Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: SKurj on November 05, 2000, 03:53:00 PM
-
Do we really need the multiplier as it stands right now in the MA?
What do you think?
Why do we need it as is?
Do we need it changed?
What setting makes more sense to you?
Personally I think the multiplier is too high with the sfterrain. 1.5 to 2x would make me happy. I think often the fuel multiplier narrows down the plane choices available.
SKurj
-
I think that it is set to a very high rate-someone told me that was 2.7 or something like that.
I think 1.5-2 would be fine, IMO. right now there are some planes hat have risible endurance in MA.
-
It's so high to pork the Yak and the Typhoon
... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
So the American iron seems good ...
BTW DROP TANK for the typhoon (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)!
yes it's a WHINE !
[This message has been edited by straffo (edited 11-06-2000).]
-
I checked fuel multiplyer in MA recently and I'm sure it was 1.0.
-
I had heard that main arena fuel multiplier was 2.5X so I asked the other night and someone who's name escapes me said it was. This was someone who knows what's going on.
I have looked at the arena settings, and it does say 1.0X, but fuel consumption must be much higher judging by how fast it gets gulped down.
I agree that it should be lower than what it is.
/S/ MRPLUTO
------------------
-
I'm sure MA is 2.5
Regards
'Nexx'
-
Dowding, try look other settings next time (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
it doesn't seem to tell all those settings.. if any.
I must agree with Straffo, it ruins many planes that has no drop tanks or otherwise small tanks and one drop tank, while all US planes has at least two drop tanks and huge internal fuel..
If we ever go to the jets, we won't be seeing them being too effective in MA, because they run out of fuel when you get enough altitude and then you also can't stay in a fight or prop fighters will slaughter you for sure.
La-5 and Yak gets real downgrade with this (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
Tiffie has no drop tanks or Spitfire V.. I wonder where those have been forgot.
I've seen them sending pictures of typhoon with drop tanks long time ago and I've been looking Spitfire datasheets where they say that Spitfire Mk.V had drop tanks like IX.
I once made Ju-88 ride at 19,500ft, gee.. did it take long to climb there with 100% fuel and all the possible eggs that I could have..
After the mission I had two tanks with 25% gas left when I checked it on the runway. (about 75 miles was used for climbing and that was just from a field 30 miles apart from target field)
I can say that fuel multiplier should be reduced or removed because of some planes that has low fuel.
-
If you're all so keen to duplicate WWII 'realism' in the flight model, you should be prepared to deal with things like fuelload. It does in fact have a major effect on tactics and stratigy. After all, not many people argue that AH should alter ammo loadouts to allow for longer dogfights because the Yak has a small clip. Yes it narrows the choices, but it does so for very historical reasons.
You can't extend the flight time (distance), so you have to approach it from the fuel expendature angle. And it works.
Agreed on droptanks; if they were used, they should exist.
Thog
(ps; sorry for the tone. Skurj didn't phrase this as a whine at all (his question/opinion was well stated), but I do get tired of contraditory rants about historical inaccuracy and then rants about the inclusion of a historical feature or unit (fuel, vehicals in general, some planes being better than others no matter how cool you think the 'other' is) because it's inconvienanced someone.)
-
OK to answer the original question. Yes it's necessary for now.Once we have a 1:1 scale historical map in main we can do without the fuel modifier.
Current maps are 2:1 (SEA MED 2.5:1)so in order to keep things to historic ranges a multiplier is needed. Of course most fields will be a LOT farther apart (if based on any historical terrain) hence it really won't make much difference either way.
Yes the Yak & the La5 have short legs. Both came from the russian front where the action was close. Hence no need for extended fuel tanks & 500 mile range.
Unless of course you think you'd like all planes rolling with 25% fuel & flying clean across the map.
As for exactly what the Fuel multi is in main, I'm a CM & even I can't find that out.
Ask HT maybe he'll tell you, maybe he won't.
