Fuel Bunkers

[Grimm]

Iv been following several discussion on the effects of Fuel being porked.   This has prompted me to watch and evaluate the situation.

I can safely say I am in agreement that it is too easy to pork the fuel verses what it takes to bring it back up.  

A Good Jabo pilot,  single handedly can reduce a feild to 25% Fuel even if there are several defenders.    To raise the fuel back up takes the efforts of Many airfeild cargo loads.  The Balance is not there.   efforts of 1 = efforts of a dozen  

Even a fairly unskilled pilot can still reduce the fuel quite easily, more like down to 75%  again it takes alot of efforts to negate that.  

The Fuel simply goes down too easily.  

It seems that a solution should be looked into.   Perhaps a combination of Ideas.   Maybe more fuel tanks per feild.  or maybe concrete bunkers around the tanks so only vertical attacks (bomb, rocket straffing straight down) has effect.    Or maybe something nobody has suggested yet.

This is often bad for the Attacker as well as the defender.   Often the Fuel is so badly damaged at a base, its practicaly useless untill many C47s are flown in after a capture.   It will be easier to keep the fuel intact if was a littel harder to take down.


The Present settup just gives one person too much ability to effect arena conditions.

Agree?  Have a valid solution??

[Pepe]

I think it's OK. Gives the outnumbered guys a way to effectively counteratack the usual lemmi....(there I go again)... massive raid agains an undefended field.  

[mipoikel]

I agree pepe. Its ok now. Its the only way to defend against bishhordes and they have anyway more than enough people to resupply their fields.

[HeLLcAt]

Grimm I see what you are saying, but I disagree with you. I do because they just upped how much load it takes to kill a hangar. If you start upping the fuel, you'd have to up the Radar, and Ammo bunkers. Plus you'd have to waste a 1000lb bomb on just a fuel tank, doesn't make sense. It only takes 250lb right now to kill a fuel tank I believe, which is about 8 times less than a hangar. If you up it 500lb, it would be almost 1/4 the wieght to take down a hangar, so than what about the ammo bunkers? The only thing it would do is make people better at dive bombing, which sure people need, but not to this extent.

[Grimm]

Hellcat,

Personaly I would not increase the hardness.   Im thinking more fuel tanks,  or protection around them.  

An example is now,  each tank destroyed takes fuel down by 25%.   Perhaps with more tanks it would take it down 10%    It would make it harder for a single guy to impact things,  It might take a few guys working together (gasp)

Or the other way with concrete bunkers around would not take a bigger bomb,  it just would mean you must drop it from above,  shallow bomb runs wouldnt be effective.  Also this would make low angle staffing or rocket attacks ineffective.   It would require a person to come at a steep angle, and have to climb back up for a second or third pass.  

As it is now.. just come in with a Typh hugging the ground and completely take down fuel.  

IMHO that isnt good game balance.

either or of those changes would not increase the hardness of the tanks,  it would just require  more difficult tactics.

[rshubert]

has been recorded.

Waaaa, there's no balance.

Waaaa, the fields are too far apart.

Waaaa, my kill/hour score is less than 10.

[Drunky]

Look...shubert is making friends again

[rshubert]

Originally posted by Drunky
Look...shubert is making friends again

Just trying to influence people.

[beet1e]

I think it's OK now. This afternoon, I took up a F6F from a CV and completely deacked the field single handedly - no cons came up. So just in case they got ideas about suiciding our CV, I landed the F6F (only 0.46pp ) and upped another, and then used bombs and rockets to pork the fuel. True, with no acks and no defenders, it was as easy as pie to pork the fuel back to 25%. But is it MY fault that there were no defenders? Sounds like some fuel porkage whiners want targets to be tougher so they don't have to bother to defend them, and can get on with the all important task of furball-furball-furball...

In a real life situation, a single Stuka pilot could destroy a facility which would then take a few dozen people days to repair. So I don't see anything wrong with how AH is now. What's being called for by the anti-fuel-porkage lobby is for the repair of the fuel to be made as easy as its destruction. That is clearly not realistic. It takes only seconds to pork the fuel. For repairs to be completed by one person in the same length of time is patently ridiculous.

More mannable ack!

[lazs2]

It's fine the way it is if your goal is to make everyone fly 51's..  25% fuel will allow you to fly to an enemy field, fight and return in a pee 51.

guess we don't see enough pee 51's in the game so it is a consevation measure like spotted owls or one eyed newts or some such.
lazs

[Grimm]

Originally posted by rshubert
has been recorded.

Waaaa, there's no balance.

Waaaa, the fields are too far apart.

Waaaa, my kill/hour score is less than 10.

Huh??

I think I missed your point....  

does that mean your agreeing with me?

[Grimm]

Originally posted by beet1e
Sounds like some want targets to be tougher so they don't have to bother to defend them

My stance is this...  The balance is too far one direction.   I wouldnt want to eliminate the fuel to be destroyed.   I am just thinking something to increase the challange for the lone porker.   If he did well,  he would have about the same results.  

Iv just been watching guys streaking thru the defenders and zipping along the deck and removing the fuel.   Its really easy to do as you pointed out.  

My Idea is to make it a bit more challenging.  

I realise this is a moot point,  HTC will do whatever they feel is in their best interest.  I just thought to bring my thoughts to light.

[beet1e]

Grimm - fair enough. I did my two sorties and landed both. I think it's the suicide fuel porker that irritates the most. But equally annoying is the suicide CV killer. In fact all the suicide crap makes me despair. Roll on AH2...

[ccvi]

Decrease field distance to 1/2 sector and make fields sufficiently easily killable. That way the "normal" fighting distance will be the same as now, but the thing that is fought over can be blown up nicely.

[AcId]

Originally posted by Grimm
My stance is this...  The balance is too far one direction.  

That may be true, but remember a while back when running a supply goon would practicaly rebuild an entire field. That caused a lot of complaints on how it was too easy to re-supply.

I'd hate to distract from the JABO roll of Attack AC but maybe some targets should only be able to be destroyed via level bombers? This would bring the fluff numbers back up, much to the dismay of Lazs but atleast it may make one work harder to take down the fuel.