Fuel burn multiplier

[colmbo]

Bombers, on the other hand, are able to run 25% fuel for every tactical mission, which is probably 70% of bomber sorties. Fuel just isn't a concern for them, they don't even have to fly at cruise speed for strat runs.

Depends on how you fly I guess.  I quite often take 75% in B-17s if going deep, more than once have been concerned about fuel and I use a reduced power setting for cruise.  Fuel burn rate is fine as it is.

[ReVo]

I vote to increase the burn rate to 2.25 or maybe even 2.5, then code that DT's are not allowed unless 100% fuel is taken, then make it so when enough fuel tanks are destroyed on a field the max fuel able to be taken is 50% instead of the current 75%.  Bring fuel in to the strategic element like ammo is.

... oh wait... that wasn't the question.  Sorry.   

I seem to have the answer to a question no one asked (at least in this thread).   

I say keep the burn modifier the same for all aircraft regardless of class.  Though not much, it does add in some strategic elements to AH.  There is a reason we don't see Typhoons as escort fighters and in long range jabo missions. 

This is a horrible idea.
There are already far too many ways to avoid combat in Aces High, this will just make the problem worse.

[morfiend]

I'm curious why we train in an arena that has a different fuel burn multiplier than all  but the Dueling Arena

Fuel management is a part of air combat.

  I could set the fuel burn to any setting but the simple fact is at a 1 fuel burn you have more time to spend training,your plane stays heavier longer so you get used to flying heavy for a longer time.

  All that setting the fuel burn to 2 in the TA would accomplish is more time would be spent refueling and taking off and less time would be spent training. This is not the first time you've brought this up,if you think it's so important to train at a fuel burn of 2,by all means setup Icepac's custom training arena and train all the guys who show up on fuel management.



   

[LCADolby]

MA fuel burn is acceptable as it is.

 I'm not sure about the Me163 though. I'm not sure what it's MA fuel burn rate is, is it currently 2.0?

[Karnak]

MA fuel burn is acceptable as it is.

 I'm not sure about the Me163 though. I'm not sure what it's MA fuel burn rate is, is it currently 2.0?

Hard coded at 1.0.  It would otherwise be useless.

[Tank-Ace]

One thing to note is that bumping the bomber fuel burn to 3x would impact things like the Boston Mk III and Ju88A-4 to a much larger degree than it would things like the Lancaster and B-17G.  Not to mention the B5N2, D3A1, Ju87D-3, SBD-5 and TBM-3.  Tu-2 looks to have a fairly short range for a bomber as well.

Boston, Ju-88, and Ju-87 would be a concern, I'm not so sure about the others, given their typical mission profile. The potential for trouble is there, I'm just not sure you would ever run into it in the MA.

[icepac]

  I could set the fuel burn to any setting but the simple fact is at a 1 fuel burn you have more time to spend training,your plane stays heavier longer so you get used to flying heavy for a longer time.

 

Your plane stays light for a longer time as well.

[SmokinLoon]

This is a horrible idea.
There are already far too many ways to avoid combat in Aces High, this will just make the problem worse.

This would not facilitate what you're speaking of.  Instead of taking of the knee jerk La7, perhaps the P47x or other such plane with a decent internal fuel capacity.  I'm not suggesting shutting the door on being able to up any plane.

As far as the Boston being "worthless" if the burn rate goes to 2.25, ask yourself just how often the Boston is used to begin with.

[Tank-Ace]

This would not facilitate what you're speaking of.  Instead of taking of the knee jerk La7, perhaps the P47x or other such plane with a decent internal fuel capacity.  I'm not suggesting shutting the door on being able to up any plane.

If only the P-51 had short range as well, we might see some variation in the typical dweeb's plane choice  .

As far as the Boston being "worthless" if the burn rate goes to 2.25, ask yourself just how often the Boston is used to begin with.

Not only that, but look at it's typical mission profile. Its always used as a short-range, high-speed tactical bomber.

[Karnak]

Tu-2S would likely be hit as well, and it will see more use than the Boston III.

[Tank-Ace]

Tu-2S would likely be hit as well, and it will see more use than the Boston III.

Maybe. Its got no formation, and no F3 mode. Gonna be hard to see GV's, and it won't level bomb so well.

[Karnak]

Maybe. Its got no formation, and no F3 mode. Gonna be hard to see GV's, and it won't level bomb so well.

Why do you think it won't have formations or F3 mode?


Ah.  It has been released.

Well, we'll see how it ends up.  The Mosquito Mk VI was a bomber with F3 capability and flying out of bomber hangars when released.  Formations didn't exist back then.

[Karnak]

Why do you think it won't have formations or F3 mode?


Ah.  It has been released.

Well, we'll see how it ends up.  The Mosquito Mk VI was a bomber with F3 capability and flying out of bomber hangars when released.  Formations didn't exist back then.

And so it will have formations:

This is an OOOPPPS, I should be able to enable them online.

Dale

[Tank-Ace]

Perk it at 2.

6k of ord, 310mph on the deck, dogfights like a 110, and has 20mm cannons. And with F3 mode. The damn thing is TOO good to not be perked lightly to control useage.

[Karnak]

Perk it at 2.

6k of ord, 310mph on the deck, dogfights like a 110, and has 20mm cannons. And with F3 mode. The damn thing is TOO good to not be perked lightly to control useage.

That sounds like the subject for a new wish thread.