.  It's about fighting for an hour over a base not who finally took it.  It's about the entertainment.  So if it is more difficult to do things this only heightens the journey.

[/B]

Interesting points, I sort of view less fuel as making this more difficult, but I guess in a differant way.  It certainly hinders the journey.  Perhaps it is simply the diferance between a tactical and strategic minded person.

Originally posted by mars01

The fuel situation stopped most of the above from happening.  When fuel was porked to 25% across a front the journey was over for many.

[/B]

That is the defensive point    It shuts down the offensive.  No matter what the odds are in most cases.

Originally posted by mars01

By not being able to pork fuel those that just want to fight can and those that want to bomb still can.  

I agree it does mean there will be more resistance but isn't this game all about resistance.  It forces people to organize rather than two guys in 51s crippling a fields ability to fight.

[/B]

I totaly agree with you there...

Originally posted by mars01

The current fuel situation gives better balance and creates more fighting.  I'm all for that.

[/B]

I think it creats more fighting, however I think it makes the ballance worse when the numbers are on one side or the other.

I have seriously tried the tactics metioned above about taking out Barracks.  It really does not have the same effect.  It can dellay a capture but not stop it.  When the pressure is on, it just gives the other side more vulch time until the barracks come back up.  Sometimes it is enevitable no matter what.  Others, well it use to work

    Play on

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by mars01


 If you really want to take a base, you either have to cap the field or kill the hangers.  Any squad or group that was worth their weight and any good never hit the fuel.   Fuel porking is and thank god was for the weak. [/B]

  Crap here we go again .  There are many ways to skin a cat.  Yes you can't beat a good cap.  and if you are taking a field it is silly to pork the fuel as you want to use it after.  I hope you are not saying that any squad that ever hit fuel is not worth there weight and are weak.  That is what is deducted from the above statement.  Thats just not right.  

  I think you are just looking at things in differant terms.  The differance between grunts and generals.  One looks in front, one looks all around.  Both are needed and used.

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by RDRTrash

It doesn't matter except for this: HTC wanted to make it funner for the furballers, and he changed it.  I respect that as a business decision.  

  This may or may not be fact but is a rational deduction as making the fuel untouchable only helps the furballers and no one else.  The funny part if you think about it is that people just die with more fuel now.  X number of people are going to be shot down in a fur ball, really only some will make use of the extra fuel.
and ofcourse engagements will be higher on ocassion.

[phookat]

Originally posted by JRCrow
Not sure if this is what he is talking about phookat, but in the past (AH1) when fuel was down and numbers not good, I could up a flight of B26s, and usually shoot down 3-5 enemy aircraft.  Heck there were ocassions when I actually landed 8 kills.

I don't think this is what the other poster was talking about.  He was talking about something akin to real life, and I think you'll agree that ackstarring is about as far from real life as you can get without involving the Grimm brothers.  If ackstarring is the answer to fuel pork, then I say get rid of both by getting rid of the latter.

Originally posted by JRCrow
A few trips like that, take there fuel out, and it pretty much shuts that front down or they atleast use a diferant base, whcih makes them travel farther, which equates to less pressure.

This was my guess too but I wanted to confirm it.  This is not realistic either, but whatever.  In that case we are "solving" the fuel pork problem by porking fuel over there (which would probably be more successful with a fighter-bomber than a bomber).  Which means no planes can up, and suddenly there's nothing for anyone to do.

I still fail to see the point here.  This situation seems to me to detract playability for both a2a guys and strat guys.  Eliminating fuel pork creates a more fun game for both groups.

I've said this before, but I'll repeat:  AH is a flight *sim* but a strat *game*.  The physical sim is intended to be as realistic as possible, but the strat is not realistic and cannot be without having a continuous game that lasts 4 years and you can't take breaks for work and meals.  And you have to sit for 8 hours on each mission and fight for 5 mins (if you're lucky).

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. The reason the strat elements are related at all to anything real is because they have to be tailored to the interactions that realistically modeled aircraft/GVs/munitions can have with them.  The strat should therefore be judged on how well it accomplishes this goal...not on how realistic it is.

[phookat]

Originally posted by JRCrow
It makes the offensive much harder.

Why is that a problem?

[mars01]

I hope you are not saying that any squad that ever hit fuel is not worth there weight and are weak. That is what is deducted from the above statement. Thats just not right.

LOL.  Not really, but I do think anyone worth thier weight used the fuel as a last resort if at all.  I always thought the fuel pork to be an easy way out that's all.

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by mars01


When people pork fuel they are stopping the fight.  When fuel is porked across your countries whole front then the fighting is over and so is this game.  People that want to return to fuel porking want to stop the fight so they can easily take a base or not have to up fighters to defend their own base.  In either case they don't want to fight.

 

    It does not stop the fight, just makes people change tactis and use differant aircraft.  When fuel is proked across a whole front, yes it makes things difficult, again tactics have to change.  I have fought many times on these fronts.  And you can still up aircraft and kill goons at or near your city with 25% fuel.  or launch from another field and go goone hunting, low and fast

    as far as not wanting to fight, that is certainly not the case.  Again we think in differant ways.  There is a differance between fighting smarter and harder,  by your referance you are nearly accusing our entire armed forces of America of not wanting to fight.

