Rearming at Inactive Bases

[Nefarious]

Stoney great event  

Agreed here, there surely has been no shortage in the action department   

[haasehole]

 I would of thought it would be better to take a rearm penality than lose a airframe to a ditch... not the 1st time I would of made a bad call  I also think the setup is fine just got to watch da fuel and head back before its to late.

[Anaxogoras]

Stoney, I have bickered with you in the past, and I don't want to start this here again.  So let me say right out that I appreciate the work you've put into this FSO.  Here are some questions:

I'll start this by simply explaining my reasons for both the 1.5 fuel burn and the re-arm rules.

1.5 Fuel Burn

This setup requires nothing more than a 100 mile combat radius, more or less, for all planes involved.  I do realize that some of the Russian rides have short legs, but even they can be used effectively with this short distance.  No, you cannot takeoff and leave the throttle firewalled the entire frame.  That is by design.  No, you cannot hang out indefinitely over the target.  That is also by design.

Are you saying that the 100 mile radius is an artifact of the desire for pilots to practice engine management?  I was initially confused by the fuel burn because the radius of combat operations on the Eastern front was frequently only ~50km.  With the drop tanks of the 109, we can still fly to the target (or defense area) with the throttle firewalled (if we want) and not have fuel concerns.  Although the La-5 could carry two drop tanks on its wing hard points, it doesn't have them in AH, and so it is more or less restricted to defense in this FSO.

I really think it's time for a complex engine management option in AH, and if it could be required in a special event by the CM's discretion, that would be OK too.

Finally, these are simply two different tools I've used to create some immersion, a more realistic feel, and a more complex planning problem for the CICs.  I've done this because I believe these characteristics add to the value of the event, for most of the FSO community.  However, if the community wants a more vanilla event, then perhaps I'll get rid of them.  We create these events for the playing pilot, not for our own egos.

I've never run out of fuel flying a Yak or La in Il-2 in a Eastern front combat theater, save for a leaking fuel tank.  I don't think this is a choice between realism and vanilla, but rather between one aspect of a realism (engine management) and another (having sufficient fuel).

Ok, that last one isn't a question.  It's my $.02.

[Stoney]

Stoney, I have bickered with you in the past, and I don't want to start this here again.  So let me say right out that I appreciate the work you've put into this FSO.  Here are some questions:

Are you saying that the 100 mile radius is an artifact of the desire for pilots to practice engine management?  I was initially confused by the fuel burn because the radius of combat operations on the Eastern front was frequently only ~50km.  With the drop tanks of the 109, we can still fly to the target (or defense area) with the throttle firewalled (if we want) and not have fuel concerns.  Although the La-5 could carry two drop tanks on its wing hard points, it doesn't have them in AH, and so it is more or less restricted to defense in this FSO.

I really think it's time for a complex engine management option in AH, and if it could be required in a special event by the CM's discretion, that would be OK too.

I've never run out of fuel flying a Yak or La in Il-2 in a Eastern front combat theater, save for a leaking fuel tank.  I don't think this is a choice between realism and vanilla, but rather between one aspect of a realism (engine management) and another (having sufficient fuel).

Ok, that last one isn't a question.  It's my $.02.

No, certainly not complex engine management.  More of a "fuel planning" problem.  So its not merely another example of "kick the tires and light the fires" found in the MA.  We don't have to think about wind, weather, distance or fuel in the MA.  We always have calm winds, clear skies, a field no more than 1 sector away from the fight, and our fuel decisions mostly revolve around how much NOT to take.  I like to introduce all of those considerations back into FSO.

[Saxman]

The thing I'm seeing, though, is that the Axis can give their bombers a completely unimpeded run into target just by putting out a fighter sweep about 5-10mins ahead of the strike package. And it's not even a matter of shooting down the CAP, but just running them out of gas. Except for the P-39s, the Allies under this setup don't have the endurance even WITH engine management to climb to position over their defense objective, loiter for 30-45mins, engage in a dogfight at max power for 5-10 minutes, then deal with the bombers coming in 10 minutes after the sweep. Especially if they have to fly 50 miles home to gas up.

[daddog]

That is a problem Sax, but my squad has sat on the runway before for 15 or 20 minutes and then rolled when we knew fuel would be an issue for us with base defense. Ya your gambling they don't just come direly to the target, low, fast and ready for bear, but it has worked for us a couple times in the past few years.

[Saxman]

The other issue I mentioned earlier in the thread is when the nearest rearm base is ALSO a target, and the next closest is too far to go. I realize not every setup is going to allow this, but it would be a BIG help if the CMs made sure that pilots had a place to rearm that didn't have a bull's-eye on it for enemy strike packages.

[daddog]

 

[gyrene81]

Great setups Stoney...IMO it's those little challenges and details to stay in the fight that make FSO great...if we had a more complete plane set, it would be even better.

The thing I'm seeing, though, is that the Axis can give their bombers a completely unimpeded run into target just by putting out a fighter sweep about 5-10mins ahead of the strike package. And it's not even a matter of shooting down the CAP, but just running them out of gas. Except for the P-39s, the Allies under this setup don't have the endurance even WITH engine management to climb to position over their defense objective, loiter for 30-45mins, engage in a dogfight at max power for 5-10 minutes, then deal with the bombers coming in 10 minutes after the sweep. Especially if they have to fly 50 miles home to gas up.

Considering the distances being used, and the plane sets, I disagree...fuel management and maintaining a defensive cap can be well managed with some cooperation and forward planning.

[Anaxogoras]

fuel management and maintaining a defensive cap can be well managed with some cooperation and forward planning.

I don't think any of us flying axis this FSO are in a position to judge this.

[gyrene81]

I don't think any of us flying axis this FSO are in a position to judge this.

Sorry but, after flying La's in the last scenario with longer distances...informed judgment.

[Anaxogoras]

Fair enough.

[Ghosth]

Personally I think limiting to just 3 rearm fields may be just a bit limiting. Especially if one of those is a possible enemy target.

While I agree with the idea behind it, I think implementation could be improved by adding a couple more possible fields.