Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Kweassa on August 30, 2005, 06:34:49 AM
-
Another wish, Santy HT...
Please change the fuel loading scheme, so people cannot load something like 50% tanks + DTs. Please change it so, that the fuel MUST be loaded in sequence:
25% -> 50% -> 75% -> 100% -> 100%+DTs
-
I can't STAND the messages like 'no ord is avail' etc... the pop up box is a royal pain in the tail-feathers.
How about shading off articles in the hanger that are not available?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Another wish, Santy HT...
Please change the fuel loading scheme, so people cannot load something like 50% tanks + DTs. Please change it so, that the fuel MUST be loaded in sequence:
Why? What possible sense does this make?
The reason people load 50%+Tanks is that they do not want to fight with a full load of fuel. I often load just this setup if I am flying to a fight 1 sector away in a Ki-84. I only use about 30% of the tanks then drop them because I like the way the Ki-84 handles with 50% or < of fuel. It's all about arriving at the fight at your proper combat weight. There is no way to dump internal tanks to reduce weight. Therefore the only way to do this is to set internal to your preferred combat weight and take tanks.
Unless you flying half way across ther map why would you take 100%+tanks.
It's done this way in RL, why should AH be different.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
It's done this way in RL, why should AH be different.
Really? Did WWII pilots take off with 50% internal and a drop?
-
This isn't real life, and it's not WW2 either. I fly with 100% almost all the time, and I cannot tell if the guy I'm fighting against has no fuel or full tanks.
On a related note, I also hate the popups in the loadout screen. I like the idea of either grayed out or invisible options when they're not available at a given field.
-
I have not seen evidence to say that it wasnt possible to load up Full DTs and not all ur plane tanks
I like the way it is...
Prove that you could not physically do it..mayeb we say yes
-
Don't supress this option
Give it a price instead like :
75% fuel : free
50%+DT : 1 perk point
-
I like the way it is...
The reason you like it, is exactly the reason why we should prohibit it. DTs are for extending range, not a dumpweight.
The process of climbing and flying enroute to the combat zone requires fuel, and every pilot should be forced to carefully judge on the amount of fuel he needs according to the type of flying he will be doing.
Loading smaller amounts of fuel provides natural advantages of lighter weight, but also provides the dangers of short flying time and early retreat. Every plane is faced with a choice between the risks and rewards, and it is up to the pilot to cope with the situation as it is.
Except, planes that use DTs are granted a waiver from this choice, as much of their flying in non-combat situation is solely dependant on DTs, which can be instantly dumped away when a combat situation arises. Planes that use half-empty internal tanks with DTs are in an unnatural/ahistoric advantage as compared to planes which cannot use DTs at all.
It shouldn't be like that.
For example, a Yak-9U has a relatively short range in combat. So in most cases, these planes are forced to take off with 100% fuel.
In a sense, that, is a price the Yak must pay - since the plane is light, it carries less fuel than others, so it must take off with 100%.
So if the Yak meets an enemy plane immediately after take off, then he fights with heavy internal fuel load. If the Yak does not meet an enemy plane for too long, then he wasted a lot of fuel and must turn back prematurely.
However, the planes with longer range, by using half-empty internals with DTs, are granted a waiver from such problems. Planes with longer range already have an advantage, which follows their disadvantages of heavy weight. They are given a choice of different ranges of internal fuel loads to fly with. If they don't need 100%, they can fly on 50%. But then, they are given another advantage, in that even when they are flying at 50%, they need not worry about shorter range, since they can always strap on DTs which can be dumped at will.
Being able to carry DTs should provide an advantage in extending the overall flight time that surpasses the internal fuel load, not as a makeshift, temporary fuel tank solely used for non-combat purposes so the plane can enitrely rely on 50% internal fuel load when in combat.
If you want to fly five, six sectors and back, then that's where the DTs should be used. Not for flying one sector with 50% internal and then dumping it away.
-
again..PROVE THI SWAS NOT DONE..
