Arena Fuel Burn Rates..

[icepac]

On topic, can you explain the more than an hour at more than 400mph claim for the Mk XIV?

So my claim of "near 400mph" has been twisted by you to be "more than 400"?

Who's exaggerating now?

BTW......I never use WEP during bomber interceptions except when using the mossie VI and the 110g.

It makes a big difference in how long you can fly.........escpecially in the spit XIV.

I'll post the boring film if you want but you will have to agree to pay my way for 2 months once refuted.

Mossie VI can maintain quite a high speed for multiple sectors.



On another note, ME262 is the uber high altitude bomber interceptor.

[Karnak]

Ok, granted, you did say near 400mph.  My apologies for that.

One of the strengths of the Mossie was high cruise speeds and it does have them in AH as well.

[kvuo75]

On another note, ME262 is the uber high altitude bomber interceptor.

(Image removed from quote.)

you have almost 200mph on the 29's and you attack from dead 6?

 

[icepac]

And I flamed all 3 within 3 seconds.

At that altitude, you don't get more than one or two passes and a high closure rate dead six works pretty well as compared to a slashing attack......a turn that saps your precious energy and speed, a 5 minute climb to get above and ahead while trying to gain back speed, and another attack.

It easily adds up to 15 minutes or more and usually gets you killed at that altitude because your closure rate after maneuvers is a lot less which keeps you in the guns of the bomber much longer.

There is also the surprise factor in that a B29 flying over 30k without seeing someone for a long while will get complacent and may not ever man the guns before you destroy all 3 of them.

I stand by my results and place you in the troll bin because it's obvious you spend little time above 30,000 feet in the sim.

[Karnak]

icepac,

Why do you insist in including an insult in almost every post you make?  Insulting everybody else doesn't make your point, a correct one about maneuvers at 30k+, stronger.

[icepac]

So you ignore Kvuo's obvious troll post and make me the insulter.

I respond in kind.

Regardless of the tone of my posts, please scroll up and notice my harshness is provoked.

[kvuo75]

troll post. 

good natured ribbing is now trolling.


You're correct tho, I don't spend much time above 30k, and when I did, it was in b17's, and 262's usually didn't do too well.

[SmokinLoon]

              what a load of b.s.

Um... do you know the meaning of "arbitrary"?  The values assigned to any of the OBJ are completely arbitrary and made up by HTC.  I'm not sure why that is "BS" to you or anyone.  HTC simply designed a scale and based on that scale they assigned "hardness" values.  If you dig in to what piece of ordnance does what for damage you might see a correlation.  What is not arbitrary is the amount of damage caused to X object by Y ordnance in the real deal.  HTC can look up hard data as to how much a .50 cal FMJ can penetrate armor, or how much displacement a 250lb GP bomb can do. Etc, etc.  In turn, they have chosen to assign values based on a scale of their choice.  However, it is all relative. 

Do I need to school you in the "how and why" of AH's ordnance capabilities vs OBJ hardness settings?  Nothing BS about it, it is purely how they set it up.

I've always maintained that barracks, ammo bunkers, fuel tanks, radar towers, and town buildings need different hardness settings.  Currently, they are exactly the same.     

[WW1965]

hmm..

after thinking about this for a bit & then coming back & reading all posts on this topic.. umm.. all I can ask is WTF does this have to do with the OP..   

some thoughts I had :
remove maybe 40% of the bases off of all maps increase AAA defenses .. so as to make the bases available that much more 'sacred'..
spread the strats out around all the maps & increase AAA defenses .. so only one can be hit by a single formation, if @ all ..
decrease the range of CV's & put resupply requirements on them .. so they can't tool around forever without refueling @ a friendly port .. this is historically accurate after all ..
increase the rewards for landing a successful buff run while weakening the buffs defensively .. (this is just a thought for the game play) ..

the only things I can't honestly consider are GV's, GV bases, & the B29's..
& I gladly invite discussion on all of these considerations.. but please keep the flames to a minimum ..

again, these are just some thoughts that have been hurting my head... 

<S>

Wrngway



 

[SmokinLoon]

hmm..
after thinking about this for a bit & then coming back & reading all posts on this topic.. umm.. all I can ask is WTF does this have to do with the OP..   
some thoughts I had :
remove maybe 40% of the bases off of all maps increase AAA defenses .. so as to make the bases available that much more 'sacred'..
spread the strats out around all the maps & increase AAA defenses .. so only one can be hit by a single formation, if @ all ..
decrease the range of CV's & put resupply requirements on them .. so they can't tool around forever without refueling @ a friendly port .. this is historically accurate after all ..
increase the rewards for landing a successful buff run while weakening the buffs defensively .. (this is just a thought for the game play) ..
the only things I can't honestly consider are GV's, GV bases, & the B29's..
& I gladly invite discussion on all of these considerations.. but please keep the flames to a minimum ..
again, these are just some thoughts that have been hurting my head... 
<S>
Wrngway

HTC needs to balance game play with realism.  I think some of the proposals you've made would lend more towards an environment of cat n mouse and longer flight times for engagements.  Just a hunch.