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

[Krusty]

Fuel porking ruined the game for many players across an entire front (across both fronts sometimes) because dedicated griefers took every field down to 25% fuel. That was with 2.0 burn. You can't increase the burn then add BACK this porkability. It's adding salt to the wound.

Now, if you just look at 2.5x burn by itself, this won't work. Why? Because even NOW some planes are too short on time, even cruising. 2.5x burn would be tolerable and workable on the medium range planes, and the long range planes, but the number of planes we have that only have 20-25 minutes with FULL fuel load would be seriously hindered. Making the fuel burn 2.5 would literally remove them from use.

Spits have short legs, even on cruising. It's the main reason to take the Spit8 (the wing tanks). I-16 has all of (what?) 15 minutes flight time with full internal? LA-7 has all of 20 minutes (WEP) on full internal. I think the Typh only has some 25 minutes or less. The 109K4 has only about 25 or less on WEP. P-39Q is also rather short-legged. C205 I already have to cruise to and from a fight as-is. I'd never make it home with higher fuel burn. Not to mention as pointed out in other threads, fuel burn compresses the horizontal but you still need full power to climb to alt, whatever that alt may be. Even a "normal AH alt" like 10k would require you to burn much of your combat-time gas to get to the fight in a hypothetical higher-burn setting.

I don't think I can agree with something that cripples many of the planes in the game just to make the others use their fuel more wisely. I get that compromises must be made, but I think that's a poor one.

[Wiley]

B: Disable DT's unless %100 fuel is selected.

Yes, please.

Oh, and what all these other guys said.  I was in the AvA for a while a couple weeks ago and it was set to 1x multiplier.  I noticed immediately that I could up with 25% fuel for most sorties with no worry about running out.  As much as it would benefit my P47 flying, I don't think it would be good for the game at all.

And no to fuel porking, just... no.  Krusty hit the hight points.

Wiley.

[RTHolmes]

B: Disable DT's unless %100 fuel is selected.

yes! for all aircraft, unless there is very good evidence that less than 100% was used with drop tanks as standard practice.

I'd also make the minimum fuel for all aircraft 50%, 25% is just silly.

[Krusty]

It's not so silly on P-51s, P-47Ns, P-38s, Ta152s, Mossies, and a few others.

I tend to agree with DTs being gamed. I'm torn as to whether setting that kind of restriction my set a bad precedent, but overall I kind of agree.

EDIT: I'm not totally against fuel porking in some way, but fuel porking *and* higher burn rate? Recipe for disaster.

[cobia38]

  1.0 burn rate with porkable fuel to 25 %     yeah baby !!!!   

[SmokinLoon]

Fuel porking ruined the game for many players across an entire front (across both fronts sometimes) because dedicated griefers took every field down to 25% fuel. That was with 2.0 burn. You can't increase the burn then add BACK this porkability. It's adding salt to the wound.

Now, if you just look at 2.5x burn by itself, this won't work. Why? Because even NOW some planes are too short on time, even cruising. 2.5x burn would be tolerable and workable on the medium range planes, and the long range planes, but the number of planes we have that only have 20-25 minutes with FULL fuel load would be seriously hindered. Making the fuel burn 2.5 would literally remove them from use.

Spits have short legs, even on cruising. It's the main reason to take the Spit8 (the wing tanks). I-16 has all of (what?) 15 minutes flight time with full internal? LA-7 has all of 20 minutes (WEP) on full internal. I think the Typh only has some 25 minutes or less. The 109K4 has only about 25 or less on WEP. P-39Q is also rather short-legged. C205 I already have to cruise to and from a fight as-is. I'd never make it home with higher fuel burn. Not to mention as pointed out in other threads, fuel burn compresses the horizontal but you still need full power to climb to alt, whatever that alt may be. Even a "normal AH alt" like 10k would require you to burn much of your combat-time gas to get to the fight in a hypothetical higher-burn setting.

I don't think I can agree with something that cripples many of the planes in the game just to make the others use their fuel more wisely. I get that compromises must be made, but I think that's a poor one.

What do you consider "short legs"?  Spifires can go a long long time on max cruiser.  The Spit 9 w/ DT is 30 mins at max throttle.  That, imo, is hardly what I consider "short legs".  The I-16 and La5/7 have short legs with their 20 mins of fuel, imo.

 

[Krusty]

I consider less than 30 to be somewhat short, less than 25 to be noticably short, and anything nearing 20 to be extremely short.

This is without DTs, mind you. Spit9 without DT is in the 25 minute range, right? "Noticably short" (going from memory). I know that changes some things, but not all planes have DTs, and some suffer drag from the rack a lot more than others do.