You cant understand Mustangs Grabbing out of france with Drop tanks..then releasing the tanks once they hi alt to do a quicjk run thru germany?..They defntly did not need alot of gas once they were on the continent
if you can prove they could not do this..then i would agree
-
again..PROVE THIS WAS NOT DONE..
I don't have to prove diddly-squat to you.
It's a gameplay issue. Sequential fuel loading corrects an unfair disadvantage which shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Besides,
You can't understand Mustangs Grabbing out of france with Drop tanks..then releasing the tanks once they hi alt to do a quick run thru germany?..They defntly did not need alot of gas once they were on the continent
If they didn't need the DTs, they didn't use them. They just took the internal fuel load, or filled as much fuel in the tanks as required.
DTs and fuel don't come scot-free of charge in real life.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
...fuel don't come scot-free of charge in real life.
lol tell me about it.
back on topic.. I dont really like this idea. I'll admit, I do it all the time, so I'm really not going to have a very objective view of it, but I don't like it.
Seems to me to be trying to level the field too much. Every plane has it's strenghts and weaknesses, I view being able to take light fuel and droptanks as a strength. If we really wanted a truly level playing field we'd all just fly the same plane all the time.
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
The reason you like it, is exactly the reason why we should prohibit it. DTs are for extending range, not a dumpweight.
Plane and simple KW I call it BS. This is just a whine because YOU don't like it.
Yes it was done in RL, was done when I was in the USN (CV67, USS JFK) in the late 70's and is still done today.
It is a game play issue, I chose to load up 50% fuel and DT's so that I can arrive at the fight at my proper combat weight. If my plane allows me to do that and the one you chose does not then that's your choice. It's that way because the plane designer designed it that way. All plane have some advantages and disadvantages. I can't chase down your LA7 in my Ki-84 because if I get over 400 my plane will fall appart. Is that an unfair advantage for the LA7? NO! You don't see me posting a suggestion to fix that do you?
For someone who seems to have decent knowledge of this subject I am quite surprised you would suggest this. You should also know that ALL PLANES DO NOT WEIGH THE SAME! Some are considerably heavier regardless of fuel. So you want to punish those who CHOSE to fly P47's for one example.
Also, as I stated, In RL you could dump internal fuel in a lot of planes, WE CANNOT.
Your entire post illustrates the reason why DT were created. It's not just for long range it's also so you can arrive at the fight with the proper flight weight and CG. Something the Japanese did in the zero quit often. Take a Zero up with 100% fuel and see how bad it is. Fly it with 50% or less and you can dance around the sky.
IT IS NOT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, IT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. DEAL WITH IT!
What's next, make all guns the same? Because all planes that carry Hispanos have an advantage over those that don't. Better yet, let's just make all the planes the same so that KW doesn't feel disadvantaged.
-
you dont have to prove "diddly squat"..lol nice term..
No..you have to prove the idea to HTC..and your not
it was done...can be done..and we are doing it...
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Plane and simple KW I call it BS. This is just a whine because YOU don't like it.
It's just exploitation of a weakness in the game.
Yes it was done in RL, was done when I was in the USN (CV67, USS JFK) in the late 70's and is still done today. [/B]
I didn't know WWII ended in Europe in the 70's nor that the Navy was flying over Berlin.
It is a game play issue, I chose to load up 50% fuel and DT's so that I can arrive at the fight at my proper combat weight. If my plane allows me to do that and the one you chose does not then that's your choice. [/B]
You already have the fuel stupid multiplier to give you an unfair advantage that's one more.
It's that way because the plane designer designed it that way. [/B]
Nope the planes were designed this way because it corresponded to the tactical doctrine.
I propose to put the long range plane 3 field away from the closest frontline.
And you will have to use your DT not to make an exploit but to go to the fight.
All plane have some advantages and disadvantages. I can't chase down your LA7 in my Ki-84 because if I get over 400 my plane will fall appart. Is that an unfair advantage for the LA7? NO! You don't see me posting a suggestion to fix that do you? [/B]
completly unrelated
wtf do you speak of speed when we are discussing of range ?
