2 fuel burns... fighter and bomber

[Krusty]

Took a long (hour+) mission in bombers last night. Blew up 4 buildings at a AAA factory and flattened 4 FHs at a31. Got 1.6 perks for it (wtf?!?! Explain that to me!), but I took 50% fuel and still had 25% by the time I landed over an hour later.

Historically bombers had to trade fuel and bombs for distance and performance. You want more bombs you can't fly as far. You want to fly higher you can't carry as much bombs, etc. Now you can fully load up a bomber and say "screw the fuel!" and still fly around full throttle for hours on end.

I think 2x fuel burn is a good thing -- for fighters

However I think we need a higher fuel burn for bombers. On the hour+ mission I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I flew a route that covered about 8-10 sectors (well more than half the fricken map) at full throttle and never ran NEAR to draining my tanks. This is at 2x fuel burn. I think all bomber craft (Ju88, Boston III, A20 (yes, A20, it's a boston with a hard nose, and carries 2x the ord), b17, b24, lancaster III, Ki67, and b26) should all have a second fuel burn rate, which would be set to 3x or 4x. Yes, I said 4x.

The Ar234 is too short-legged to get to altitude as it is, so I can't justify crippling it further.

Then leave fighters the same but burn bomber fuel faster, that way they have to choose gas properly, they have to choose light loads vs overly heavy loads, or high alt safety vs low alt duration.

[Lan784]

Originally posted by Krusty

Historically bombers had to trade fuel and bombs for distance and performance. You want more bombs you can't fly as far. You want to fly higher you can't carry as much bombs, etc. Now you can fully load up a bomber and say "screw the fuel!" and still fly around full throttle for hours on end.

 

Check ur history, those bombers flew 5-7 hour missions on 100% fule with max payload in real life. I mean watch the history channel once in a while about the b-17s or google B-17 info. These bombers can do alot of stuff that you think can't possiably be done. The 17s in MA can fly 4 1/2 hours with 100%

[Lan784]

Originally posted by Krusty
Took a long (hour+) mission in bombers last night. Blew up 4 buildings at a AAA factory and flattened 4 FHs at a31. Got 1.6 perks for it (wtf?!?! Explain that to me!), but I took 50% fuel and still had 25% by the time I landed over an hour later.

Sounds bout right historically....5-7 hours around 1/4 a tank every 2 hours.

[nirvana]

Originally posted by Lan784
Check ur history, those bombers flew 5-7 hour missions on 100% fule with max payload in real life.  

The B17's did not fly with a full load of ord though.

B17G
Bomb Load:

Normal: 6,000 lb (2724 kg)

Max: 12,800 lb (5800kg)


Range: 1,100 miles (1760 km) with maximum bomb load

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/B17.html



Distance between London, England, United Kingdom and Berlin, Germany, as the crow flies:
577 miles (929 km) multiplied by 2 = 1,154  Just barely short.  Granted I doubt they would be at full throttle the entire time, they probably didn't always fly at full throttle, they didn't immediately do a 180 over Berlin and head back.  The flights were by no means direct to the target either.

Our B17G with 6,000LBS. of ord and 100% fuel should be fine.

[Krusty]

Okay but do you see the scale of things in the maps? The fuel burn for fighters was to remedy the too-short distances between airfields. The problem with bombers and their targets is that they are too close. A fully fueled lancaster would NEVER get up to 25k, and yet that's where I see most of them in AH. The lack of fuel lets them climb and perform outside of their normal envelope. The fact that the entire map is only about 200 miles wide (it seems) makes this problem worse. You can fly from one corner of the map to the opposite corner on 25% fuel and not have to worry. Considering the map is our "world" that's like flying 15,000 miles (halfway around the world, roughly) on 1/4 tank of gas. Historically you would have to take a full load of gas to hit a target, whereas in AH you never EVER have to take a full load of gas in a bomber. Something should be tweaked to balance this out, so I suggested a second fuel burn.

P.S... don't ever say "Watch the history channel" if you're seriously suggesting people use it for information.

[APDrone]

So what you really are saying, Krusty, is that you want bombers to fly slower and not be able to get up the higher altitudes within the same day of launching.

What happened?  Did you get tired of trying to climb to alt to attack low earth orbiting bombers?

The 2x fuel burn, if I recall correctly, was installed when they disabled the ability to pork fuel down to 25%.  Kind of a trade off thing.

Long range bombers were designed to ..um.. fly long ranges.

[Krusty]

Actually for the past 3 tours bombers have been the majority of my kills.

Note that gas does not make a plane SLOWER. Internal weight will affect only acceleration (inertia) and climb (weight), not top speed.

Fighters have to fly at most 20 miles to get to the nearest enemy base. Bombers at most 50 if they want alt. If they don't they also only have to go about 20 miles (often you have 2 bases in 1 sector, 1 sector is about 25 miles). That's a far FAR cry from historic ranges. To acknowledge and change this, the fuel burn was implemented. It wasn't always 2.0 you know.

However, bombers have not been affected by this, so while it balances out the problem for smaller craft, the problem remains for larger craft. The reason you should have to take 50%-75% in a lancaster is the same reason you need to take 75% in a p51D in AH2, because you have to weigh the advantages of taking more or less gas.

Currently there is no need to do this in bombers, bombers might as well have 1x fuel burn still, because they are not affected at all.