-
I fly the yak and tiffie almost exclusively and really don't see much problem with fuel in either...now I only climb to about 15k max. I'll usually look for a 1-2 sector hop with decent action. Now, I don't usually have to worry bout return trip of course (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
I am pro-fuel multiplier.
If a fighter is a short range fighter, then thats that. Its just one of the things you have to consider.
Hans.
-
My most concern with this is not the range, but the altitude..
Some runstanger can climb dive climb dive... constantly because of his great fuel load, but like La5 and few others can go just couple of times back to higher altitudes..
Now, if we ever get jets, this would really cut off those
I think same goes with Ta-152, which is high altitude fighter, but I doubt it had the fuel capacity of P-51 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
If the problem is the same as in Warbirds(and it is), then you get unrealistic effects because even though the terrain is scaled 1 to 2 or whatever, the altitude is not. It hurts the planes with small tanks a lot more than it should. Can't be compared to ammo, because ammo is not dependant upon scaling.
-
Here's my take on this. Aircraft like the 202 and 205 are horribly short-legged in the MA. It takes nearly a quarter tank just to takeoff in one. By contrast, the P-47 with full fuel can nearly roam the entire map. Until we see performance pages, like the F4U has, we'll be stuck. We don't know what settings to put the 109, 202, or Typhoon at. I know the F4U settings are like finding gold. I made a single drop tank last from A9 to A7 and BACK using those settings. Plus I still had 10 gallons left in the tank.
If the fuel burn isn't messed with, then the performance pages for every aircraft should be finished. We can't save fuel, and stretch out to hit an enemy target, if we don't know what settings are used. Right now we're using the brute force approach; full throttle all the way. Need more gas? Grab drop tanks. With something like the Typhoon or 205, we NEED those cruise settings. Or we're stuck using them as one-shot defense planes.
------------------
Flakbait
Delta 6's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
"My art is the wings of an aircraft through the skies, my music the deep hum of a prop as it slices the air, my thrill the thunder of guns tearing asunder an enemy plane."
Flakbait
19 September 2000
-
well as an addition to this, if the map distances are scaled down then surely for "accuracy" should altitude be scaled down? Sure these AC don't have to fly as far, but they still have to climb as high or higher. SO they burn 2.5x more fuel than in RL just to get to the same alt. I don't think a drastic reduction is called for. This is a late war plane set, the luftwaffe didn't have to fly far to find a fight (yet in MA they have to) the aircraft didn't need long range capabilities.
If the roles were reversed i'd imagine we'd see some form of the mustang with a tiny fuel tank too, because it wasn't needed to travel 1000 miles or more!! This fuel issue to me makes no sense outside of a HA or scenario.
With the beta map fuel was rarely a problem, with sfterr it can be.
SKurj
-
The problem is that altitude doesn't scale. Planes that have smaller fuel tanks must spend a disproportionate amount of their fuel load on climbing. This gives an artificial altitude advantage to the planes with large fuel tanks.
-
Originally posted by funked:
The problem is that altitude doesn't scale. Planes that have smaller fuel tanks must spend a disproportionate amount of their fuel load on climbing. This gives an artificial altitude advantage to the planes with large fuel tanks.
That is the reason that I ask for a lower setting. 1.5 would be fine with me. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Sort of solution for this could be to adjust fuel multiplier by rate of climb..
if plane climbs 3000 feets per minute, fuel multiplier reduces and when going level or diving, fuel multiplier would go to its maximum rate
and that could be refined with some adjustments like if WEP is on, fuel consuming goes with full multiplier amount.
and so on...
well.. just one quickly thought solution to altitude / range problem..
when you climb, you of course don't advance as fast as you do level or diving, so fuel multiplier could be reduced by rate of climb.
-
I think that the more you lower the ratio the more people will take off with partial tanks. Very few really care to do long missions and most are only interested in getting to the action and fighting till they run out of ammo. They scale their fuel level to that.
If the ratio was lower then the U.S. planes would be fighting you with 700-1000 lbs less fuel and we would really see some whining about U.S. planes agility.
lazs
-
Again its a matter of arena balance. Actually USAF and USNAF planes can take off with 25% or 50% fuel. They can take-off with 25% and external tanks, so they can drop it just before the merge and combat with the minimum possible weight. That reminds me the WarBirds style.