For someone who seems to have decent knowledge of this subject I am quite surprised you would suggest this. You should also know that ALL PLANES DO NOT WEIGH THE SAME! Some are considerably heavier regardless of fuel. So you want to punish those who CHOSE to fly P47's for one example. [/B]
Why ?
It's a flying fuel tank it's intrinsinc for the 47.
Why you want to change he intrinsinc nature of the 47 by artificial mean ?
Also, as I stated, In RL you could dump internal fuel in a lot of planes, WE CANNOT.[/B]
Name the planes availlable in AH that can do this ?
Your entire post illustrates the reason why DT were created. It's not just for long range it's also so you can arrive at the fight with the proper flight weight and CG. [/B]
et la marmotte elle plie le papier alu ?
Something the Japanese did in the zero quit often. Take a Zero up with 100% fuel and see how bad it is. Fly it with 50% or less and you can dance around the sky.[/B]
Source ?
IT IS NOT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, IT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. DEAL WITH IT![/B]
It is unfair.
Set the fuel multiplier at 1.
What's next, make all guns the same? Because all planes that carry Hispanos have an advantage over those that don't. Better yet, let's just make all the planes the same so that KW doesn't feel disadvantaged. [/B]
Smoke screen again ?
-
what does fuel multiplier have to do with it?
if fuel multiplier was off i'd just take 25% and drop tanks
-
thank for this nice provocation.
-
Originally posted by Jnuk
what does fuel multiplier have to do with it?
if fuel multiplier was off i'd just take 25% and drop tanks
The simple solution is to set the fuel modifier to something reasonable and then remove drop tanks completely.
As they are, they're simply used to game the game.
-
I said this from the way back in AH2 beta when they went with a high multiplier.
Folks cried about how unfair it was to make the Ami's fight with 'a lot of fuel'. My response 'let then fly around the map burning it off'.
The only thing the fuel modifyer did was restrcit the range of non-Ami late war planes.
All the DTs do is allow any one in an Ami plane to game it up with their:
25% and drop tanks
As proven by the replies in this thread...
Straffo is right:
It's just exploitation of a weakness in the game.
-
I guess I just don't see it as gaming the game.
Some planes have different gun packages, one lighter than another. Is it gaming the game to take the light one?
It may or may not have been done, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been done.
-
Kweassa, agree with you. And while racks for DTs now cause some drag, the light internal fuel load during combat overcompensates it.
Jnuk, "curiously", the Ami planes have not only different gun packages, but also different ammo load choices.
-
It's simple logic.
HTC upped the fuel multiplier for the following reasons IMO;
1) They want to the differences between the planes to show distinctly, so the nimble-but-short-ranged fighters will be facing range problems, and the heavy-but-long-ranged planes would be facing weight problems.
2) They want people using the new RPM/boost related fuel conservation effects.
Despite the huge initial complaints, IMO the 2.0 fuel burn multiplier did work well. In many of the shorter legged planes, I for example, would be travelling with cruise settings most of the time before combat.
Unfortunately, the small overlook in the fuel loading scheme has warped reason 1) in a way that the short-ranged planes feel the impact drastically, but the longer ranged planes do not.
A P-51 with 25% internal flies even longer than an La-7 at 50% - except by use of DTs, the P-51 can fly enroute, grab alt, and choose all sorts of tactical situations for itself which the La-7 cannot, due to the high fuel burn and limited internal range.
For one thing, the La-7 has markedly paid the price of it's performance, by having to carry heavy internal fuel load and STILL be limited to short range...but what price did the P-51 pay in contrast - NOTHING.
If the P-51 should have the leisure of flying at higher alts and longer ranges, then it should also be faced with the problems of heavier internal load, instead of being granted waiver from such by use of the instant "dumpweight" DTs.
Due to the current fuel loading scheme, the longer ranged planes, by use of the DT, misses out both reasons of 1) and 2) stated in the beginning. It's neither effected from the 2.0 fuel multiplier, nor has to use cruise settings or RPM management.
