Author Topic: More on fuel depots (Read 281 times)

MANDOBLE · « **on:** April 14, 2003, 06:38:10 PM »

We dont want perk rides, but we actually have a much more efficient way to cover that: porking fuel. Suddenly, half of the planeset is negated with only 25% availabe. 190A5, 109E/G/F, C205, F4U1D and others becomes "perk" rides, while others like P51/P38 dont.

HFMudd · « **Reply #1 on:** April 15, 2003, 09:18:13 AM »

Interesting and spot on way of putting that Mandoble.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone argue against making the fuel pork gallons rather than a percentage.

LePaul · « **Reply #2 on:** April 15, 2003, 10:12:49 AM »

That's a very good point...what's 25% to a Lancaster is different from what is 25% to a P51

A Lanc can fly a long long time on 25% (I dont recall ever taking more than that)...so even a fuel porked field doesn't prevent a bomber from uppin, etc

DeadOne · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2003, 10:46:10 AM »

that's why some system other than % should be used... make it so that the damaged fuel impacts the planes performance ratehr than limiting the amount of fuel a plane could take... this will make all the "A bomber with 25% fuel carries more than a FW with 100%" people stop whining... affecting fuel quality would affect ALL planes equally.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2003, 09:38:09 PM »

rgr that..also hangars destroyed should degrade plane performance for late war rides. Also perk multiplier
shouldnt effect early war rides(negatively), say prior to 1942.
Please dont FORCE me to fly a la7.