Mustang vs. George...

[juzz]

 

I have no clue what the ratios are, but 25% fuel for a 109, Spit, LA5 or c.205 just might be just enough to get a 190 airborne. Make one circle around the field and then land.

Minotaur - Huh? How do you get that out of Kirin's idea?

Say the Bf109 carries 100 litres of fuel at 25%. For the P-51 100 litres might be equivalent to 15% or less of total capacity. However, the P-51 will go further on 100 litres of fuel because it's engine/airframe combination is more fuel efficient than the Bf109.

Once the field is damaged enough to limit even the short ranged planes to 25% fuel, people will take up the P-51 anyway because of its better fuel efficiency. So it probably won't even solve the issue at all, in the end.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-08-1999).]

[Minotaur]

Juzz;

I don't really know what I understood when I read Kirin's ideas.  I thought that they were very good, creative ideas.  

IMO, in effect it becomes a way to get around the current fuel use multiplier, and give an advantage (or disadvantage) to a plane type that it should not have.

I look at it this way.  Kirin's ideas just go against what I consider to be "The Grain of the Game"  as far as attacking bases and damaging fuel.  

Currently, bases provide an unlimited amount of fuel, but restrict plane capacity(%) to a set amount per sortie.  The amount of fuel capacity per sortie depends on how much damage has occured to the fuel at the base.

Therefore; NME plane range is what you attack when you attack a bases fuel.  You do not attack their ability to get airborne nor do you attack how many planes can actually get airborne.

This method seems reasonable to me because, there are no "No Fly" restrictions based on fuel.  The only restriction is how far you can fly.  

IMO for Kirin's idea to be effective, you must limit the total amount of fuel available at each base.  As planes load up with fuel the total amount of fuel at the base drops.  As fuel re-supply arrives, the total amount of fuel goes up (Supply and Demand).  When a base has no fuel, you can't fly from it.

Now then; the strategy for attacking a bases fuel would be two fold.  Attack the bases current supply and attack the bases re-supply capacity.  

This "Supply - Use - Re-Supply" is not currently modeled.  So it seems unreasonable to me to model fuel capacity for planes in gallons(liters).

One option I think would be more fair to smaller capacity fuel airplanes, would be to always give them the option to load 50% fuel.  Base this not one the planes inherent range capablities, simply base it on the planes physical fuel capactiy.

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Mino

[juzz]

 

One option I think would be more fair to smaller capacity fuel airplanes, would be to always give them the option to load 50% fuel. Base this not one the planes inherent range capablities, simply base it on the planes physical fuel capactiy.

That's basically very similar to Kirin's idea, by calculating fuel in an absolute volume instead of by % of total capacity, smaller tanked planes aren't hit so hard by the limitation of fuel at an airbase. I don't think he mentioned any more complex supply/use model like you think?

So instead of loading 25,50,75 or 100%  fuel you would load up 50,100,150 etc... gallons. Damaging fuel at an airbase would reduce the number of gallons you can load.

Or another way of doing it would be to have the gallon details in the "background" so you still choose 25, 50, 75 or 100% fuel, so that when when fuel at a field is damaged to 25% max for a P-51, it would still be 50% for a Bf109.

[Minotaur]

Juzz;

cc Thanks for you reply.          

     

 So instead of loading 25,50,75 or 100% fuel you would load up 50,100,150 etc... gallons. Damaging fuel at an airbase would reduce the number of gallons you can load.  

This effects range only, by equalizing the range of different plane types.

     

IMO, in effect it becomes a way to get around the current fuel use multiplier, and give an advantage (or disadvantage) to a plane type that it should not have.

This helps to distinguish one plane type from another, strengthes and weaknesses.

     

IMO for Kirin's idea to be effective, you must limit the total amount of fuel available at each base. As planes load up with fuel the total amount of fuel at the base drops. As fuel re-supply arrives, the total amount of fuel goes up (Supply and Demand). When a base has no fuel, you can't fly from it.

This effects range, quantity and specific plane type effectiveness. (Not modeled)


I could agree totally with you if bases had a "Finite" amount of fuel available and if only specific plane types could take off from designated bases.  Currently, bases have an "Infinite" amount of fuel available and any plane type (infintite number as well) can take off from any base.

I succom to the idea that the AH arena is like a Chess Game      .  For Chess, each piece on the board has its definable strength and its definable weakness.  If you equalize the specific strentghes and / or weaknesses of the individual Chess Pieces, you end up with a game that resembles Checkers.

