The Last Battle Of Kharkov - Final Scores

[Drano]

I understand that selectively modeling "realism" is part of what makes this game fun. Dealing with all the myriad minutiae of a completely accurate flight sim will not appeal to all......

Glad this conversation is happening actually. Some things to consider. It's a two hour frame with the idea of having to attack a target by T+60. Given the "vast" distances that the single engine planes have to travel the fuel burn forces better management in order to carry out the mission. This also equals traveling slower as you can't fly balls out to the target or you'll run out of fuel before you might make it home. The slower you fly the more time of the frame you consume. This all but precludes any follow up attacks and what you have is what you had the other night. A bunch of guys just flying around playing tag with each other far from home not really able to engage or travel to engage as they didn't have the fuel and or time to do it. This sucks. I'm sure everyone would agree.

Like the setup. But I gotta wonder what the CM group's convo was like after we ran this the first time? It wasn't any different then and yas left it as it was! Look, you're gonna have to pick your poison before you run this again. Either bump up the fuel burn or allow all friendly fields to be used. Not saying you have to double the burn but a little help for the planes with no legs to begin with is in order here. It's a no-brainer. They are what they are. Left as it is this is half an event at best. With a little tweaking you can fix it up just fine. You're just the men for the job!     

[phatzo]

Left as it is this is half an event at best.

This is the first FSO I've found to be a little unenjoyable, I would rather spend my Saturday afternoon with my kids than that.

[perdue3]

This is the first FSO I've found to be a little unenjoyable, I would rather spend my Saturday afternoon with my kids than that.

It is Eastern Front, Allies are expected to get mauled and did so. Just like late war Pacific for Axis. We are expected to get whooped, and we manage to squeak some out here and there. For the most part, high F4U-4's and 1-C's you have to deal with in a Tony isnt very enjoyable. Yet, we still need both theaters in FSO. Late Pacific sucks for Axis, but we still do it and enjoy it. Eastern Front sucks for Allies, but it should be in the schedule because it did happen and should remain. There are only a few specific theaters/campaigns that are VERY even. We hit those a lot.

[captain1ma]

i blame it all on the allies. the missed base bonus landings, everything! its their fault! see what they do to us poor axis fighters! very sinful!!   

[phatzo]

It is Eastern Front, Allies are expected to get mauled and did so. Just like late war Pacific for Axis. We are expected to get whooped, and we manage to squeak some out here and there. For the most part, high F4U-4's and 1-C's you have to deal with in a Tony isnt very enjoyable. Yet, we still need both theaters in FSO. Late Pacific sucks for Axis, but we still do it and enjoy it. Eastern Front sucks for Allies, but it should be in the schedule because it did happen and should remain. There are only a few specific theaters/campaigns that are VERY even. We hit those a lot.

It was the fuel situation more than anything, it made it very hard to actually get a fight going, I was just pulling up on to your coit as I ran out of fuel trying to give the guys with a bit more fuel than me a chance to get some.

[Dantoo]

It is Eastern Front, Allies are expected to get mauled and did so. Just like late war Pacific for Axis. We are expected to get whooped, and we manage to squeak some out here and there. For the most part, high F4U-4's and 1-C's you have to deal with in a Tony isnt very enjoyable. Yet, we still need both theaters in FSO. Late Pacific sucks for Axis, but we still do it and enjoy it. Eastern Front sucks for Allies, but it should be in the schedule because it did happen and should remain. There are only a few specific theaters/campaigns that are VERY even. We hit those a lot.

You've missed his point (and mine) completely.  It's about fuel settings and playability.  Nothing else.
In this FSO if you were assigned an La5 (the only plane with performance comparable with the Axis fighter set) you rolled with 30 minutes fuel.  For illustrative purposes only, I'll reference a task plucked from the last frame.  "Defend V48, home field A10". There were home fields and tasks further apart, this one is about the median.

Your responsibility is to defend V48 for an hour. 

It takes about 12-13 minutes to fly from 48 to 10 with typical conservative settings.  If you fight for one minute on arrival and then check your fuel status at 5k during the fight you discover you now have 17 minutes fuel  and you are about 12 minutes from the fuel pump and you are engaged in a fight right here and now.
As long as you don't touch wep (you're gone if you do) you can fight happily over the place you are required to defend for about 5 minutes in the first hour.  Then what?

If you rush home and back, after refuelling, you could make it back in just under 30 minutes so you can defend for another 5.
You are supposed to defend that field for the first hour but in fact you can defend it for maybe 10 minutes if you don't do anything stupid like go full throttle or fight anybody.

What about other planes?  Yep you get about another 9 minutes in a YakT, but an ammo load that says "take me home now" if you have to use it up on buffs or do a bit of speculative snap shooting.  If you go chasing your opponent, say a full sector, you're a goner on fuel again.

The P39s were allowed to carry ord.  Why?  If they did they couldn't actually get to a target and back.  Sheesh.

Things got better if you only had to fly 5 minutes or so to refuel (rearm anywhere notion) but not a lot.  It probably allowed you to actually pursue a fight for that single sector out from the target.  Any further out (as we proved to you in game) and everybody runs out of fuel either at the rearm pad, or tragically just before, with zero time for fighting.

On the way the rules were written on rearming, I suggest if it is desirable to get a message across that where something is retricted unusually then it has to be written in supporting context.

8.) Planes may re-arm (or "hot pad") at any friendly active airbase.
This looks permissive in context.  Looking forensically for the restriction works, but it isn't a normal thought process.

The rule might convey the meaning a lot more clearly if written in just a slightly different manner:
8.) Planes may re-arm (or "hot pad") only at those airbases nominated as "active".