GV fuel

[Kev367th]

As currently GV's effectively use no fuel how about the following.

Each spawn has 3 distances, one for full fuel available, one for 100%, one for 75%.
Make the 'full spawns' deep into enemy territory, 100% maybe 2 bases deep, and 75% local bases only.

That way as GV bases fuel gets porked the deeper spawns become unavailable.

[Bad31st]

Good Idea Kev. As it stands right now there is almost no point in porking anything but ord and troops. I think it would add another dimension to the game.

[MOIL]

Originally posted by Kev367th
As currently GV's effectively use no fuel how about the following.

Each spawn has 3 distances, one for full fuel available, one for 100%, one for 75%.
Make the 'full spawns' deep into enemy territory, 100% maybe 2 bases deep, and 75% local bases only.

That way as GV bases fuel gets porked the deeper spawns become unavailable.

Not that it's a bad idea,  I just don't understand what purpose it will serve?  Plus it's just one more thing to "pork" at said field.

Besides, there's almost no way to stop or even come close to stopping the typical "porker" with the current setup.

[Raptor]

It'll cost $2.58 a gallon.

[hubsonfire]

How about PTs, LVTs, and ground vehicles actually start consuming gas? That strikes me as being a little more logical than fuel available determining spawn points. Doing what you suggested simply makes it easier to prevent GVs from attacking, without having to take the VH down. I'm not sure I like that idea.

[mussie]

I think it would add another dimension to the game.

Fuel limits due to base/ strat damage were a dimension that was removed, like night and calibrating a Norden.

IMO its a Pity that they were removed, but this is a business and therefore the guys and gals at HTC have to appease the lowest common denominator. (Read Quake Kiddies)

Mind you the extended spawn points sounds interesting.

But you would have to drive a hell of a way to RTB.

And don't forget that tanks are not made to travel long distances, they require a hell of a lot of maintenance,  that's why they put them on trucks to move em.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by mussie
the guys and gals at HTC have to appease the lowest common denominator. (Read Quake Kiddies)

[mussie]

Ahhh.....  Bite Me Hub

[1K3]

by the way (example)

Maximum range of T-34s (in rea life) was 300 Km (186 miles).

If fuel burn for vehicles is introduced, the max range of T-34s in MA (with 2x fuel burn) would be 150 Km (93 miles)

The T-34 can effectively cover 2 sectors going back and forth, and 3 sectors before  running out of fuel.

[Bad31st]

Originally posted by MOIL
Not that it's a bad idea,  I just don't understand what purpose it will serve?  Plus it's just one more thing to "pork" at said field.

Besides, there's almost no way to stop or even come close to stopping the typical "porker" with the current setup.

You are right it is tough to stop a porker. But I don't think the point of this suggestion is to give the porkers more to shoot at but to give more options for offense and defense.

I think there are two possible implementations of this suggestion. The first would leave the number of bases that you can spawn GV's both out of the hanger and away from the base the same but add points along the line that leads to the distant spawn point. These added points are where you would spawn to if you selected less than 100% fuel. The second implementation would be the same as the first possibility however all bases would have the ability to spawn GV's away from the base.

I happen to be in favor of the second possibility for two reasons. First, the potential for GV's to be used in more instances seems interesting to me. Second when defending a field from GV attack the VH may be camped killing the chance of any defense effort by tank drivers. The ability to grab 25% fuel and spawn just out side the base would give the defenders a slightly better chance and would also give the camper something to look for besides the tail end of an enemy GV.

[onions4u]

how  about porking fuel for aircraft too like the old days
to 25%. That would be as fair as porking gv fuel

[MOIL]

Bad31st:
"You are right it is tough to stop a porker. But I don't think the point of this suggestion is to give the porkers more to shoot at but to give more options for offense and defense"

That's fine, I hear ya.  The prob is in your statement is options for offense & defense, the offense part is extremely easy, the defense part nearly impossible.

[Simaril]

Lets put some proportion to this, though. How many people will drive 3-4 HOURS nonstop without "landing"?????

That's 93 miles at peak speed of 25mph, even including the 2x fuel burn....



If nobody is realistically going to be limited by fuel restictions, then should HTC invest ANY coding time for implementation????

[hubsonfire]

Granted, the fuel burn would have to be adjusted due to the limited driving and wormholes, but why have fuel bunkers, restrictions, and fuel loadouts for something which doesn't use it?

Looking at the GVs, and the 163, I see 2 difficult to believe fuel setups which seem rather silly compared to everything else. The GV damage model is also supposed to be very complex and detailed, so why not use gas, and add fuel damage, fires, etc that all the aircraft suffer? I just happened to see a thread on GV fuel, and I thought I'd suggest that.

Unlimited gas, unlimited ammo, unlimited planes, but fuel burn, damage, and fires are modelled for them. Why wouldn't they impliment it?

[Rino]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
How about PTs, LVTs, and ground vehicles actually start consuming gas? That strikes me as being a little more logical than fuel available determining spawn points. Doing what you suggested simply makes it easier to prevent GVs from attacking, without having to take the VH down. I'm not sure I like that idea.

     HT once explained to me why GVs and PTs don't use fuel, it
concerns the timescale of AH.  I'm fairly certain that none of you
have spent 5-6 hours driving around in a single GV.

     Even the M-48 Patton, which was noted for a puny range,
could do a 100 miles on a single tankful.