Throwing a few ideas out there

[qts]

I haven't flown in a good long while but hope to return at some point (probably next year), but still keep tabs on AH. So here are a couple of ideas

1. Fuel usage by terrain.

It might help game balance and historical modelling if the fuel usage of planes was partially determined by the terrain over which they fly. Particularly as the distances between islands are often small. So a land plane would consume more fuel when over water and vice versa. This would help carriers and make long-range strikes more difficult.

2. Ryan FR Fireball

This is a prop/jet combo carrier aircraft which saw service in 1945 but not combat. Perhaps it would be good as a high-perk carrier-only aircraft.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by qts
I haven't flown in a good long while but hope to return at some point (probably next year), but still keep tabs on AH. So here are a couple of ideas

1. Fuel usage by terrain.

It might help game balance and historical modelling if the fuel usage of planes was partially determined by the terrain over which they fly. Particularly as the distances between islands are often small. So a land plane would consume more fuel when over water and vice versa. This would help carriers and make long-range strikes more difficult.
 

Got a question. why would you want long range strikes to be more difficult?

[hubsonfire]

And how exactly does an arbitrary increase of fuel burn rates (which are already set to a factor or 2.0) for only certain aircraft in certain situations give us "historical modelling" or balance?

[qts]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
And how exactly does an arbitrary increase of fuel burn rates (which are already set to a factor or 2.0) for only certain aircraft in certain situations give us "historical modelling" or balance?

Because land-fighters are supposed to fight over land and sea-fighters over sea.

[Jackal1]

Just ignore my question. I thought you were serious until the last comment. My bad.

[mars01]

I'm gonna edit myself on this one...

edit rule #4

[wetrat]

Originally posted by qts
Because land-fighters are supposed to fight over land and sea-fighters over sea.

Should we just ignore the battles over the english channel? Or the P-38's fighting in the PTO? Plenty of that was over water, was it not? Ki's fought over water, they're land based aren't they? You don't know what you're talking about.

Two bad ideas.

~rat

[Donzo]

So let me get this straight....
I up a "land based" plane in defense of my base, that happens to be next to the water, and during a fight I happen find myself over the water.  Now I'm consuming more fuel as a result of this?

[qts]

For example, one of the key factors in the Battle of Britain was that the German fighters had little fuel by the time they got to their British targets and could not dogfight for long. Whereas the British fighters were on scene.

Now how about that Fireball?

[hubsonfire]

Um, the 109s weren't low on fuel because they were land fighters, and the (land-based) spitfires were sea fighters-

they were low on fuel because they flew all the way to bloody England!

[Bronk]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
Um, the 109s weren't low on fuel because they were land fighters, and the (land-based) spitfires were sea fighters-

they were low on fuel because they flew all the way to bloody England!

YAYYYY Hubs back hehe.



Bronk

[Lusche]

Originally posted by qts
Now how about that Fireball?

The Fireball has no place in a sim dealing with WWII planes.

[hubsonfire]

Damn it, I've been hooked twice in the same stupid thread. Delete! Delete!