Fuel multipliers

[SkyGnome]

So I have a question/issue regarding fuel burn multipliers in scenarios: Why don't we use 1.0?

I've seen several arguments for modified multipliers, and I've flown every scenario for the last several years, and most squad ops from the last year or so (not to mention countless snapshots, etc.)  I want to address some specific arguments and situations that I think demonstrate that this tactic - while I agree to some extent with its use in MA - doesn't add to the scenario experience, and instead takes away.

The first specific situation I'd like to point out is the current FSO, "Summer Storm," which has a 1.5 fuel multiplier.  I heard specifically from a high-ranked CM that this was to (loosely quoted), "make fuel conservation a part of the strategy."  The problem with this justification is that one can only conserve fuel durring transit or loiter, and the amount of fuel used in the relatively small transits is such that, even if one conserves durring that time, it doesn't make a really tangible impact on the overall endurance.  We are already using fighters that have what most would consider the minimum range for the task at hand, and here we are using them for the task designed, and have 1/3 less fuel endurance than what was considered a practical minimum.  This is besides the fact that if the Russian attack groups slowed to conserve fuel, they would never reach target due to the intensity of our events.  So if the reason was, "the Russian aircraft are too powerful and we need to cripple them," or "people are spending too much time having fun and fighting instead of landing and refueling three times per frame," I could respect that, but it seems to me that it is done more out of habit than for some really compelling reason, and certainly if the setting is to acheive the justification that I heard, then it doesn't result in the desired effect - one can't conserve very much, and the time and vulnerability of attempting to do so would be crippling.

Operation Husky, too, doesn't use a 1.0 multiplier - and again I'm flying an airplane that was designed as a short-range fighter, and now has its range crippled even further.  If the reason that the fuel burn is 1.2 is, "to cripple the 205, because it is too powerful," then I'm fine with that.. it's an awesome airplane, and thus far we've been quite successful.  However, I don't get the impression that that is the reason, and if it is, I think it would be more appropriate and fun for all involved if the balance in fighter capability was achieved in some more consistent way (like reducing the numbers, limiting replacements, etc.)

Lastly, BoB06.  In this event a special fuel rate multipler was calculated to match an anecdotal "15 minutes" number.  This I respect - out of the justification to match some historical circumstance - but I also strongly disagree with it from a practical  standpoint.  First of all, I did a google search, and found references to the 109's "15 minutes" of endurance in the context of "15 minutes over Kent," "15 minutes over London," and "15 minutes over the mainland."  The most reputable page (a BBC page) also noted that the LW didn't take off from bases near Dunkirk, which is a much more realistic reason that the 109 had short endurance over target.  Show me a Luftwaffe doccument saying that that was the maximum endurance, and a correction would be really justified.  Besides, the method used to calculate the final multiplier didn't account for leaving a safety margin of fuel in the tank (which in these high-multiplier situations can be a very real percentage of endurance.)  So again, while at least this time an attempt at a justification is given, the justification is questionable, and I'm not clear on what was trying to be achieved here that couldn't be achieved in a more realistic and fair way (like not allowing use of the airfield at Dunkirk).

So in the end, I think that the typical result of fuel multipler changes is that one, or a few aircraft have to RTB constantly, and the other rest are largely unneffected, due to aircraft differences.  It rarely, if ever, results in the use of fuel conservation being a large part of play - as fuel conservation can only really come into play on very long flights (generally too long for scenarios,) and many aircraft are simple unaffected.  If one were to attempt to conserve fueld, the reduced speeds simply reduce the amount of time spent having fun, as opposed to time spent just flying in a straight line (not to mention that in seriously unbalances the situation in favor of the folks with non-fuel-limited aircraft, as if achieving ballance isn't hard enough.)

It just seems to me that the folks who modeled these aircraft in AH did a pretty darn respectable job of getting them in the ballpark, and the reasonins that I've heard behind messing with that aren't particularly strong.  The current "Summer Storm" is a fun setup, but I find the fuel situation in the Yak to feel very contrived, and all the RTBing is boring (as if the ammo situation wasn't tough enough.)  Ditto for the 205 in Husky.

I have a great deal of respect for the folks who design these setups, but I guess what I'm saying is that if you don't have a really good reason to mess with a setting, you're not obliged to do so just because it's always been messed with.  I'd prefer to fly the planes "as designed", and I think just leaving fuel at 1.0 would result in more time spent doing what we're all here to do, which is have an enjoyable and interactive time.

[APDrone]

Well, just to clarify things, we learned from Frame 1 of Summer Storm that the 1.5 fuel burn was too strict as the LAs had 26 minutes of flight after launch and many of us were rtb on fumes after making just a few passes on the target.