Whilst a Yak and La have to go to alt, throttle/RPM back, and try to conserve as much fuel as they can, the P-51 or P-38 just flies with 25% or 50% internal with DTs, flies enroute with full military. Even with DTs the P-38 or the P-51 is a lot faster and climbs faster than a Yak or a La flying at cruise.
And when combat situation arises, due to stated reasons the Yaks and Las must fight with heavy internal loads most of the times(unless they want to be stranded in enemy territory, unable to make it back). Prolonged use of WEP or full military knocks back on flight time drastically, so the Las and the Yaks must choose its fights carefully, looking at their fuel gauges every moment....whereas the P-51 or the P-38 would just dump DTs, instantly revert to the "light version", and then go utilize it's advantage, shoot down enemies, and still be left with enough fuel to go back.
If there's anything to call BS, I call that.
If a P-38 or a P-51 wants lighter weight for combat, then it should be taking off with 50% in the first place - lighter weight, at the price of markedly shorter range and the need to conserve fuel - JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PLANE.
If a P-38 or a P-51 wants a longer range and the leisure to fly higher than other people, then it should be taking off with heavier fuel load of 100% - longer range, at the expense of weight and combat maneuverability - JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PLANE. This, is already an advantage of being in a longer ranged plane. The shorter ranged planes have no way of extending range even if they wished it. The longer ranged planes are given a choice on flight time which the shorter planes aren't.
But currently, they areable to have it both ways - fly longer and higher, but at lighter combat weight at the same time - which is just plain exploiting the fuel loading system and doubling the advantage of being in a longer-ranged plane to unnecessary levels.
If they want to fly an extra-longer ie. mission escorts and sorts, then that's where they should be using the DTs.
You guys want lighter combat weight in P-47Ns or P-51s? FINE.
TAKE 50% fuel and fly with it.
You hate that? Why?
The reasons you hate that, is something which every other plane is already experiencing. I'm not dumping an UNFAIR shackle or something on you guys. You already have and ADVANTAGE in that your long-ranged plane has been given a choice whether to fly longer but heavier, or fly shorter but lighter.
You guys don't need a second advantage, which makes you exempt from all the problems which every plane must face, in the basic premise of "balance".
-
Wow..a doctoral thesis and a whine all in the same post!
Who flies a P-38 with only 25% fuel? Someone that doesn't want to fly for long, that's for sure. Most of us(those with experience in it that is) usually take 75% internal load and 1 DT. DT to get us to cruise alltitude and to the target then we rely on our internal load. On attack runs I always take 100% fuel in addition to a full ordnance load. Don't ever recall ever taking less than 50% internal fuel load unless I was in the DA.
ack-ack
-
Well Kweassa post resume pretty well this : http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117803
:D
-
Who flies a P-38 with only 25% fuel? Someone that doesn't want to fly for long, that's for sure. Most of us(those with experience in it that is) usually take 75% internal load and 1 DT. DT to get us to cruise alltitude and to the target then we rely on our internal load.
Take 100% and burn 20~30% enroute.
On attack runs I always take 100% fuel in addition to a full ordnance load. Don't ever recall ever taking less than 50% internal fuel load unless I was in the DA.
In these occasions, got no beef wif you.
-
You guys make it sound as if american planes are the only planes with drop tanks. British, German, and Japanese planes have drop tanks too.
I still don't see what all the fuss is about. Drop tanks in real life allow you to get farther, or stay on station longer. DT in AH allow you to get farther, or stay on station longer.
I think they upped the fuel burn rate because of the compact maps. So called "short range" fighters could fly across the whole country, and the "long range" fighters could fly laps around the map.
I'm pretty sure HT wasn't trying to FORCE anyone to have to use the RPM/Boost fuel conservation features. That was implemented because its a pretty cool feature people had been asking for, for quite a while.
I guess im just gonna hafta agree to disagree with ya'll on this one. Unless you can prove to me that it could not be done.
