Fuel penalty

[slyguy]

A bit of an aircraft performance penalty for destroyed fuel at a base makes more sense to an attackers' advantage than a measily 15 minutes of no fighters (15 minutes is like one minute combat time), especially with the misproporionate population of spitfire XVI and LA series planes.  It's never worth the trouble to take out fighter hangars.

A performance penalty due to porked fuel would force the attacked to actually have to up from a rear base to get a "good" plane and get altitude to make a difference (realistic)  instead of upping 12 100% combat effective fighters inexplicably with no fuel at the base (unrealistic).

The way it is now the side that successfully surprise attacks a base really has no advantage at all over those that have to react and defend.  An attacking force should have some kind of advantge, be it time or performance.

Fuel could be hardened and made more abundant to it's not so easy to pork.  It's so easy now a kindergardener could do it.

Anyway just a thought.

[SAS_KID]

it actually stays down 15min real time. And have you ever tried porking ALL the fuel tanks at a base. You can pork to where they can only take 75% fuel now that stops the furball well. And stay's down longer than fighter hangers. Plus, a surprise attack has an advantage. It makes it so the attackers have more E alt if not NOE and can vulch to their hearts delight without having to fight through a furball. Plus, think about it a fuel truck taking hundred of EXPLOSIVE cannon shots to it i would think it wouldn't take that many. Always takes like 100 cannon shots at least. And it takes over 500 50 cals for me.

[GlacierGirl]

If you come with more than 10 planes you can pretty much cap and take any base with a supprise attack, Why make the defenders even more defencless? If taking a base is your goal, bring a dozen 110s hit the VH and radar have 4 of them cover any uppers and the rest hit the town. That way you dont need to hit the fuel.

[RAIDER14]

Originally posted by slyguy
A bit of an aircraft performance penalty for destroyed fuel at a base makes more sense to an attackers' advantage than a measily 15 minutes of no fighters (15 minutes is like one minute combat time), especially with the misproporionate population of spitfire XVI and LA series planes.  It's never worth the trouble to take out fighter hangars.

A performance penalty due to porked fuel would force the attacked to actually have to up from a rear base to get a "good" plane and get altitude to make a difference (realistic)  instead of upping 12 100% combat effective fighters inexplicably with no fuel at the base (unrealistic).

The way it is now the side that successfully surprise attacks a base really has no advantage at all over those that have to react and defend.  An attacking force should have some kind of advantge, be it time or performance.

Fuel could be hardened and made more abundant to it's not so easy to pork.  It's so easy now a kindergardener could do it.

Anyway just a thought.

[slyguy]

Okay, or maybe not LOL

Just a thought, 4 guys capping a base where even just 4 enemy have scrambled in spitties will only make a difference if they have in-flight ammo refueling... because those four enemy pilots just re-up when you shoot them down.  It's not like they got anywhere the first time either... they just soakin' up your ammo.

Hey, I still love the game take away a few modeling issues, but bases are only taken when the other side gets bored or doesn't care about the base.  That's a fact and can be changed with a few changes in the strat layer.

Thanks for the responses.

[Hap]

slyguy, is 75% the most fuel can be porked now?  used to be 25%.  ohh, i enjoyed those days.

hap