Increase fuel burn

[Volron]

 

[haggerty]

50% would still allow la7s, yak3s and spit16s to up in a last ditch base defense role (if you're getting vulched you don't need much gas!) but would be an effective means of preventing them from showing up over your own field.

Other planes like the p51 are not as affected but you can negate their big offensive advantage by killing the ords. And other planes like the mossie or ta152 would hardly be affected by the lack of ords/fuel with their ammo load and fuel capacity.

Oh and bring back resupply convoys, trains, barges

Thats the intent of my wish.  There are no reason to take planes historically good on range because range is never an issue in MA.  You can take a 75% LA7 and comfortably fight over enemy territory for a good amount of time.  Porking fuel of the enemy does not cause them to take longer range planes, it just shows that you are a noob and missed a valid airfield target.  Rather than extend bases, I think it would be nice to artificially decrease ranges.  The small change in fuel burn would prevent the requirement of drastic changes to fuel porking/strats.

[Vinkman]

I agree there is little reward for hitting fuel strats/base fuel whereas historically it would be a valuable target.

Not sure if changing fuel burn is the best. But maybe degrading the field max fuel available is a better solution?

25% fuel tanks destroyed - no external tanks
50% - 75% fuel
100% - 50% fuel?

This 

[Ramesis]

Burn rate is already 2x, it does not need to be increased.

+1

[Oldman731]

There are no reason to take planes historically good on range because range is never an issue in MA. 

The P-51D is one of the most popular planes in the MA...and, of course, one of the planes with the longest range.

Reaching back into the dark cobwebbed memory of the oldman, I can recall my anger when I saw suicide porkers hitting the fuel.  I was not alone, of course, which is why The Change occurred.

Although personally I would like to see fewer Spitfires and Yak3s and the like, I don't see much sense in restricting plane choices.  We'd also lose virtually all of the German and Russian aircraft. 

All you have to do is peruse a few of the ENY threads to see why limiting plane choice is not necessarily a positive development.

- oldman

[Arlo]

I'm with OM.

[Mongoose]

You base your wish on the premise that "range is never an issue in MA".  That is not true.  If you set up a long range bomber mission with escorts, fuel and range do become issues.  Your rebuttal might be, "but that never happens".  Yes it does, just not often enough.  And it will probably become a "never happen" if you increase the fuel burn and take away the escorts.  I have been on many flights were fuel was an issue, and I fly the P-38 which has pretty good range.

Your wish to decrease the range of fighters will decrease the kind of flights we want.

[Wiley]

Not a fan, mostly because this game really does not need more easier options to degrade the enemy's capabilities.

Wiley.

[haggerty]

You base your wish on the premise that "range is never an issue in MA".  That is not true.  If you set up a long range bomber mission with escorts, fuel and range do become issues.  Your rebuttal might be, "but that never happens".  Yes it does, just not often enough.  And it will probably become a "never happen" if you increase the fuel burn and take away the escorts.  I have been on many flights were fuel was an issue, and I fly the P-38 which has pretty good range.

Your wish to decrease the range of fighters will decrease the kind of flights we want.

You have like 2 hours of flight time with the long range escorts, and thats at sea level.  More than enough time  to get across the map, fight, and get back.  And thats taking off at a reserve base.  Either way, more can be done to increase the benefit of porking fuel, if you are doing long range escorts, you will still have the unporked bases to take off from.  I would think a possible reduction to 50% instead of 75% would be a good step, that would starve the LA-7, etc.

[Arlo]

Typical organized strategic bombing missions (by Nef) currently involve simulating an 8th Air Force style setting. This means B-17s or B-24s with P-51s, P-47s or P-38s escorting (often a hodge podge mixture). They aren't NOE. The escort with the greatest fuel flight time among the escorts is the P-47. In the MA, if it is loaded up with two large drops that'll give it 1.5 hours of flight time (without taking fuel saving measures). On average, other escorts have a little over or a little under one hour of military fuel time (with max drops). Without DTs, the 47N has a little less than an hour and the 51s about the same.

1. Nef typically advertises the missions to assure there will be adversaries to face.
2. Commonly the opposition meets the stream long before they get to the target (DTs get dropped).
3. RTB without benefit of escort has happened simply because the escort loses it's 'long legs.' (Perhaps players didn't go full tank.)

So I agree, I see no need for fuel burn change.

[Drano]

let the fuel affect your blender and you will be whining too


semp

The bright side of that is it would force Shuff to see the light that a proper Margarita is shaken - - - ONLY!

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[haggerty]

Typical organized strategic bombing missions (by Nef) currently involve simulating an 8th Air Force style setting. This means B-17s or B-24s with P-51s, P-47s or P-38s escorting (often a hodge podge mixture). They aren't NOE. The escort with the greatest fuel flight time among the escorts is the P-47. In the MA, if it is loaded up with two large drops that'll give it 1.5 hours of flight time (without taking fuel saving measures). On average, other escorts have a little over or a little under one hour of military fuel time (with max drops). Without DTs, the 47N has a little less than an hour and the 51s about the same.

1. Nef typically advertises the missions to assure there will be adversaries to face.
2. Commonly the opposition meets the stream long before they get to the target (DTs get dropped).
3. RTB without benefit of escort has happened simply because the escort loses it's 'long legs.' (Perhaps players didn't go full tank.)

So I agree, I see no need for fuel burn change.

Fuel burn may not need a change, but fuel capacity at a base with no fuel depots should change.  A 25% loss of fuel doesnt hurt a single plane in the game, all of them can still do offensive operations comfortably.

[Shuffler]

The bright side of that is it would force Shuff to see the light that a proper Margarita is shaken - - - ONLY!

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

I blend the HE double hockey sticks outta mine...... frozen of course Little salt on the rim and a shot on top.

My PJ does well for escort on 100% fuel. I only take the tanks to carry my Cuervo and Leroux Triple-sec.