% attrition v % loadout reduction

[Tilt]

Why, when the fuel at a field is limited, can a P51 take twice as much fuel as an La5 just because it has bigger tanks.

Would it be better to limit the actual fuel quantity in gallons or litres rather than limit a % of the total capacity.

Same for bombers real fuel attrition should really hit long range air craft.

The effect here is that fuel porkage will not affect  short/medium range defensive sorties in the MA but would affect long range attacking ones.

[SlapShot]

The notion that we have now gives us an infinite amount of fuel at a field. We are then limited to the amount of fuel that we can load into the tanks.

With that in mind, how would your idea be implemented?

Not trying to be a smart-ass here ... I am just confused as to how this could work.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by SlapShot
The notion that we have now gives us an infinite amount of fuel at a field. We are then limited to the amount of fuel that we can load into the tanks.

With that in mind, how would your idea be implemented?

Not trying to be a smart-ass here ... I am just confused as to how this could work.

pick a number .........lets say  500 gals per fighter @100% field fuel.

Then

375 gals @ 75%

250 gals @ 50%

125 gals @ 25%

if the p51 in my example had a max fuel load of 400 gals he would start to see limitations to his fuel load at 75% field fuel attrition.

if the La 5 in my example had a max fuel load of 200 gals he would start to see limitations to his fuel load at 25% field fuel attrition.

Both however would be allowed the same quantity of fuel (up to their maximum) at any level of field fuel attrition.

[ccvi]

Maybe two engined planes should be takein into account. It might be more fair to limit flight time at full throttle - e.g. at 100% there's enough for the p51 with DTs to fly. At 50% a 51 can just fly half of that time while others still can take off with full fuel.

[Samiam]

Originally posted by Tilt
pick a number .........lets say  500 gals per fighter @100% field fuel.

Then

375 gals @ 75%

250 gals @ 50%

125 gals @ 25%

if the p51 in my example had a max fuel load of 400 gals he would start to see limitations to his fuel load at 75% field fuel attrition.

if the La 5 in my example had a max fuel load of 200 gals he would start to see limitations to his fuel load at 25% field fuel attrition.

Both however would be allowed the same quantity of fuel (up to their maximum) at any level of field fuel attrition.

This makes way more sense to me than the current system.

[rogerdee]

I like your way of thinking tilt.
yo can pork a field but then they still come and hit you with 255 fuel.your idea would make sorties harder and thinking more

[Duedel]

wtf are gallons? Not only that we have to fly German planes with mph gauges. Now we have to get used to another silly unit "gallons". Thats to much  

[WhiteHawk]

Gallonsis the universal measurment for 'corn-sqeezins', therefore it will, eventually, be accepted as a standard measurement worldwide.
  Anyway, I like the fuel idea, and I think the reload should be limited as well.  it doesnt make sense that a guy can get a full tank as well as drop tanks at a base where there is a fuel crises.
  (although I take full advantage of this myself )

[JB73]

Tilt ..  read THIS thread i put up a few weeks ago..

just what you are saying.

what do you think?

[Tilt]

Originally posted by JB73
Tilt ..  read THIS thread i put up a few weeks ago..

just what you are saying.

what do you think?

I think its good.............

I was sort of concentrating on the concept of % versus gallons rather than the whole fuel store (depot) structure which you went on to elborate. The way fuel is distributed can be varied per terrain in the terrain design......its not a code thing....

I must admit I am terrible at reading all thru stuff to make sure I am not duplicating............so some times I duplicate.