Please Adjust Fuel Tank Damage

[SmokinLoon]

Currently, the worst a fighter can have for fuel due to destroyed fuel tanks is 75%.  Ultimately, this does nothing and has no effect on AH.  There are so few fighters that are effected that it makes destroying fuel tanks on the fields and bombing the fuel factory almost a worthless venture.  There are but a few planes effected, and even then they are not effected enough to keep them in the hanger for their intended roles are not hindered. 

If the effects were lowered to 50%, THEN we may see a broader effect.  THEN we may see missions with the sole purpose to damage fuel tanks.  Until that point, fuel will only be an afterthought.  If 50% fuel was the maximum fuel some fighters could use, then planes like the F4U-1A, P51x, P47x, 190A-8, and most of the Japanese planes would be that much more important because of their large fuel capacity.  Likewise, the Lancaster, B25, G4M, and He111 can go much further on 50% fuel than many bombers on 75% or 100%.   

Think if it no different than the ords (actually, it would have LESS of an impact than having ords down).  When ords are down an entire class of aircraft have no use (bombers), and it severely restricts the use of another class (jabos/dirt movers), and it really only allows 1 class of aircraft to prosper (aside from slick fighters): the tank busters armed with AP cannons (IL-2, Hurri IID, and Stuka G-2).

This would give the base resupply guys no further burden, really.  If the fuel is down, then the ords are probably too. Either way, it **adds** to the strategic element.

Please consider increasing the effect of fuel tanks being destroyed to %50 maximum fuel. 

[Karnak]

50% would be ok.  25% was too much effect though.

However, I may be biased as I take 50% in the Mossie, so no effect on me when flying Mossies.

[SmokinLoon]

50% would be ok.  25% was too much effect though.

However, I may be biased as I take 50% in the Mossie, so no effect on me when flying Mossies.

I cant remember the last time I took anything more or less than 50% in the Mossi Mk IV.    

Oh, and I agree that 25% is too little.  The poor little La7 would only have 5.5 min, roughly, of fuel if it were allowed only %25 fuel.  As it is, I'd be willing to bet a large portion of players only up with 50% fuel when defending a field in any fighter regardless of make.  So again, having 50% max fuel isn't going to prohibit a plane from upping, it is only going to limit it to short range defensive purposes.   

[wpeters]

+1

[The Fugitive]

Nope, like in the old days when you could drop it to 25% you would have a few guys doing nothing bit porking front line bases of fuel. I would hate to have to up 3 bases back from the front lines just so I could have a drop tank.

No thanks, we have enough ways of killing fights now.

[SmokinLoon]

Nope, like in the old days when you could drop it to 25% you would have a few guys doing nothing bit porking front line bases of fuel. I would hate to have to up 3 bases back from the front lines just so I could have a drop tank.

No thanks, we have enough ways of killing fights now.

It wouldn't kill fighters, it would simply limit the choice if the need is to go 3 sectors.  At 50%, an La7 would still have 11 min+ in the air at full throttle, which is plenty for base defense.  Oh?  You want to take that La7 across 2 sectors and dog fight over an enemy field?  Then you had best resupply the base just like we have to do with ordnance for the bombers and jabos.   

The difference in the effect of fuel vs ordnance is this: ordnance is currently and "all or none", while fuel is has a scaled effect.  Though, the current max damage has no effect on anything, really.  If the fuel max was 50%, each and every aircraft is still available to fly.  The same can't be said for ordnance.   

[Tinkles]

It wouldn't kill fighters, it would simply limit the choice if the need is to go 3 sectors.  At 50%, an La7 would still have 11 min+ in the air at full throttle, which is plenty for base defense.  Oh?  You want to take that La7 across 2 sectors and dog fight over an enemy field?  Then you had best resupply the base just like we have to do with ordnance for the bombers and jabos.   

The difference in the effect of fuel vs ordnance is this: ordnance is currently and "all or none", while fuel is has a scaled effect.  Though, the current max damage has no effect on anything, really.  If the fuel max was 50%, each and every aircraft is still available to fly.  The same can't be said for ordnance.   

Which should be changed to a scaled effect similar to the fuels.

+1 to wish also.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[SmokinLoon]

Which should be changed to a scaled effect similar to the fuels.

+1 to wish also.

Tinkles

<<S>>

Agreed.  For the record, I've vouched for a scaled system on that too.  The "all or none" threshold is a bit harsh, imo.  On the same token, what are only bombs, rockets, etc, effected and not gun or cannon ammo? Why not restrict ammo to 50% if the ords are down? 

[Hap]

Currently, the worst a fighter can have for fuel due to destroyed fuel tanks is 75%.  Ultimately, this does nothing and has no effect on AH. 

I recall with relish the days of porking a base's fuel to 25%.  When HTC changed to what we have now, my surmise was exactly what you stated.

[Kingpin]

I recall with relish the days of porking a base's fuel to 25%.  When HTC changed to what we have now, my surmise was exactly what you stated.

Other than the fact that I just discovered you can use "surmise" in a noun form, this thread gets a -1000.

There are too many suicide porkers in the game already -- no reason to give them another target to auger into.

<S>
Ryno

[MOSQ]

I'd be for trying it at 50%.
In the old days the 25% was too little and caused problems. And 75% makes hitting fuel irrelevant. Maybe 50% would be a game play issue too, but I'm willing to give it a try.

[The Fugitive]

It wouldn't kill fighters, it would simply limit the choice if the need is to go 3 sectors.  At 50%, an La7 would still have 11 min+ in the air at full throttle, which is plenty for base defense.  Oh?  You want to take that La7 across 2 sectors and dog fight over an enemy field?  Then you had best resupply the base just like we have to do with ordnance for the bombers and jabos.   

The difference in the effect of fuel vs ordnance is this: ordnance is currently and "all or none", while fuel is has a scaled effect.  Though, the current max damage has no effect on anything, really.  If the fuel max was 50%, each and every aircraft is still available to fly.  The same can't be said for ordnance.   

What if this is NOT the reason I play the game? Many people couldn't care less if a field gets porked, they just move on. How many people do you see jump in goons to resupply HQ when dar goes down, very few.

People don't pay $15 a month to fly goon runs. So what happens when the inevitable happens and those bases are pork and there isn't any place close to fly from time after time? People cancel their subscriptions..... like they were doing when the fuel could be porked to 25%.

[HawkerMKII]

So lets do away with killing hangers, ords, town so we can all just furball 24/7 woooooot fun for all

[Hap]

oh fiddle

[SmokinLoon]

What if this is NOT the reason I play the game? Many people couldn't care less if a field gets porked, they just move on. How many people do you see jump in goons to resupply HQ when dar goes down, very few.

People don't pay $15 a month to fly goon runs. So what happens when the inevitable happens and those bases are pork and there isn't any place close to fly from time after time? People cancel their subscriptions..... like they were doing when the fuel could be porked to 25%.

At 50%, you can still up any plane and with the exception of a few popular planes (namely the La7), there isn't a fighter than can't still make the 25 mile round trip to an enemy airfield for the furball action.

Also, in most cases all it takes is THREE M3's to resupply a field well enough to bring up the fuel tanks, ords, etc.  That 6000 yard jaunt on average takes how long?  Or, better yet, up from another nearby field.