Would 1X Fuel burn rate be good for the game?

[Karnak]

What effects would a 1X fuel burn rate have on the game?  Would we see more deep mission with aircraft taking the time to form up and such?

Do you think it would be good for the game?  What effects on gameplay do you think it would have?

[shiv]

See a lot more LA7s around I would think.

[IrishOne]

What effects would a 1X fuel burn rate have on the game?  Would we see more deep mission with aircraft taking the time to form up and such?

Do you think it would be good for the game?  What effects on gameplay do you think it would have?

2x is perfect.    i can get to and from any fight i need to in a 190 or a 109 with 100%, and usually im out of ammo before im out of gas.    when it comes to american iron, i rarely ever use 100%.    IMO 1x is great for Scenarios and such, but 2x is perfectly suited to the MA environment

[caldera]

163s would be able to go 8 grids, instead of just 4, La7s noe to the HQ and P-51Ds crossing the map on a 1/4 tank.  No thanks.

[Karnak]

See a lot more LA7s around I would think.

Yes, that would likely be one effect.

The problem with the 2X fuel burn multiplier is that while bases are closer to targets than they really were, 30,000ft is still 30,000ft away.  It makes climbing twice as fuel expensive as it was for a given altitude.  For example, a Spitfire Mk XIV, a high altitude fighter, has very little loiter time once it has climbed to 27,000ft and flown to a target area.  Just the climb completely consumes its drop tank.

163s would be able to go 8 grids

Me163's are hard coded into the game and the fuel burn multiplier does not affect them.  Test it offline.

[Krusty]

More spit16s is more like it? Almost as short as the La7...

I don't think 1x would encourage "long missions" any more because we have so many planes that have over an hour's duration on 2x as-is. Add 1, 2, or 3 DTs to that and suddenly you can escort B-29s across the map and back with no sweat.

The only thing 1x fuel burn would do is encourage people to fly at 25% fuel all the time gaining substantial acceleration and climb benefits (as seen many times in past AvA setups) over a standard loadout.

[Delirium]

If anything, I think the fuel burn should be even higher.

It would put the fights lower and fewer people would fly around at full throttle all the time.

[guncrasher]

I say have hitech just change the text from 2x to 1x fuel multiplier, them people will feel better about it.  let everything else stay the same.


semp

[PuppetZ]

The only thing 1x fuel burn would do is encourage people to fly at 25% fuel all the time gaining substantial acceleration and climb benefits

Exactly my thoughts

[Karnak]

If anything, I think the fuel burn should be even higher.

It would put the fights lower and fewer people would fly around at full throttle all the time.

Is pushing the fights lower really desirable?  Combat at altitude was a very significant part of WWII and many of the aircraft we have in Aces High are optimized for altitude.

[Ack-Ack]

The only thing 1x fuel burn would do is encourage people to fly at 25% fuel all the time gaining substantial acceleration and climb benefits (as seen many times in past AvA setups) over a standard loadout.

It would be like AW where everyone flew at 29% fuel.

ack-ack

[Tank-Ace]

29% or is that a typo  ?


Karnak, big -1. We would probably see a big increase in spit an lala pilots, very few aircraft would require more than 50% fuel for standard furballing needs.

Fights would be pushed lower due to a large influx of Lala-7's and dweeb-16's.

And I'm not sure how, but it would probably result in more NOE hordes. Seems like everything results in more NOE hordes  .

[Karnak]

Seems like everything results in more NOE hordes  .

With one exception, this is frustratingly true.  Lowering the radar ceiling to something ridiculously low, say 25ft, would largely erase NOE hordes and replace them with massive numbers of forum whines about bases being to hard to take because they have to actually fight.

[MachFly]

In reality you had to fly a lot longer to get to combat. Since we don't want to fly 8 hour long missions here the bases are closer, therefore fuel burn is increased. If we set the fuel burn to a normal rate the planes that were designed to fly long missions would be useless, a Spit16 would be able to do their job.

[Karnak]

In reality you had to fly a lot longer to get to combat. Since we don't want to fly 8 hour long missions here the bases are closer, therefore fuel burn is increased. If we set the fuel burn to a normal rate the planes that were designed to fly long missions would be useless, a Spit16 would be able to do their job.

The flaw in that is that while AH is compressed in the horizontal it is not compressed in the vertical.