Other a/c like the Yak, the La-5 and the C.205 cannot do that. Can I say that someone can "game the game" and someone cannot?
------------------
GATT
4° Stormo Caccia - Knights (http://www.4stormo.it)
Macchi C.202's sting (1,9MByte film) (http://web.tiscalinet.it/gatt/breda.avi)
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
If the ratio was lower then the U.S. planes would be fighting you with 700-1000 lbs less fuel and we would really see some whining about U.S. planes agility.
lazs
You need a little explication ... 10 minutes to target 10 minutes fight 10 minutes to rtb ... how can you do that with 22 minutes autonomie ?
And I cannot climb over 10K without an awfull fuel loss (I'm stuck to 7K usually)
And frankly the I don't care about the US whiner ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Let's stick to the current fuel stats but... wouldnt small, non-takeoff/hangar refuel fields be nice? That would prevent too much alt hugging and that would also make it possible for planes with small fuel loads to travel larger distances.
-
Personally I think altitude is an overrated advantage. The Yak/Tiffie are both medium to low alt planes with poor hi alt performance.
Numbers and friendly's/wingman both are more important than alt...just my 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by humble:
Personally I think altitude is an overrated advantage. The Yak/Tiffie are both medium to low alt planes with poor hi alt performance.
.
And what about Me109?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
Originally posted by humble:
Personally I think altitude is an overrated advantage. The Yak/Tiffie are both medium to low alt planes with poor hi alt performance.
Numbers and friendly's/wingman both are more important than alt...just my 2 cents.
Altitude advantage in E fighter is somewhat powerful all by itself.
I can bounce over a spit in 190A8 for whole day if I have altitude advantage in initial attack. (now try do that in level engagement or just slightly above)
-
To paraphrase Bill Clinton's '92 campaign theme:
"Its the altitude, stupid!"
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Hmmm.... well, I think that any plane that had drop tanks should have em in the game. I also think that any short ranged (and short sighted) plane in WWII should remain a short ranged and short sighted plane in AH. To not have a fuel multiplier means that unless we have fields hours apart then we have a sim where only short ranged intercepters are viable. In my case at least, I run ourt of ammo around the same time that I am running out of fuel so it all works out.
If we had realistic fuel consumption and distances then the British, german and Russian planes would be relegated to field defence work. Carriers would be able to park out of range of these planes. Those kinds of distances would be realistic and bring about realistic results (we have all read the book and know how it turned out) but... Realistic distances and fuel consumption would be boring in the extreme. Some type of fuel modifier is desirable.
No matter what... U.S. and jap planes are going to have the same range with 25% fuel as say 109's with full tanks. The U.S. planes would weigh 1300 lbs. or so less with 25% fuel. If a dash four Hog came out it would be the best climbing plane in the game at 25% fuel.
lazs
-
"If we had realistic fuel consumption and distances then the British, german and Russian planes would be relegated to field defence work."
That's crap Lazs. RAF, Luftwaffe and VVS fighters were all heavily engaged over the battlefield in tactical roles. They were most definitely not used for field defense only.
-
Originally posted by lazs:
British, german and Russian planes would be relegated to field defence work. Carriers would be able to park out of range of these planes. Those kinds of distances would be realistic and bring about realistic results
Another piece of pro-US propaganda directly from Lazs
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
-
I had 2-3 encounters with High 109's and chogs over the weekend...minimum 5k alt adv. All went to the deck and only ended with the arrival of additional bogies. I'm not saying alt doesn't matter...it does...but it's only one part of the equation.
-
"Planes that have smaller fuel tanks must spend a disproportionate amount of their fuel load on climbing."
Not only that..but planes with lower climbrate also suffers as they'll spend more time in the climb, compared to distance travelled.