I can see we are not really going to agree on this one.      

Thanks for your feedback. <S>

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Mino

[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-11-1999).]

[juzz]

OK Ok ok... I don't think you understand

At the moment, when you attack an airfields fuel the biggest effect is to limit the plane types coming out of the field. Small tanked planes like the La-5FN, Spit 9, Bf109G-10 become too short-legged to be worth flying. So people pick the P-51D, because it's huge fuel tanks let you fly around for a decent amount of time even on 25% fuel.

If you calculated fuel by volume and not percentage, then attacking an airfields fuel would mostly affect the range of the planes coming out of the field, and not the types of planes. Planes that are more fuel efficient(P-51D) would gain some advantage, by being able to go further on the same number of gallons than a less fuel efficient plane(Bf109G-10).

Therefore; NME plane range is what you attack when you attack a bases fuel. You do not attack their ability to get airborne nor do you attack how many planes can actually get airborne.

This method seems reasonable to me because, there are no "No Fly" restrictions based on fuel. The only restriction is how far you can fly.

The current system unfairly discriminates against planes with a small fuel load. The volume system wouldn't seriously affect any plane type more than another.

One option I think would be more fair to smaller capacity fuel airplanes, would be to always give them the option to load 50% fuel. Base this not one the planes inherent range capablities, simply base it on the planes physical fuel capactiy.

Planes with long range will still have the historical advantage of a long endurance and being able to fly deep into enemy territory, loiter and rtb.

The fuel burn modifier is the way to descriminate long range from short range planes, not indirectly via airfield fuel damage.

[juzz]

Thinking about the idea of finite supply, I realised that it would cause some big problems of its own.

Say you have your airfields with a finite fuel/ammo/ordinance supply. Some idiot keeps taking off and getting vulched; each time he gets killed, that airfield loses the fuel/ammo/ordinance he was carrying. Pretty soon that base is bled dry by the actions of one dweeb pilot, and rendered useless. Or someone REALLY EVIL could switch sides to the enemy and constantly .fly .ef in a fully loaded B17G until all their bases were empty of fuel, .50 ammo and bombs.

Finite supply/re-supply would be fantastic in a limited-life scenario with a real goal to defeat the enemy by reducing his capacity to fight, and IF the pilots behaved realistically, but in a "Fantasy Air Combat Arena" it just wouldn't work.

[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-11-1999).]

[juzz]

I'd better make at least one post that is somewhat relevant to the topic, so here goes.... Fix the N1K2-J flaps so they are automatic, like on the real thing! (please?)

[Minotaur]

Juzz;

I agree with your thoughts on finite field resources.  It does not fit the AH game model.  It would probably not work well or be very complex to model for a balanced play envoirement.

I think that I do understand you.  I consider your points very valid.  I just don't agree with them.  

 

At the moment, when you attack an airfields fuel the biggest effect is to limit the plane types coming out of the field. Small tanked planes like the La-5FN, Spit 9, Bf109G-10 become too short-legged to be worth flying. So people pick the P-51D, because it's huge fuel tanks let you fly around for a decent amount of time even on 25% fuel

You state IMO to be "The very thing you are attacking when you attack a bases fuel".  You are very correct and these planes are the probably the most effective at base defense or counter attacking.  By attacking the range of these planes your attack has greater merit.

There must be a viable reason to attack the fuel at bases.  It must be an immediate and noticable result. If not, why do it then?

I believe however; this is not the "True" thrust of your discussion, hence where my disagreement with your opinion lies.  I believe there should be no strengthening the the role of one fighter at the expense of weakening the role of another.  

In essence, reducing the role of the P-51, because that is something you personally disagree with.  Please let me know if I am wrong in my thinking about this.

 

I succom to the idea that the AH arena is like a Chess Game . For Chess, each piece on the board has its definable strength and its definable weakness. If you equalize the specific strentghes and / or weaknesses of the individual Chess Pieces, you end up with a game that resembles Checkers.

This analogy carries over once again to Chess.  If you don't want to use a Knight or don't believe in a "Knight Strong Game".  You don't get to carry over any of the Knight's movement to a Rook's movement.  

This motiff of changing strength conditionally however; works well in the game of Checkers.  Checkers is a game that quickly is out grown and becomes boring.  

Chess is a wonderfully simple game with unlimited complexity.  Chess creaties the much beloved idea of "Multiple Stategies" and the game becomes endlessly interesting.  

Interesting discussion, thanks again for the reply. I have enjoyed your posts greatly.  

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Mino