    I think a happy medium could be meet here.  While I think we all agree that 25% is not enouph and fuel was to easy to destroy before, maybe just maybe a happy medium would be 50% and make it more difficult to do.  So a monkey with a handgrenade can't take all you fuel out.  I think in light of current operations the drop form 75% to 50% should have to be achieved by hiting the main fuel depo seperate from the Field itself.  It would kind of make more sense that way to.  This however might cause a programing nightmare, who knows.  None the less I think a happy medium could be achieved to fit both the "Furballers"  and the "War types"  needs.

Enjoy.....

[JRCrow]

Sorry wrong button..

[phookat]

Originally posted by JRCrow
That is the defensive point    It shuts down the offensive.  No matter what the odds are in most cases.

I disagree.  With no porking, the offense still continues.  The only further hindrance is extra humans, and isn't that why you're playing an online game?

With porking, the defense does not continue.  It's not that it's more difficult.  It's that it doesn't exist.  Forget the horde gangbang situation, in that case you are vultched immediately and it doesn't matter how much fuel is there (as you pointed out).  In the non-horde case, I take off, wait a few mins for cons to arrive, by the time they do I have to land and no fight.

The reason I don't like this is *not* because it is too easy for the attackers or too hard for the defenders.  The reason I don't like this is because *nothing happened*.  The reason other strat people don't like this is because nothing happened for them either--there were no cons, so what's the point?

Originally posted by JRCrow
I think it creats more fighting, however I think it makes the ballance worse when the numbers are on one side or the other.

Disagree.  In the theoretical zero-game-sum, it makes no difference--you pork theirs and they pork yours, regardless of numbers imbalance; and you're left where you started (except again, there's less of a fight).  But practically, the offense is much more likely to take the "initiative" and pork fuel, and when that happens a numbers imbalance is exacerbated.

Originally posted by JRCrow
I have seriously tried the tactics metioned above about taking out Barracks.  It really does not have the same effect.  It can dellay a capture but not stop it.  When the pressure is on, it just gives the other side more vulch time until the barracks come back up.  Sometimes it is enevitable no matter what.  Others, well it use to work

OK, now we're talking about a defensive pork to stem an offensive horde.  My response would be, hordes are bad, but don't solve that problem by allowing fuel pork.  That's like chopping off your hand to eliminate the pain from a paper cut on your thumb.

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by phookat
I don't think this is what the other poster was talking about.  He was talking about something akin to real life, and I think you'll agree that ackstarring is about as far from real life as you can get without involving the Grimm brothers.  If ackstarring is the answer to fuel pork, then I say get rid of both by getting rid of the latter.

 

Dude you lost me

poster, ackstarring and Grimm brothers.

I am not familiar with these terms, help me out.

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by mars01
LOL.  Not really, but I do think anyone worth thier weight used the fuel as a last resort if at all.  I always thought the fuel pork to be an easy way out that's all.

Agree on both...

[phookat]

Originally posted by JRCrow
as far as not wanting to fight, that is certainly not the case.  Again we think in differant ways.  There is a differance between fighting smarter and harder,  by your referance you are nearly accusing our entire armed forces of America of not wanting to fight.

And that's the difference between this game and reality.  We are here to fight, both the a2a crowd and the stratters, while the ideal in reality is no fighting or killing or dying.  That's another reason why the strat game in AH cannot and should not be judged on realism.  A strat model that encourages smart fighting in the real sense--which means no fighting and take them out while they're on the ground or in the garage--is a bad strat model for the online game Aces High.

[JRCrow]

Originally posted by phookat
I disagree.  With no porking, the offense still continues.  The only further hindrance is extra humans, and isn't that why you're playing an online game?

With porking, the defense does not continue.  It's not that it's more difficult.  It's that it doesn't exist.  Forget the horde gangbang situation, in that case you are vultched immediately and it doesn't matter how much fuel is there (as you pointed out).  In the non-horde case, I take off, wait a few mins for cons to arrive, by the time they do I have to land and no fight.

The reason I don't like this is *not* because it is too easy for the attackers or too hard for the defenders.  The reason I don't like this is because *nothing happened*.  The reason other strat people don't like this is because nothing happened for them either--there were no cons, so what's the point?



Disagree.  In the theoretical zero-game-sum, it makes no difference--you pork theirs and they pork yours, regardless of numbers imbalance; and you're left where you started (except again, there's less of a fight).  But practically, the offense is much more likely to take the "initiative" and pork fuel, and when that happens a numbers imbalance is exacerbated.




OK, now we're talking about a defensive pork to stem an offensive horde.  My response would be, hordes are bad, but don't solve that problem by allowing fuel pork.  That's like chopping off your hand to eliminate the pain from a paper cut on your thumb.

I think we have experianced many differant things on the battle field.  I have seen ocassions where both you and my opions have played in.