Now, AH doesnt have any deciedly bad climbers (yet), but it's painstakingly evident in Warbirds with the earlier US planeset. With a 15% increase in fuel consumption, the P-47C's range, if it wants to cruise at 25k, gets cut by at least 30%, where as the 109 (or similar) doesnt suffer anywhere near as much as it only spend 1/2 the time climbing.
Daff
------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
"This is Yardstick. Follow me"
-
funked said... "That's crap Lazs. RAF, Luftwaffe and VVS fighters were all heavily engaged over the
battlefield in tactical roles. They were most definitely not used for field defense only."
sure funked (and ram) so long as the "battlefield" was close. When the war turns into high alt escorts and buffs bombing your cities and you can't reach the other sides cities cause your planes are too short ranged then, yes, you are relegated to defense. If a carrier force parks out of range of your short sighted fighters then, yes, you are relegated to defense. In AH if carriers were used effectively then, yes, short ranged fighters would be relegated to defense.
It's really a matter of options. With short range you have few options. Without carriers you have even fewer. It is easy to draw off short ranged fighters (and kill em) with long range bombing raids on cities. How many LW fighters oppossed D day? two?
lazs
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
How many LW fighters oppossed D day? two?
Isn't this one irrelevant?
There wasn't any more fighters because of stupidity of germans, when allies were 'supposed' to attack in calais and most of all.. they were all drunk on D-day (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
The intention of the thread is to determine whether the fuel multiplier has any relevance to the main arena. It does to a degree, but I feel the multiplier as it stands is high. The addition of drop tanks to aircraft that had them would alieviate some of the problem, if not all.
If DT's aren't added, then perhaps a reduction of the multiplier to 1.5 or 2 would suffice.
In an HA or scenario the multiplier plays a much larger role and I am all for it. Though in the MA its just another factor which reduces the types of aircraft flown.
SKurj
-
If the aircraft didn't carry a DT, it shouldn't in the MA.
The truth is, aircraft that can carry a DT will always have the advantage over those that can't. There will always be times when certain aircraft in the arena are less than attractive to fly. For some aircraft... that will be more often than not.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
If the aircraft didn't carry a DT, it shouldn't in the MA.
Right now theres two planes that does not have their rightful drop tanks...
Spitfire Mk.V and Typhoon
im sure about Spit, and tiffies droptanks ive seen discussed in here.. so not so sure of them but.. there was pictures
not sure of russian planes, though, they didn't usually have DTs anyway. (that great russian thinking with the fighters)
-
(De-lurking)...
Well, you have to decide what aspects of the airplanes and combat you're trying to "replicate." The fuel multiplier, IMO, is there more or less just to make drop tanks "work" and provide a reason for their existence, as an added realism feature (a jaded observer might say that it's just to add another feature that other sim doesn't have, just as collisions were added in WB to enable headon attacks that AW didn't have. But I'll opt for saying that it's another good step in the direction of added realism) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
At any rate, what are the objectives?
--Give "long-range" planes an endurance advantage over "short-range" planes.
--Make certain parts of the map accessible only to certain planes.
--Limit "interceptors" to their real-life mission.
--Force players to manage their fuel supply.
--Force players to load "full tanks" for sorties.
--All of the above?
Some of those work, some don't. The fuel multiplier limits your "minutes aloft," but unfortunately it doesn't permit you to climb to realistic altitudes if your plane has a small tank, while allowing drop-tank planes to get a "virtual airstart" by expending their "excess" fuel to climb. Planes with large capacities can, likewise, load small "dogfight loads" and get a weight advantage over their fully-laden adversaries.
Overall, I think fuel management is "good," but realistically, you're not going to have to "worry" about your fuel every 3 minutes on a 30-minute flight. You'd ALWAYS have "enough" fuel to get to your combat area, strike the target, fight, and egress. You'd "worry" at the midway point and on the way home, and you'd "manage" as necessary. In an AH sortie, much of your time is spent fuel-managing, probably too much.