Frames 2 and 3 are using a fuel burn of 1.0.  I haven't heard any fuel shortage complaints so far.

I don't know if there is an official CM policy towards fuel burn rates.  I personally don't know of any, but, I tend to forget a lot of stuff too.

I do think we set the fuel burn to be less than what it is in the MA.  When the MA went to 2.0, I think we followed to 1.5.

That's all I can speak to.

[Roscoroo]

Some fuel burns are set to terrain size ... remember the distances on some of these maps are not actual scale  AE: italy is 7/8ths or 4/5th scale I believe .. thats why its set with a little higher burn then 1.0

[SkyGnome]

Originally posted by Roscoroo
Some fuel burns are set to terrain size ... remember the distances on some of these maps are not actual scale  AE: italy is 7/8ths or 4/5th scale I believe .. thats why its set with a little higher burn then 1.0

That is a justification that I hadn't heard, but I don't think that it's a particularly strong one.  Fuel is mostly used in climbing to alt, in combat, and for reserve.  So for a map that is 4/5 scale, it may seem tempting to increase fuel use by 20%, but that would only be true if you reduced the vertical scale too by reducing alts by 20% as well (which would, in turn, _increase_ fuel use in transit due to the lower alts.)  This is still the best justification that I've heard, though I would say that its use should be tempered to some fraction of the reduced map scale due to the lack of reduction in altitude, combat fuel use, and reserve requirement.

[ROC]

There isn't a standard template that event designers use.  Each designer modifies their settings to accomplish what they set out to accomplish, and it would require each CM to answer to each specific event as to why they set things the way they did.

It may very well be map scale, or forcing people to think about fuel conservation as part of the strategy, there are a number of reasons, but again, each designer has their own reason for doing it.

[SkyGnome]

Originally posted by ROC
There isn't a standard template that event designers use.  Each designer modifies their settings to accomplish what they set out to accomplish, and it would require each CM to answer to each specific event as to why they set things the way they did.

It may very well be map scale, or forcing people to think about fuel conservation as part of the strategy, there are a number of reasons, but again, each designer has their own reason for doing it.

I can't possibly expect every event creator to meticulously justify their actions.  My point is just that all the reasons that I've ever heard don't actually achieve their desired goals in practice, and in general have a greater risk of harming the success of the event (Frame 1 of Summer Storm being a recent example.)  In the future, I think it would work out better if unless there is a really compelling reason (which in my reckoning doesn't include the ones so far mentioned in this thread, or at least not to the degree they are used,) that the events would be more fun and easier to ballance by just leaving the fuel multipler at a default of 1.0.

[Roscoroo]

there is also Time compression  thats put into computing the fuel burn .

AE in real time the Bomber missions were 6-10 hours long ... Now who here has time to fly all day in a scenario ?
The fuel burn gets hiked up to give a more realistic setting for the time length used in the scenario . you guys get to run a mission compressed into a 1.5 - 3 hour time slot  instead of 6 plus hours .

BOB is a time compressed scenario thats why its fuel burn is set to that type of limit.   Malta and Op Husky is set more to distance x's map scale.

Now if you want us to go way over the edge with the 1.0 burn rate then AH would need to add in more precise weather ,winds , barometric pressure, moisture  , Worn engines , the variable of plane drag effects, weights and balances of the aircraft .  

So as you see the fuel burn is thought out towards each type of scenario .
if we went with a 1.0 burn in all situations we would have guys in certain plane types hanging out over fields Creating a MA environment in the scenario .

[SkyGnome]

Again, for the specific reasons that I outlined, I don't think that the desired effect is being had.  I also never said that 100% realism to the deprivation of fun was my goal.  If by "time compression" you mean that we need to spend 30-60% of flight time either flying to or from our base, then that would seem to work - but it seems like a pretty silly way to spend time that could be spent doing what we all want to do.

Im just putting out another perspective, and it's not something that just bugged me about one event, or that I haven't thought a lot about.  It's a particular device that I've seen used for various reasons, that I just don't think achieves the desired (or a desirable) goal.

And frankly, you're kind of going a bit far with your argument, like, "BOB is a time compressed scenario thats why its fuel burn is set to that type of limit."  This goes against the paragraph that's in the rules for BoB06 that explaining how the fuel burn was calculated.  And I can't for the life of me see what barometric pressure and moisture really have to do with anything, and weights and balances can be achieved by using the fuel in the aircraft as they would have been intended for a given mission.  Sheesh...  If you're using fuel burn to simulate those things, then fine, but that's not the case.

Most of the time it doesn't matter much, but sometimes it really does, and I still can't see how it adds to any event - and every now and then it really makes one significantly lamer.