-
You guys make it sound as if american planes are the only planes with drop tanks. British, German, and Japanese planes have drop tanks too.
It doesn't , matter if the 'British, German, and Japanese planes have drop tanks too'.
Their internal fuel is small. Even if they take DTs they won't have '25% or Even 50%' internal like the Ami gamers. Besides the request is to force 100% internal fuel before DTs are available would apply to all planes.
Japanese planes never need a 'dt' except in scenarios...
I'm pretty sure HT wasn't trying to FORCE anyone to have to use the RPM/Boost fuel conservation features.
Those of us like Kweassa, Straffo and others know and remember those threads where 'fuel consumption' and Ami gaming (25% and Dts) were debated in the AH2 beta. The reason for the high FBM was to force 'fuel management' and limit the amount of time planes would run at 100% throttle. It was pointed out then, by the same folks re-stating it now, that a high FBM scheme will have no effect on the Ami gamers. They will always take 25% (or 50%) and DTs while the rest get penalized with limited range and flight time.
That is exactly what happens and that is exactly what Kweassa's thread is about.
Drop tanks in real life allow you to get farther, or stay on station longer. DT in AH allow you to get farther, or stay on station longer.
What DTs do in AH is allow the Ami gamers the ability to dump large amounts of fuel to lighten their combat weight. With fields in the 20 - 30 mile range there's no need for DTs at all.
As has been suggested going back into the AH2 beta to use DTs it should first require 100% internal. If the Ami gamers are worried about 'combat weight' then they should fly around and burn off excess fuel rather then use their DTs as an instant fuel dump.
In the main that iss all DTs are used for with Ami planes. Just to dump combat weight. If you want 'extended' range or time on station first take 100% if thats not enough then take DTs.
-
Ahh I understand now :huh , It is perfectly acceptible to take less fuel to help your combat weight. But taking droping tanks to help your combat weight is totaly different and unacceptible.
Oh and because all 25% are equal no disadvantege is given to the 25% = 600lb vs 25% = 200lb.
Oh and because a plane did have bigger fuel tanks and could cary drop tanks, it should be disavantaged, vs a plane with small fuel tanks that could also cary drop tanks.
Sarcastic mode off.
It is simple, range and ability to take drop tanks should be a plane advantage. And surprisenly they are an advantage in AH.
-
2 choices:
quit whining
or add some way to dump fuel load, which would be very cool HT:aok
of course HT has many things to be doing, so i think you need to go on an alcohol rehab course
-
Ahh I understand now , It is perfectly acceptible to take less fuel to help your combat weight. But taking droping tanks to help your combat weight is totaly different and unacceptible.
Back when this was debated in AH2 beta I suggested that all planes be forced to take 100% fuel as a min only.
I still believe that should be the case. But you all at HTC didn't see it that way. So what was left?
The next best suggestion is to limit DTs to 100%...
What WW2 era fighter could 'dump fuel weight' on demand? Not every engagement with the LW had the Ami's with 50% fuel or less. How many pilots flew around fighting with just 25% fuel?
It is simple, range and ability to take drop tanks should be a plane advantage. And surprisenly they are an advantage in AH.
It's only an advantage for one group of planes. Many planes had decent range with or with out DTs.
If the Amis want that advantage then why can't can't they just fly 'long range' sorties? They just take off at front line fields right along with the short range front line aircraft like the La-7.
The La-7 gets limited to just 21 min combat time unless he reduces power. While the P-51 takes 25% and a DT and flies around at 100% power all the time and can 'dump weight' at the push of a button.
The only advantage to the high FBM and DTs is for Ami planes. You don't force them to fly 'longe range sorties' but force the short range planes to fly 'even shorter range'.
-
I was about to post something but the link I provided is availlable and is still pertinent
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
usually take 75% internal load and 1 DT. DT to get us to cruise alltitude and to the target then we rely on our internal load.
ack-ack
except for you who requires 100% fuel, 2 DT's and 3 mid air refuellings to get to combat alt :D ;)
-
hahah furballl made a funny..
akak is an altmonky
Kweasesa..
