Re-arming at "porked" airfield and Fuel availability...

[Volron]

Fuel Availability:
When I first started playing AH in Aug of last year, I recall hitting an airfield and knocking out all the fuel tanks there.  When I checked the clipboard map, it showed that the fuel availability at that airfield was at 25%.  Maybe I was seeing things?  But if all the fuel tanks are knocked out, I think that being limited to 25% would be plausible.

I would like to see if this could be implemented (again if it was there back then).  You knock out all the fuel tanks at an airfield, you are limited to 25% fuel from said field.  Maybe make the down time the same, or at least half, of what the Ords down time is?

Re-arming at a "porked" airfield:
As it stands, when ever you re-arm at an airfield, even if that airfields ords and fuel have been completely taken out, you get a full resupply on your plane.  I was wondering if it would be feasible to make a change to where, if you re-armed at said, porked airfield, that it would affect what you would get when you re-armed?  Example: I up a P-47 D-25 with 100% fuel, Center DT, 2 1k lb bombs and rockets, and head to an airfield.  After a little bit, we take the airfield but, someone took out all the Ords and fuel (which has happened to most, if not all, of you at one point or another  ).  When I land to rearm my plane, I would not get any ords, my DT and would have to take off with 25% fuel because all ords and fuel tanks are knocked out.  The rocket tubes would stay on the plane, in case you wonder what happens to them. 

I would like to see if this could be implemented as well.

[phatzo]

I'm in two minds about this, whilst your argument makes sense, I think it would slow down game play.

[SmokinLoon]

I think it makes PERFECT sense.  No ords to take off with = no ords to re-arm with.  Ditto for the rationed fuel as well.


 

[Ack-Ack]

I think it makes PERFECT sense.  No ords to take off with = no ords to re-arm with.  Ditto for the rationed fuel as well.


 

Because then the attacking force would only target the fuel dumps to prevent anyone from taking off.  In the old days if you porked the fuel it lowered the available fuel you could take (25%) which caused the porking of all front line bases to prevent the defenders from being to up and defend a nearby base because they didn't have the fuel to make. 

ack-ack

[LLogann]

I'm on the fence myself........... 

I'm in two minds about this, whilst your argument makes sense, I think it would slow down game play.

[Rino]

     Sure, pork all the fields.....we need to spend more time in the tower watching instead of flying 

[Avanti]

I'm in two minds about this, whilst your argument makes sense, I think it would slow down game play.

I'm on the fence myself........... 

I'm not sure either...

[OOZ662]

Yep, was there for AH1 when fuel could be taken down to 25%. You could no longer take off from other fields to defend when the porkers were on the loose unless you brought a long range bird. Not very handy, really.

[Tilt]

Agreed re the re arm arguement. IMO  re arm pads are a game anachronism left over from AH beta.  However if retained they should not re arm material which is not commonly available at the air field.

Re fuel porking down to 25%................. if fuel was rationed volumetrically (or by endurance) rather then a % of capacity then this would be more appropriate. Fuel attrition (as presently mofelled) seems to benefit access to gas guzzling birds which use it inefficiently where as lighter birds (actually using lessfuel anyway) are hit harder. This does not make sense IMO.

Pure volumetric rationing may effect game play so IMO the correct method of rationing would be endurance based using an absolute endurance measure. Presently we have 5 levels of fuel attrition 125% (drop tanks available), 100% fuel available, 75% fuel available, 50% fuel available (disabled), 25% fuel available (disabled)

an example of endurance related rationing would be as follows. (@mil power sea level) using the same % as above

125%= unlimited by rationing, 100%= 100 minutes, 75%= 75 minutes, 50% = 50 minutes, 25% = 25 minutes. E6B maths already sit in the COAD so its not a huge step to implement the actual fuel  values available per ac IMO.

[Ghosth]

The old fuel porking settings made it possible for one side with a numbers advantage to pretty much keep another side pinned to the mat.

Hard to defend when you can only roll with 25% fuel in la's and Nik's. And when the other side is sitting high over your fields in p47's, p38's, p51's and 190's trying to up an A6m for defence gets really old after a while.

As to rearming more than the field capacity currently is, I can see changing the rearming model ONLY if we go back to being able to pork fuel down to 25% or less. Then changing the rearming model would make sense.

As it is, I just don't see any real point in it. Its work and time spent that gets us exactly what?

[OOZ662]

As it is, I just don't see any real point in it. Its work and time spent that gets us exactly what?

The only benefit that appeals to me would be the penalty for an attacking force to completely rampage a base. As it is now, missions roll up, rape the field, vulch until the goon shows up, everyone lands, magically rearms, and rolls down the next field. Should limited rearming be added, those missions would either be stopped cold or forced to take off from the original field, slowing the progress. And it'd be yet another jab at the scorepotatos, which doesn't bother me a bit...

[Lusche]

The only benefit that appeals to me would be the penalty for an attacking force to completely rampage a base. As it is now, missions roll up, rape the field, vulch until the goon shows up, everyone lands, magically rearms, and rolls down the next field. Should limited rearming be added, those missions would either be stopped cold or forced to take off from the original field, slowing the progress. And it'd be yet another jab at the scorepotatos, which doesn't bother me a bit...

Actually it goes both ways. It impairs not only the attacker but also the defender.  When ords are porked and the horde brings in GVs, the defender can try to stay alive and to rearm (not that easy, a plane sitting on rearm pad for 30 seconds (excluding taxi time) has a big VULCH ME! sign on top).

IMHO the proposal it would benefit the horde more than the defenders.

[OOZ662]

I, personally, have never seen an aircraft successfully land and re-arm at a capped base, so I didn't consider it. Though I suppose it is a good point in that you could entirely disable a front for good. Though, at the same time...that was kind of the intended purpose, when you think about it.

[Volron]

The Fuel Availability subject seems to be a no go, but the re-arming at porked airfield still seems to be going...

So in the re-arming at porked airfield's subject, why don't we factor out fuel. (Most missions I see, they take 50-75% anyways. I don't see 100% very often, and very rarely w/dt's and 100%)  But the ords still play a solid run in this.


Lusche
How exactly does it benefit the horde over the defenders?  I am just asking for your reason to that statement.  No harm, no foul intended.


An airfield get's attacked by gv's and it's ords are knocked out.  You either up a gv, an anti-gv plane or you up from a nearby base w/ords (or you ignore the field all together  ).  The thing is, if the ords are down at the attacked airfield, how is a plane from a different field (or from the same one if they upped w/ords prior to them going down), would have access to something that is no longer available at porked airfield?

[Lusche]

Lusche
How exactly does it benefit the horde over the defenders?  I am just asking for your reason to that statement.  No harm, no foul intended.

I thought I had already explained that?