[hubsonfire]

The B26 is the only bomber I've run out of fuel in, with the exception of having multiple tanks damaged and leaking. I've never taken more than 50% in anything but the 234.

I'm with Krusty on this one. Bombers have been repeatedly dumbed down, and I still don't understand why. Easy calibration, the best gun platform in the game, formations, range. There's no need, and making a successful bomber run as challenging (and therefore rewarding when done correctly) as a successful attack or fighter sortie doesn't seem like it would have a negative impact on gameplay, IMO.

[APDrone]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
...Bombers have been repeatedly dumbed down, and I still don't understand why. .

Because when the calibration prior to the current one was in place, a lot of poeple quit flying them.

I'm all for bringing back the old calibration model, further disbursing the hangars at fields so it's more of a challenge to take down, and throw a couple wind layers in there.  

Unfortunately, HTC made the calibration change for a playability reason.

Now, there still is a challenge at some fields with taking off, as trees and hills are lurking at the ends of the runways.  Some bombers loaded with 100% fuel would never make it.  Realistically, the Seabees would have removed them post haste.

Hmm.. can you launch lancs with 100% fuel NE from A43 on ndisles?

[hubsonfire]

I wouldn't call the haphazard layout of ground objects any sort of handicap aimed at bombers. It's just as bad for fighters.

My whole issue with bombers is that they're practically idiot proof. I know the idiots screamed bloody murder to have this done, and HTC has to be accomodating to his customers, but I think we've gone a little left of center. If he's not interested in the removal of formations, the perking of formations, making the guns a little less effective, adding wind, changing the bomb characteristics, adding recoil to the guns, adding more gunners, changing the damage model, or anything else (and apparently he's not the least bit interested), then perhaps its time to change the fuel burn.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
I wouldn't call the haphazard layout of ground objects any sort of handicap aimed at bombers.

My whole issue with bombers is that they're practically idiot proof.

Wrong on both counts.

For one, the hangars WERE spread out (why do you think there's an odd single FH all by itself now?) so that bombers could not disable a field in one pass. Hell 2 of us lancs were trying to take out a field and we planned well ahead of time, took each of us 2 passes.

EDIT: Sorry I got interrupted. The second point is that it's not "idiot proof". Perhaps there's a step between what we have now and what we had before, but I know for a fact I did everything exactly as it should have been done but it never calibrated for me in the old system. Bombs were always WAY off target, by hundreds of feet. There were some that asked HTC for help on the matter and they were eventually told that they couldn't do it on their systems. So there WAS a problem with the old system, hell if I know what the technical issues were. Regardless, it didn't work for a lot of people. I hate the randomness of the speed calibration now. You hold it for 2 seconds, it says, but it's 100% random until about 12 seconds.

So just fyi on those two points

[hubsonfire]

Wrong on both misreads.

Trees, krusty, trees.

Practically, not perfectly.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
Wrong on both misreads.

Trees, krusty, trees.

Practically, not perfectly.

Oh, TREEEEES... Okay.. I got ya lmao

Those bastards gotta die.. I'm serious! Huge crop of 125-foot tall trees at the end of every major runway... Better than the 250-foot ones we used to have, but still!!

[APDrone]

Originally posted by Krusty
Note that gas does not make a plane SLOWER. Internal weight will affect only acceleration (inertia) and climb (weight), not top speed.

 

Had to run away so I couldn't address this..

Sure about this?  Seems to me that with the current calibration, after I drop half my ord, I see an appreciable speed difference when I re-calibrate on the next pass.  At least it used to be that way.

Dang, now I'm gonna have to watch more closely.

In any case, If the bomber doesn't climb as fast, then it will take longer to get to desired bombing alt ( which, in my case, is 15k ).  That means that it is spending longer time at the slower climbing speed ( 140, I think ).  This would still be considered 'slower' in my book.  It may have the same top speed, but it averages to take longer time to get from point A to point B.. hence, slower.

Originally posted by hubsonfire
I wouldn't call the haphazard layout of ground objects any sort of handicap aimed at bombers. It's just as bad for fighters.

Sure.. if you're only upping a single bomber.  The formation drones insist on flying on a straight line until some altitude.. which, in some cases, is through hills, and you have to be on your toes with the flaps and tree SA to stay close enough to them so as not to go boom.

And as far as being idiot proof.. not quite.  Easier than some aspects of the game?  Sure.. but you still have to pay attention to what you're doing.  Make the bomb bays open automatically when you drop the ord and make the calibration information change color when current and calibrated speed differ, then, yes.. you've gotten closer to 'idiot proof'.  Remember the pre-formation bombsite? Put target on sight and drop.. boom. I think they called it 'laser sights'.

[hubsonfire]

My point with the trees is that they aren't there to hinder bombers. They're there because either there is no way to clear the area around a field of obstacles (like the maps with runways pointed directly at hills) that have no rational reason for being there in the first place, or no one got really concerned with objects measuring a mile high being placed in the flight path. A JaBo loaded to the gills will have similar problems (by problem, of course, I mean violent, cataclysmic, fiery crashes).

Yes, I remember the old laser sights. Definitely too simplistic. I liked the challenge of the full calibration routine, but that was obviously not embraced by the majority.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, but opening your doors and waiting until your speed stabilizes does not make a complex or difficult routine in my book.