What if, instead of scaling the fuel multiplier, you did some of this with the ENGINE modeling instead? Once you accept a "suspension of reality" on how long your fuel really lasts (and a Corsair's fuel DID last 5 times longer than a 109s, that's "reality," but when that means an AH Hog can fly for 90 minutes and a 109 for only 18, that's silly) then does it really matter which "performance factor" you're fiddling with.
Suppose you got rid of the fuel multiplier, and then engine fuel consumption were tweaked so that you burned a lot of fuel for climb and combat and VERY little for "cruise"--IF you managed your engine and fuel correctly (and the controls already exist to do both). Interceptor-types would then have SOME capability to "hunt," but only if they play their hunting altitude against their cruise range. Scale it with, say, the 109 or Spitfire as a "baseline," and give that plane a "target duration" of, say, 45 minutes, with enough fuel to climb to 20K, fight at full power for 5 minutes, descend and land at idle power, and fly at "cruise power" for the remaining time. Scale the rest of the PLANES, not the terrain or fuel loads, so that if a plane had an endurance of 5 times what the real Spitfire had, it would have 5 times what the AH Spit has, under the same climb to 20K, fight 5 min, cruise the rest of the time conditions.
Note that I'm not talking about engine OUTPUT here, that stays "real." But engine fuel consumption would vary from plane to plane. You're talking about duration of flight here. As long as some "realistic" fuel management takes place, that should be "good enough," without making that the whole focus of your flight.
------------------
-
OK Fishu, if the Fuel Burn multiplyer in MA is 2.5, then why does the tiffie in Afrika Corps Scenario have much, much less range? Multiplyer is set to 1.8 in Afrika Corps.
I just thought it was a sensible conclusion to make; 1.0 in MA and 1.8 in Afrika Corps accounts for the decrease in range between the two arenas.
Skurj - surely decreasing the multiplyer in MA (no matter what value it currently stands at) would affect all planes equally? Relatively speaking, the tiffie and la5 would still be short range compared to the other A/C?
Or maybe I'm missing something?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-07-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Skurj - surely decreasing the multiplyer in MA (no matter what value it currently stands at) would affect all planes equally? Relatively speaking, the tiffie and la5 would still be short range compared to the other A/C?
Or maybe I'm missing something?
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-07-2000).]
You are correct Dowding, however with a reduction of the multiplier, it would expand the time of flight for those short ranged aircraft. All I would like to see is useful endurance for those short ranged aircraft in the MA. If it limits AC types being flown in the MA, then get rid of it.
SKurj
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
OK Fishu, if the Fuel Burn multiplyer in MA is 2.5, then why does the tiffie in Afrika Corps Scenario have much, much less range? Multiplyer is set to 1.8 in Afrika Corps.
I just thought it was a sensible conclusion to make; 1.0 in MA and 1.8 in Afrika Corps accounts for the decrease in range between the two arenas.
Umm.. can you use quotes? I don't know what you're referring to
-
Lazs the reason the Luftwaffe wasn't able to oppose Overlord had a lot to do with the thousands of "short-range" fighters of 9th AF and 2nd TAF that were swarming over France for months in advance of the invasion.
Again - "short ranged" RAF fighters were used for a hell of a lot more than field defense.
The range of RAF, VVS, and Luftwaffe fighters was quite sufficient to cover the battlefield and strike the enemy's rear echelons and supply lines.
Just because they could not fly to the enemy's capital city doesn't make them defensive fighters. They were most definitely used in offensive roles.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 11-07-2000).]
-
How about having the exceptionally long ranged aircraft limited to non-frontline Fields. Most long range AC have a relatively slow ROC. This is extenuated when a full fuel load is added. these planes would only be able to take off from a front line base after being Flown in. This allows Cripples to use any field, or to stage a sortie from a forward base for deeper penetration. When these planes are shot down they respawn at the rear base and need to be "ferried" to the forward bases. This brings the Short range planes or interceptors into their own. these planes would be the tactical fighters and the longer ranged planes would be in a better position to do interdiction, or escort missions which is what they were intended. the USN and IJN AC were long ranged to support efforts in the Pacific and these to could be relegated to rearward bases to simulate the Carriers staying out of harm.
