But with respect to your assertion that using drop tanks to manage your fuel state is "gaming the game", to my mind that's "horse puckey".
I wouldn't expect any different reaction from someone who already heavily benefits from what is essentially a
GAME EXPLOIT. or perhaps rather a
REALISM BREAKER.
The point of a drop tank was to get the RANGE required to perform your assigned mission. Yes, having a drop tank available may be an advantage of one airframe over another that doesn't - but so is having rockets, or bomb loadouts, or a better rate of climb, or a better guns package in the first place.
No, the point of a drop tank was to get the rane required to perfrom your assigned mission
WHEN THE INTERNAL FUEL LOAD WAS NOT ENOUGH. [/i].
Don't try to blur the points being made. Nobody is claiming having a DT itself is an unfair advantage. What is being claimed is that using the DTs with an internal fuel load of less than 100% is technically something that falls into the category of abuse, which its sole purpose is to substitue a significant amount of internal fuel load so it can be arbitrarily removed from the plane's weight in an instant, to gain an advantage that would hardly ever be presented were it in real life.
So unless you mean that getting to choose your fuel loadout to begin with - along with maps that aren't to scale, the associated fuel modifers to compensate for scale, and airfields always an average of 12 -15 miles from "the front lines" - is altogether gamey too, then I have to disagree with you.
Totally irrelevant. The point being made is about problematic attitudes in choosing a plane configurations due to a glaring oversight by which certain planes are given unexpected advantages in their performace. The advantages and disadvantages concerning the scale and distance of the map apply to all planes equally, whereas the problem at hand of funky fuel configurations apply to a selective group of planes. The former cannot be corrected, the latter can.
Frankly, it appears to me that you are focusing on a single element that (I suspect) probably appears to you to be a disadvantage to a particular airframe, and concentrating on it all out of the context of the rest of the "hokey" environment and calling "foul".
At least the fuel loads in AH are in set increments of 25%, so that you don't get what we used to call "the 7% intercepters" elsewhere.
It doesn't "appear" to be a disadvanatge to some planes.
It "IS" an actual disadvantage to some planes.
If the modifier were at 1.0 on a to-scale map, and every aircraft had to lift with a fuel state consistent with a historical mission start (which in most cases is 100% to begin with) then I'd agree with you. But until then, the whole thing is so hokey to begin with that worrying about how a person uses drop tanks seems to be nitpicking a tree without seeing the forest.
Nice try, except there is no "forest" in this case.
All the "hokeyness" of the map scale, has actually nothing to do with the points being made and once again it is totally irrelevant to what is being presented here. Basically you are saying the map scale and fuel burn in the game is a fantasy, so it should mean any kind of fantasy fuel setting can be permitted as well;; Sorry, I don't by that argument.
The point is simple and very clear.
Droptanks in the game are not used as supplementary ordnance to truly increase flight time and range (as they are intended to be). They are being used as
substitutes for a significant proportion of the internal fuel load that can be immediately removed on whim, for pure combat purposes.
Thus, your claims that the DTs are being used as intended,and there is nothing wrong with it, is false.
People who uses "50% fuel + DT" configuration does not slap on the DTs because they actually feel they need the DTs for extra range. The small scale of the MA map gurantees that 100% internal is more than enough for the planes with large internal fuel loads in most cases.
Instead, the people who uses such configurations, uses them as an alternative to the "100% fuel" setting for the sole purpose of combat, since with this setting the weight disadvantage of the heavy planes can be eliminated instantly for purpose of combat.
A P-51D with 50% + DT roughly flies as long as a P-51D at 100% internal. Both configurations have about the same flying time. However, the former is a greatly more favored configuration in the MA because unlike the latter, the former has a significant weight advantage when the DTs are dropped upon combat. This is what I am saying is bullshi*. Such a configuration was never used in real life, since it logically doesn't make sense. The only reason it is used in AH is because it is allowed to.
It shouldn't be allowed, and this has got nothing to do with the scale of the map.