[Brooke]

The fuel burn rate for BoB was picked to give realistic times over London for the 109's.

Most of the fuel used in Op Husky  (or many other scnenarios) is more based on transit distances and not as much for climbing.  I'll post some more info on that when I can -- basically, a 20% different in climb altitude (if altitude is scaled) has a much smaller effect than a 20% different scale to the map.

[Dux]

I can say that terrain size was definitely considered for the fuel rate in Husky, because Newman asked me about it directly... and Roscoroo is correct, the terrain size is about 3:4 Scale.

We try to make SEA terrains as close to 1:1 as possible, but it's not always practical. We do, however, strive to keep elevations 1:1.

Not offering an opinion either way, just giving some background to questions that came up here.

[SkyGnome]

Originally posted by Brooke
The fuel burn rate for BoB was picked to give realistic times over London for the 109's.

Most of the fuel used in Op Husky  (or many other scnenarios) is more based on transit distances and not as much for climbing.  I'll post some more info on that when I can -- basically, a 20% different in climb altitude (if altitude is scaled) has a much smaller effect than a 20% different scale to the map.

I appreciate your input.

As to the BoB situation, I'd like to delve into that a touch more.  First of all, the historical importance of the 109s limited range (regardless of what anecdote or actual performance data is used to quantify it), was that they could not escort heavy bombers to attack the industry, training, shipping, and defensive positions on the western side of England, thus allowing the RAF to continue to have new airplanes and trained pilots, all well equipped and fueled by supplies coming from the US.  In our scenario, even with the increased fuel consumption, 109s had the capability to fulfill any role required, including escorting bombers to our farthest targets.  What the reduced fuel actually did to the scenario was to reduce the Brits' ability to maintain an aerial presense, and to make the 110 relatively more powerful - as it was the only aircraft that only had to fuel once in the scenario.  A better, more useful alignment would have been to align the fuel settings to the patrol capability of the Spit/Hurri, as given our objectives, the 109s fuel consumption isn't a big tactical issue - but I think if you looked up historical data on Spit/Hurri range, combat endurance, and loiter time, we'd have ended up with something a lot closer to 1.0 fuel rate.

As to husky, the map scale issue is only relevant for transit.  I don't think any of the allied aircraft really care (with the possible exception of the Hurri).  They all have plenty of fuel.  From the perspective of the defenders, map scale is more or less irrelevant.  Our 205s spend most of their time climbing, actively pursuing, in combat, or RTB.  Only a small fraction of our time is spent in transit - the only situation where the map scale has any tangible effect (or that we could conserve fuel).  We don't care how much actual land we're covering, we have to cover as much as possible, and attack everything we see, and that requires almost constant 100% fuel use.  Basically, the intent here was to make transits more realistic from a fuel consumption standpoint, but the greatest practical impact is to reduce the already short-ranged 205 to a fairly contrived level of restricted combat endurance.

And you make the statement "...basically, a 20% different in climb altitude (if altitude is scaled) has a much smaller effect than a 20% different scale to the map."  Again, this is only true for long transits.  For the 205, the climb is significant, and you have not reduced the time required to catch and fight an opponent - while our fuel use is increased for those activities, which fill the majority of our flight time.  Net result, like in BoB, is not the desired effect of simulating map scale for transit or reducing the attackers capability, but it actually just penalizes short-ranged aircraft designs in ways that have nothing to do with the intended goal.

Hopefully I've gotten my point across: that what may seem like obvious and helpful changes in fuel rate actually rarely achieve the intended or a useful objective, and frequently have subtle side-effects that are generally undesirable, and feel contrived.  Thus far, nothing posted has been very strong in opposition to that feeling.  Event designers will do as they will, and I will continue to have great apreciation for their work and the experience that thier work creates, but I also hope that my points are not lost.

[Brooke]

Combat radius is an imporant aspect to Husky as well.  There are some aspects for which time aloft is more important (like capping a field), but I think that more of the scenario is affected by combat radius.  This is my opinion, though -- there is no way to prove that if you can't have both (1) correct time on station for some cap aircraft and (2) correct combat radius for all the bomber missions, aircraft from North Africa, aircraft searching for ships, and aircraft from ships, that it is best for the scenario to pick (2) -- but I do feel that (2) is the best choice.

[SkyGnome]

Originally posted by Brooke
Combat radius is an imporant aspect to Husky as well.  There are some aspects for which time aloft is more important (like capping a field), but I think that more of the scenario is affected by combat radius.  This is my opinion, though -- there is no way to prove that if you can't have both (1) correct time on station for some cap aircraft and (2) correct combat radius for all the bomber missions, aircraft from North Africa, aircraft searching for ships, and aircraft from ships, that it is best for the scenario to pick (2) -- but I do feel that (2) is the best choice.