I'm a nugget here but just an idea. This I think would put the planes into the roles they were intended.
UncleBuck
-
Dowding, try look other settings next time
it doesn't seem to tell all those settings.. if any.
I should have quoted before, Fishu, but I was being lazy. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Besides, I just assumed the FuelBurnMult setting is the fuel burn multiplyer and it was set to 1.0 last time I checked. I was setting up an offline map to simulate the Africa Corps setting and noticed how much more range you get in the MA.
Skurj - I see what you mean, but the ammo in La5 doesn't last too long for me (never had more than 5 kills in one sortie) so I usually RTB for ammo rather than fuel. Regarding the tiffie, I fly it quite alot as well as the La5 and I think it should be given drop-tanks (considering they were historically available).
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 11-07-2000).]
-
Originally posted by UncleBuck:
How about having the exceptionally long ranged aircraft limited to non-frontline Fields. Most long range AC have a relatively slow ROC. This is extenuated when a full fuel load is added. these planes would only be able to take off from a front line base after being Flown in. This allows Cripples to use any field, or to stage a sortie from a forward base for deeper penetration. When these planes are shot down they respawn at the rear base and need to be "ferried" to the forward bases. This brings the Short range planes or interceptors into their own. these planes would be the tactical fighters and the longer ranged planes would be in a better position to do interdiction, or escort missions which is what they were intended. the USN and IJN AC were long ranged to support efforts in the Pacific and these to could be relegated to rearward bases to simulate the Carriers staying out of harm.
I'm a nugget here but just an idea. This I think would put the planes into the roles they were intended.
UncleBuck
Kinda like this idea...
SKurj
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Besides, I just assumed the FuelBurnMult setting is the fuel burn multiplyer and it was set to 1.0 last time I checked. I was setting up an offline map to simulate the Africa Corps setting and noticed how much more range you get in the MA.
I don't believe it shows that setting correctly in MA for others than CMs...
Theres always been either 2 or 2.5* fuel multiplier.
Try look those other settings too, probably find something funny in those too
-
Checked those values in MA.. all were 0 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
(do I believe? nah..)
-
Well.. I don't know how much of an advantage long range planes should have in AH but it should be something. In the War long range fighters played a huge role. One of the reasons Japan was able to do so well in the beggining and hold on so long was, the range of it's planes. The reason the LW was destroyed was that they were relegated to a defensive role against the bombers who in turn, were only able to exist because of long range fighters.
Still... The way AH is set up now, fast climbing planes which are also typically, short ranged, gain a huge advantage fuel wise. Also.. if there were no multiplier.. when a base was down to 25%, a 1300 lb lighter Corsair or Hellccat might be the only viable plane anyway. As for drop tanks... If they had em let em have em in the game. I don't use em. i fly the short ranged fighters for close fields and field defense and the long range ones for longer operations. Seems about right to me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by -lazs-:
Well.. I don't know how much of an advantage long range planes should have in AH but it should be something. In the War long range fighters played a huge role. One of the reasons Japan was able to do so well in the beggining and hold on so long was, the range of it's planes. The reason the LW was destroyed was that they were relegated to a defensive role against the bombers who in turn, were only able to exist because of long range fighters.
Still... The way AH is set up now, fast climbing planes which are also typically, short ranged, gain a huge advantage fuel wise. Also.. if there were no multiplier.. when a base was down to 25%, a 1300 lb lighter Corsair or Hellccat might be the only viable plane anyway. As for drop tanks... If they had em let em have em in the game. I don't use em. i fly the short ranged fighters for close fields and field defense and the long range ones for longer operations. Seems about right to me.
lazs
Have you ever heard of another front line ?
You know between German and Russian ?
There was not need for longe range fighter like the P51 in this kind of battle.
And I strongly doubt the P47 were doing jabo with drop tank (except with Napalm (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
near the frontline.
Frankly I think that the fuel multiplier is just a little high I don't pretend we need to be on a 1/1 ratio but more an 3/2 ratio but certainly not a 5/2...
