Author Topic: Bring back dropping fuels to 25% (Read 7874 times)

LePaul · « **on:** March 06, 2006, 08:11:09 PM »

As it is now, the fuel supplies cant be brought down lower than 75%.

Since ordinance can be downed so easily, it seems only fair that a fields fuel assets should be fair game as well. Can't up aircraft with bombs? Fine, lets return the favor and reduce what aircraft they can up with a minimal fuel load.

It certainly wouldnt effect most of the bombers but it would most all the fighters.

monteini · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2006, 08:14:42 PM »

I'm all for dropping the fuel to 25%, This would make the planes with more range used ALOT more. 25% FUEL no more la's or spit 16's unless they want 8 min flying time. People would have to up p47's, a6m's, ki-84's, and the like.

nick172

Wolf14 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2006, 09:24:56 PM »

please

SuperDud · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2006, 11:02:47 PM »

This just sounds like a way to stop a fight. I'd say go the other route and make ord. and barracks harder to kill, along with the fuel. Make it so 1 lone tiffy can't strafe everything down. This way you don't punish the people not into the war winning but at the same time makes the war winners have to actually put some effort into taking down troops, fuel, etc.

Remember this is a game where you're suppose to engage against human opponents, not stationary objects. Or at least it use to be

Stang · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2006, 11:09:18 PM »

Just an anti-SpitXVI and La7 whine in shades.

straffo · « **Reply #5 on:** March 06, 2006, 11:32:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by monteini
I'm all for dropping the fuel to 25%, This would make the planes with more range used ALOT more. 25% FUEL no more la's or spit 16's unless they want 8 min flying time. People would have to up p47's, a6m's, ki-84's, and the like.

nick172

ThunderEGG · « **Reply #6 on:** March 06, 2006, 11:38:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SuperDud
Remember this is a game where you're suppose to engage against human opponents, not stationary objects. Or at least it use to be

(here we go again)......HiTech would have made everything indestructible and resources meaningless altogether. But..........he.............d id.........not.

Masherbrum · « **Reply #7 on:** March 06, 2006, 11:46:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SuperDud
This just sounds like a way to stop a fight. I'd say go the other route and make ord. and barracks harder to kill, along with the fuel. Make it so 1 lone tiffy can't strafe everything down. This way you don't punish the people not into the war winning but at the same time makes the war winners have to actually put some effort into taking down troops, fuel, etc.

Remember this is a game where you're suppose to engage against human opponents, not stationary objects. Or at least it use to be

Agree.

Karaya

Krusty · « **Reply #8 on:** March 07, 2006, 01:08:56 AM »

When gas was porkable, folks would pork it 5 sectors in, preventing an entire team (not just part of a front) from putting up any offense or reliable defense.

Too many tards in this game to allow that. Only takes 1 to sour the game for 500 non-tards.

hubsonfire · « **Reply #9 on:** March 07, 2006, 01:46:03 AM »

Porkable fuel just lessened the burden for the horde. This isn't a war with 2 sides of equal numbers. This is a virtual war with any 2 sides vs the other at any given point. Allowing any one person to prevent any country from being able to mount a defense = ****ty gameplay.

1 jabo flying around porking ordnance just means you're too busy flying offensive mishuns to worry about defending. Ironically, this is the same rationale you bufftards use when the folks who pay to fight other people complain about you dropping the FH.

Delirium · « **Reply #10 on:** March 07, 2006, 02:05:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo

For once, I agree with Straffo... maybe he isn't such a bad guy after all!

straffo · « **Reply #11 on:** March 07, 2006, 02:08:53 AM »

I'm not a bad guy, at least I try not to be a bad guy all time.

There is just some facts I'm very sensible with.

Furball · « **Reply #12 on:** March 07, 2006, 02:39:27 AM »

yes, let it drop to 25%, but make it MUCH MUCH harder to achieve.

one guy should not be able to do it. make it so 4 or 5 people have to do it. it was a PITA when one ignoramus would go and pork fuel where a massive, fun fight was raging and ruin it for countless people.

monteini · « **Reply #13 on:** March 07, 2006, 06:36:22 AM »

That sounds like a great idea, make fuel go down to 25% but make it take 4000lbs to take it down, that way taking down fuel does something, but it takes more then one person to do it. And I'm not complaining about la7's or spits, I fly spits some times, I have no problem with them, newbs need something to get them hooked on the game.

nick172

oh ya and back at ya.

Toad · « **Reply #14 on:** March 07, 2006, 06:41:50 AM »

Those of you who complain about fuel should remember that porking fuel essentially removes about half the planeset from availability.

It particularly removes the truly fun stuff, the early to mid-war aircraft. Their fuel tanks are much smaller in general.

From personal experience I can tell you the FM2 is pretty much useless with 25% fuel and there's lots of aircraft in the same situation.

So be careful what you wish for.... you might get it.

OTOH, HT saw and understood the argument last time and shut down fuel porking. The important thing is that HE understands the situation.