Fuel Reduction to 50% or lower for Base Attacks

[Phoenix3107]

When all fuel depots on a base are destroyed, shouldn't the max fuel loadout be 50%? Seems a bit too friendly to set it at 75% imo, that gives even short-distance planes to reach the battle from distant airfields, make some kills and reach back home. Fuel is a vital resource as well as ords and dar too isn't it?

Lets say the base is a small airfield, which has 4 depots of fuel at 125%. Ya drop one, takes it down to 100%, the next or the other two tanks would go to 75%, and the last one when dropped brings it down to 50%.  Plus, it would help out when doing strat raids on the fuel factory.

Yeah, so there's at least 4 depots to kill, but that's not too hard to do with a 110, 190A8, 47, 38, 410, and any other plane is it?

[Chris79]

Ought to limit aggregate total fuel rather then percentage.

[Beefcake]

Back in Ye-Old-Day destroying all fuel tanks would reduce fuel to only 25%, however, La7 pilots whined and complained and got it raised to 75%. 

[Tilt]

Actually (as an La7 Pilit) I agree with the OP.

However fuel should not be rationed by % but by litres per aircraft


100% fuel @ field = maximum limit of aircraft
75% fuel @ field = upto 1,500 L (or max limit of aircraft if lesser)
50% fuel @ field = upto 1,000 L (or max limit of aircraft if lesser)
25% fuel @ field = upto 500L (or max limit of aircraft if lesser)
0% fuel @ field =   upto 250L

[Volron]

Actually (as an La7 Pilit) I agree with the OP.

However fuel should not be rationed by % but by litres per aircraft


100% fuel @ field = maximum limit of aircraft
75% fuel @ field = upto 1,500 L (or max limit of aircraft if lesser)
50% fuel @ field = upto 1,000 L (or max limit of aircraft if lesser)
25% fuel @ field = upto 500L (or max limit of aircraft if lesser)
0% fuel @ field =   upto 250L

This sounds plausible.  The question to be asked now is what AC will the "average"(kind of like how the 1000lb bomb is the "average" for all bombs)?  This only appears to affect fighters, how do bombers factor in?

I'm not against this idea, I'm just curious to how exactly do we do it.  Isn't 50% to a P-51 like 75-100% to a lot of other AC?

A question to all:
Which AC do we have that has THE smallest tanks?  What AC do you believe will be added in the future that may have smaller tanks that what we have now?

This is a bit of a touchy one, but what if it was required to have 100% fuel before you can put Drop Tanks on as well?

[Lusche]

Which AC do we have that has THE smallest tanks? 

Fi-156- 40 gallons.
If I'm not mistaken, the I-16 is the fighter with smallest internal tanks at 67gallons of fuel. The P-47N is the fighter with largest internal tanks (550gal), while the B-29 carries 6650 gallons

[guncrasher]

This sounds plausible.  The question to be asked now is what AC will the "average"(kind of like how the 1000lb bomb is the "average" for all bombs)?  This only appears to affect fighters, how do bombers factor in?

I'm not against this idea, I'm just curious to how exactly do we do it.  Isn't 50% to a P-51 like 75-100% to a lot of other AC?

A question to all:
Which AC do we have that has THE smallest tanks?  What AC do you believe will be added in the future that may have smaller tanks that what we have now?

This is a bit of a touchy one, but what if it was required to have 100% fuel before you can put Drop Tanks on as well?

been flying the ponyd for a couple of years, i never carry more than 50% and I can make that last for a long time.


semp

[FBKampfer]

I feel like limiting it by volume would benefit the fighters with the smaller fuel tanks.

Even at maximum, the K4 carries under 1000L, and 100% is only around 450L IIRC. The Spitfires, and Yaks are in the same ballpark, as is the Ki-84 IIRC.

Wouldn't do much to non-US fighters.

[Delirium]

I feel like limiting it by volume would benefit the fighters with the smaller fuel tanks.

Agreed. We need more incentive to fly the heavier fighters, not less.

[FBKampfer]

Agreed. We need more incentive to fly the heavier fighters, not less.

Well, I suppose it comes down to what we're trying to do. If the goal is to limit bombers, mission accomplished. If you want to impede the ability of the enemy to control the airspace, I'd argue you've left some of the most effective fighters essentially unaffected.

[bozon]

Do not limit fuel at all. Both percentage and absolute amounts make very little sense with respect to real life. In R/L it is either you get the fuel you need or you do not fly. With respect to the game, each method affect different kind of planes differently - neither is fair.

Limiting fuel does not accomplish anything gamewise. Just forget about it. If you want to disable planes - kill the hangars.

[Tilt]

The goal ( assuming that fuel is to be a factor) is to limit by volume rather than %. The values I put forward would be subject to change to get the best game balance. With a new field model we may not have to be restricted 5 levels of fuel availability.

Whilst making it more complex we could ration fuel by volume per engine. Then multi engined planes have 2 or 4 times the fuel available to single engined planes.

The system could be also linked to a dynamic perk system where players can risk perks by taking extra fuel when it is scarce.

[shotgunneeley]

What about a tiered system based on internal fuel capacity? At a field, the more the fuel dumps are effected, the greater the affect on the availability of the hard-hitting/long endurance aircraft.

(Tier 1) O-20%    : light fighters only
(Tier 2) 21-40%   : attack aircraft available
(Tier 3) 41-60%   : medium bombers available
(Tier 4) 61-80%   : heavy bombers available
(Tier 5) 81-100% : drop tanks and RAT available

A player would not be limited in the amount of internal fuel he/she takes as long as the vehicle tier is available. Again, this would proportionately affect aircraft based on internal fuel capacity and efficiency, not necessarily make, model or intended function. I just categorized the above breakdown for a general idea.

[Volron]

been flying the ponyd for a couple of years, i never carry more than 50% and I can make that last for a long time.


semp

If I'm by myself, I almost always take 100% fuel.  Once in a while, I'll take less than 100% fuel in the bomber I choose to fly.  Even in missions that I join, I'll usually take 100% regardless of what the mission calls for with the exception of bombers.  I really don't see the point not to, even if it would give me some kind of minor advantage in a dogfight.  I see it this way, if I can win with that much fuel, then I'll most certainly be fine when I don't have that much fuel.   And if I ever gain the ability to gun like Marseille, then all that fuel will translate to a lot more kills in one go.

[bozon]

If I'm by myself, I almost always take 100% fuel.  Once in a while, I'll take less than 100% fuel in the bomber I choose to fly.  Even in missions that I join, I'll usually take 100% regardless of what the mission calls for with the exception of bombers.  I really don't see the point not to, even if it would give me some kind of minor advantage in a dogfight.  I see it this way, if I can win with that much fuel, then I'll most certainly be fine when I don't have that much fuel.   And if I ever gain the ability to gun like Marseille, then all that fuel will translate to a lot more kills in one go.

If you are talking about the 109, keep in mind that it has a tiny fuel tank. Range was the 109s most glaring shortcoming during the BoB. Compare that with the P-47N that carries more than 5 times the fuel load of the 109 and was supposed to be able to cover 2000 miles sorties. Even with the scaled up Fuel Burn Multiplier of the MA, the distance between fields in very short for so much fuel.