You said realism ?DROP TANK for the Typhoon ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Dowding, the MA fuel burn is set to 2.5
The MED SEA when setup for Afrika Corps, is set to 1.8
Its an illusion that the Tiffie has more range in the MA.
Why? You ask.
The MED SEA is 4 times larger than the MA, in square area, and 2 times larger linearly. When looking at the map, it looks like you are going the same distance as in the MA, but actually you are going linearly twice the distance.
Hence the illusion.
Sector distance is the same from arena to arena, so count the sector distance for a comparable result.
------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure
-
Fuel multiplier will be a squeak when and if we get jets...
Those german jets likes to eat gas from their underrated tanks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Aaaaaaaah!
Thanks Vermillion - should have thought of that. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
straffo.... the reason that the rooskies could even have fighter planes in the "front" was because their factories were out of range of german ac. If anything, the Eastern front proves that short ranged fighters are indeed short sighted and viable only if the enemy is equally short sighted.
lazs
-
Wow Lazs are you that ignorant of anything outside of the Pacific Theatrer?
What the Eastern Front proves is that tactical air power can be a critical factor in a ground campaign.
And in the West, the German factories kept on increasing production despite the bombing campaign waged by the poor 8th AF. But their products couldn't get to the front because of marauding "short range" 9th AF and 2nd TAF aircraft which made road and rail transport a nightmare.
The impact of "strategic bombing" aka terror bombing of the Reich is vastly overrated. The only clear victory for this camapaign was that the 8th AF was able to force the Jagdwaffe into a war of attrition against a foe which was willing and able to sustain horrific losses.
-
funked.. I think you are discounting the very real affect that long range (daytime) bombing had on the LW. short ranged planes climbing up (they didn't have the range to loiter) to intercept ESCORTED bomber formations.
Before you throw the word "ignorant" around I think you should look at how poorly the LW did aginst said escorts and what their losses were. Shooting up supply lines would not be possible without the long range campaign. Perhaps, even the D day invasion would have turned out differently.
I think that long range bombing in Russia would have had a simular effect. Stalin was scum just like hitler but... He would not have just let his cities (and factories) be bombed without attacking those formations and therefore tying up (and losing) his fighters.
Oh... while fighter production did continue in germany it did not continue at the rate that it would have and the PILOT loses were devestating. The escorted long range bombing killed off the LW. It even caused them to stike out desperately with everything they had at the (pitiful) extreme of their range. Russia would have fared no better in such a situation.
I may indeed be "ignorant" but if I ever had to face an enemy in an air war I would hope that he embraced your ideas of short ranged tactical strikes.
lazs
-
Lazs I think we can agree on the fact that we can't agree ...
AH is based on somes compromises for
playability, and as the prime market is the US (ask HTC how many customer they have outside USA) so I think the compromise is more US plane friendly ...
BTW I've perhaps asked before ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) DROP TANK for the Typhoon !
-
Well maybe ignorant is a strong term, but if I ever have to face an enemy in an air war, I would hope that he throws away 20,000 aircrew just to kill some civilians.
-
Well funked... your last statement may be a tad harsh and.... simplistic. I doubt that you would like to face around the clock bombing. Certainly tho, you would have the option of ignoring it. It does seem odd tho that unmolested (and backward) Soviet factories produced more artillery, aircraft, and tanks by '43 than germany did with 4 times the steel. The ratio just got worse as the war went on.
Long range had it's advantages. I believe that AH has set it self up in a time period where those advantages should be apparent. It has and they are.... The way it is set up is a comprimise but what in AH isn't?
Still... It wouldn't be bad if the multiplier were less and all the U.S. planes could then take off with 10% fuel and a drop tank and weigh 3/4 of a ton less than fully fueled... Also, with the silly pinpoint bombing of airfields... "you may only take 25% fuel" would be no hindrance at all to the long range planes, in fact... Long range bombers and long range planes might then become the only planes available/usable unless a country was dilligent in killing all the suicide bombers.
lazs