[Lepape2]

If the fuel burn rate is lowered to 1x, then perk prices should go up accordingly (with the best performer being taxed more than early war birds(a bit like the tax differential between riches and poor)). Spit16s, La7s, Ta152, P51s, etc will enter the perked range and 262 will cost 25 to 50% more while Hurri MkI will stay at 40 ENY.

Personally, I'm not against trying this out for a week or two and get a feel for it. But we have to think if this will increase gameplay satisfaction of long time players and guarantee an increase in future players. However, I think HTC has bigger cats to take care of right now and only a well written and complete list of suggested changes to fuel burn, projected infulence on gameplay, perk prices for EVERY planes in the game, maps, etc should be handed over for review by some good Samaritan.

[Wiley]

If the fuel burn rate is lowered to 1x, then perk prices should go up accordingly (with the best performer being taxed more than early war birds(a bit like the tax differential between riches and poor)). Spit16s, La7s, Ta152, P51s, etc will enter the perked range and 262 will cost 25 to 50% more while Hurri MkI will stay at 40 ENY.

Personally, I'm not against trying this out for a week or two and get a feel for it. But we have to think if this will increase gameplay satisfaction of long time players and guarantee an increase in future players. However, I think HTC has bigger cats to take care of right now and only a well written and complete list of suggested changes to fuel burn, projected infulence on gameplay, perk prices for EVERY planes in the game, maps, etc should be handed over for review by some good Samaritan.

 

...Am I reading right, that you feel ability to stay up for a long time is perk-worthy?

How does that even remotely follow?

Wiley.

[Raptor05121]

Absolutely not, fuel consumption is already a non-issue in AH.  Lets not make it worse.

There are three things I strongly believe would improve or rather make more dynamic with regards to fuel in AH:

A: Increase the fuel burn rate to 2.5X: fuel consumption needs to be an issue.  Throttle and manifold pressure control is hardly an afterthought with current settings.  Managing fuel consumption should be a concern, it is Piloting 101.  Aircraft, even in WWII, did not fly %100 all the time.  There is a reason "max cruise" setting are available on the clipboard.

B: Disable DT's unless %100 fuel is selected.

C: Upon the 2nd fuel tank destroyed at a field DT's are disabled, upon the 3rd fuel tank destroyed = %75 fuel, upon the 4th destroyed = %50.


The fuel settings in AH is purely an arbitrary figure in which HTC has settled on.  There is nothing stopping them from changing the settings, or even testing new settings and reverting back to the old.  I'm told that once upon a more simple time the La7 jocks cried so loud about the original fuel setting that they were the ones who got the %25/%50 max fuel with X number of fuel tanks destroyed upped to %75, well now AH was a much larger plane set so perhaps it is time to revert???
 

holy crap X100,000,000

bombers need new target. for an offense to be good (for a bomber) you have to fly for 30 minutes to get to a safe enough altitude to drop FHs. but they are popping before you even drop your landing gear. fuel would offer more targets for us BUFFs and give the fighter jocks time to play pilot 101 with their number crunching game

[Lepape2]

...Am I reading right, that you feel ability to stay up for a long time is perk-worthy?

How does that even remotely follow?

Wiley.

Yup, because the effectiveness gains between low and high ENY rides becomes even more noticeable with fuel limitation considerations for high performance birds being less of a concern.

Perhaps you might prove my suggestion a bad idea if you could prompt me with a counter argument.

[Tilt]

If fuel porking returned then rationing should be more volumetrically biased IMO and not totally % based.

[Wiley]

Yup, because the effectiveness gains between low and high ENY rides becomes even more noticeable with fuel limitation considerations for high performance birds being less of a concern.

Perhaps you might prove my suggestion a bad idea if you could prompt me with a counter argument.

Everything would go up accordingly though.  Most high ENY planes would be able to take off with less fuel, thus increasing their relative performance.

Wiley.

[Karnak]

Thanks for the replies all.  I posted this at the request of a player who does not have access to the forums.  We discussed it in game, me taking the point most of you have taken, and he arguing that it would have positive changes such as more complex and deeper missions.

[Wiley]

Thanks for the replies all.  I posted this at the request of a player who does not have access to the forums.  We discussed it in game, me taking the point most of you have taken, and he arguing that it would have positive changes such as more complex and deeper missions.

Simply put, fuel consumption isn't the limiting factor on people running deeper missions.  With the current tools you can hit any base from anywhere on the map if you take the appropriate loadouts with the planes that were designed for it.

Wiley.