The thing is is that the aircraft affected by the strategy of (2) typically have so much range that it doesn't matter _for the missions that fit in an AH scenario_.

I'm glad that you set me up to clarify here.  With 1.2 multiplier, a B24 has a whopping 208 minutes of range (more than the whole scenario).  A Ju88 has 113 - not quite the whole scenario, but more than enough for any mission with oceans to spare (and this is on the deck, at alt that flight time will stretch significantly).  The bombers always have enough gas for an AH scenario, and upping the multiplier does nothing to affect them - it's the nature of the limited time-frame of scenarios.

To get proper time on station and combat endurance for the short-range aircraft requires a 1.0 multiplier.  I would also contend here, that the practical importance of the distance a carrier is from shore is not at all related to the map scale, so the CV planes should have 1.0 as well, regardless of map scale.

My point is, is that the aircraft intended to be corrected by the fuel modification - while it may serve to make things more realistic for them - are actually not affected very much, if at all (like the B24).  While the aircraft who should not be affected (short-range fighter aircraft, navy aircraft), are in fact affected the most - and they should be running a 1.0 multiplier to make them realistic in thier mission.

And this is not just Husky I'm talking about, though it is a fine, and complex example.

[Stoney74]

One other thing that has an impact is how most everyone judge their endurance based on full throttle power settings.  In real life (with a 1.0 fuel burn modifier) a P-47N could take off, fly a 9-12 hour mission that covered over 1200 miles including 15 minutes of combat.  Even with a 1.0 fuel burn in AH2, the most you can load in the Jug-N is around 2.5 hours or so at full throttle.  That wouldn't have gotten the 318th FG from Ie Shima to Korea and back.  Those guys were flying at 175 mph IAS at 5000 feet MSL using some rediculously low power settings to make those missions.  And this wasn't a field-developed tactic, but a flight profile that was specifically designed for the aircraft at the factory.

In FSO, I find fuel consumption and awareness/planning to be a very interesting and enjoyable part of putting together a good mission.  Not to mention that many aircraft in this game can achieve much more endurance potential if pilots don't fly around mindlessly on full power the whole time.  For example, why climb a LA-7 at 3500 fpm when you can cut the power and climb at 2500 fpm (which is much more in-line with the majority of planes in the game at full throttle).  Save all that capability for when you need it (combat) and not when you don't (in transit).  You can consider fuel as another type of energy and apply all the energy fighting theory and dicta to fuel management.  This allows you to fly farther, arrive lighter, fight lighter, and still make it home.  It merely requires some forethought and planning.  Personally, I wish we had the time and patience for a 4 hour long, single hop mission.  It wouldn't be very fun or popular, but would be extremely educational for the community.

My two cents...

[SkyGnome]

Originally posted by Stoney74

For example, why climb a LA-7 at 3500 fpm when you can cut the power and climb at 2500 fpm (which is much more in-line with the majority of planes in the game at full throttle).

Test this.  Climbing at partial throttle doesn't save fuel.  You want to get high fast, and take advantage of the thin air for speed.  By using reduced RPM/throttle, you only save in level transit, and even then, the economy gains over the course of FSO/Scenario practical transit are small.  You can extend your time in flight, but that won't help when you always get jumped by higher aircraft (or you should have just taken off later, if you're waiting for a long-distance enemy.)

As an example, here's some data from a test I did a while back:

205, 1.0 Fuel mult, 114 gal full tank

Take off, set 2000 RPM, auto climb to 20k:
Time 8:51, distance: ~26 miles, Fuel remaining: 99gal

Take off, autoclimb full throttle and RPM to 20k:
Time 7:16, distance ~20 miles, Fuel remaining: 101gal
At ~26 miles, 99 gal left (but this time traveling at 337 instead of 226 MPH)

Once the distance is at 50 miles, the best I could get was ~2gal of fuel saved by using the best concervation methods I could find (climb full throttle, level and reduce RPM 'till ~250 true airspeed.  Beyond 50 miles, one can save roughly 25% miles/gallon by conserving, but at the same time you lose 140MPH in speed (making you a sitting duck in the situations in which we fly.)

So while some enjoy going through the motions of using cruise settings, it takes a really long transit for conservation to actually make a practical difference, because most of the fuel use in transits we see in FSO/Scenarios is in the process of climbing and the accelleration to cruising speed, which may as well be done at full throttle.  Once at altitude and speed, these planes don't get too much worse mileage that some SUVs.