Author Topic: Could someone rethink the way porking fuel works? (Read 1299 times)

Blue Mako · « **Reply #45 on:** April 15, 2003, 11:10:43 PM »

I can't believe that the same people who complain that their planes/vehicles aren't modelled realistically enough want a quake arena where you never get low on fuel or never have to resort to taking off from a base that isn't on the front line. This game is about simulating air combat and a large part of air combat is denying the other side resources. If you don't like someone porking your bases, try defending them rather than just looking for furballs...

Bluedog · « **Reply #46 on:** April 16, 2003, 12:19:53 AM »

Defending and competition winning dont mix real well.
Plays merry hell with the kills/time thingy.

IMHO, leave it as it is, or maybe add more fuel tanks per field.

bigsky · « **Reply #47 on:** April 16, 2003, 12:49:00 AM »

i kinda think your on to something with that more fuels idea. instead of 4-8 fuel tanks make alot more fuel tanks to hit. i think we are stuck with fuel loadouts in 25% increments so you couldnt have 90% avalable to use but still i think fuel porking should be made harder. if i remember right hitech had i post about if you die 30 seconds after you drop bombs the bombs dont count, what happened to that idea?
bigsky

bloodstain · « **Reply #48 on:** April 16, 2003, 01:06:05 AM »

bloodstain · « **Reply #49 on:** April 16, 2003, 01:08:03 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SunKing
I'll say it again.. The answer to everything in this game is...

No perk points awarded unless a sortie is landed successfully. People will reconsider their one way trips, people will consider using ACM versus HO attacks ect....

(attack at will)

I second that motion!!!:D

DrDea · « **Reply #50 on:** April 16, 2003, 01:13:36 AM »

How about no perk points period.

BlauK · « **Reply #51 on:** April 16, 2003, 01:37:03 AM »

Some excelent ideas from this thread and more:

-No perks if you die.

-Fuel availability drops in liters/gallons available, not % of each plane's fuel tank. This way the long distance bombers and fighters would suffer first and all would be equal when base fuel is at 50% or 25%.

-Scatter the fuel depots or form them in few groups (not too tight) and place acks close to them.

-Add a separate "Fuel" category to C-47 and M-3 cargo options. No fixes to hangars and acks with that load, but more fuel instead.

-Refuelling should give you only what the base can give, not what you had when you took off the first time. It would also be nice to get a small window for selecting diferent bomb load or different fuel load on the refuelling pad.

Sixpence · « **Reply #52 on:** April 16, 2003, 02:28:19 AM »

Has someone mentioned specific loads for c47's? Like a fuel drop, or munitions drop, to supply fuel or ammo quicker. Just a thought.

beet1e · « **Reply #53 on:** April 16, 2003, 04:45:42 AM »

Again, all interesting ideas, but none of this is ever going to happen. Think of it this way. If you were a car maker, and you'd been making the same car in various marques, and it had been successful for five years. But in that fifth year, the decision had been taken to produce a new marque, which was a total redesign of what went before. What would you say to the customer who walks into the showroom, and says it would be really great if it (the old marque) could have the dash trim in brushed aluminium instead of walnut veneer?

I'm not saying that HTC will no longer support AH1 - of course they will. But I think that some of the excellent ideas for changes that have been advanced in this thread may involve a considerable amount of programming effort. And all the time that programming effort is deployed on AH1 means programming effort not deployed on AH2.

If I were moving house next week, I don't think I'd be spending my time installing new lighting in my loft.

mia389 · « **Reply #54 on:** April 16, 2003, 05:14:05 AM »

The fuel problem does suck 1 guy can eliminate 30 fighters uping from a base if he kills 3 fuel barrels at a small field. I like the idea of haveing them spread out. then you can acutally use all them small bombs in bombers, or carpet bomb. why killfhs when you can kill fuel, fuel stays down longer too

Replicant · « **Reply #55 on:** April 16, 2003, 11:03:36 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by mia389
The fuel problem does suck 1 guy can eliminate 30 fighters uping from a base if he kills 3 fuel barrels at a small field.

I think that statement is a little OTT. You can still defend a base quite easily with 25% fuel. Okay, you're not going to climb to an great altitude but 25% is enough for defence. The P51 seems to be able to fly quite a long distance on 25% too, perhaps no loiter time over target but just enough to fly to the nearest base and back.

If we all want realism then the hangars would stay down a lot longer. Aircraft would be ferried in. The runways could be pepper potted so no one could take off. At least we have a happy medium.