So is it "illegal" for me to drain my internal tanks a bit before i swicth to DTs?..
They do have fuel selector swich in the planes you know?
-
Originally posted by Furball
except for you who requires 100% fuel, 2 DT's and 3 mid air refuellings to get to combat alt :D ;)
I was able to talk to my crew chief and he found that if I was to take off with a tail wind of 15 knots, I would only require 2 mid air refuelings to reach combat altitudes.
ack-ack
-
akak is funny also
-
Originally posted by hitech
Ahh I understand now :huh , It is perfectly acceptible to take less fuel to help your combat weight. But taking droping tanks to help your combat weight is totaly different and unacceptible.
Oh and because all 25% are equal no disadvantege is given to the 25% = 600lb vs 25% = 200lb.
Oh and because a plane did have bigger fuel tanks and could cary drop tanks, it should be disavantaged, vs a plane with small fuel tanks that could also cary drop tanks.
Sarcastic mode off.
It is simple, range and ability to take drop tanks should be a plane advantage. And surprisenly they are an advantage in AH.
Put them 3 field away from the frontline and trash this stupid fuel multiplier.
-
no straffo..
dont make me play your way
this is the MAIN ARENA
we have allies vs allies .. axis vs ect ect
Seems like you folks should have other things to do besides complain about ,,,FUEL loadouts in a video game
its funny
im done with this thread; )
-
happy cheater ?
pfffff :lol
-
Okay HT. Think of it this way.
Why don't you give the 109s and 190s the jettisonable rocket tubes?
No, it's not an Axis-Allied conspiracy thing. I'm bringing this up as an example because it's EXACTLY the same basic line of reasoning.
Hell, the rocket pods were jettisonable in real life, so why are the 109s and 190s denied that ability?
I don't remember the exact words, but IIRC the reason you gave us was that;
1) dumping rocket pods were emergency procedures
2) if anyone can just dump it at will, then there could be an exploit. The distinction between specialized jabo armament and normal armament becomes meaningless.
3) none of the 109s or 190s will suffer the disadvantages which it should, as everyone will just carry rockets, use it as jabo/A2A purpose, and then instantly revert to the clean condition by dumping pods
4) all in all, it's not represantative of reality
...
How's the use of half-empty fuel tanks with DTs any different with the rocket pods? Dumping DTs and dumping rocket pods were possible in real life and yet for some reason, a double standard is at work here.
Again, I'm not implying on a conspiracy, but rather an overlook which has existed for so long that many people just take it for granted instead of giving it any serious thought.
Jettisoning the rocket tubes was not a common practice, and unless the pilot was absolutely compelled, in most cases they would be recommended to carry it back to base.
Is it not also true for the fuel loading scheme? If a certain mission in certain planes were well inside the flight range with internal fuel, was it not a more common practice to load just as much fuel as needed, instead of needlessly strapping on a DT and wasting it for the sole purpose of aerial combat?
I've got no special love for the Las or Yaks but unfair is unfair.
Las and Yaks are forced to fly with heavy internal load, limiting their full potential in combat maneuvering - and even still they have a pitifully short range. As I recall your reasoning was for the pilots to use the fuel-conserving scheme as wisely as needed. So Okay, no beef with that fact.
But then why should some plane be exempt of the same conditions by using an uncommon method of loading fuel, which is hardly anything to be considered truly "represantitive" of reality?
DTs were to extend range when internal fuel was not enough for the purpose. In most cases, for example, a P-51 would be meeting a 109 with more than 60~70% internal fuel over the skies of Germany. But since it's the MA, they aren't pressed to fly long range escorts like in history, and they already have a free choice to choose as much internal fuel load as they want, unlike the shorter legged planes that don't have a choice at all.
So why should they receive another advantage just because they could carry DTs? What's so different with the DTs compared to the rocket pods on some planes?
I say if a P-51 or a P-38 or whatever plane wants to fly lighter and much suited for combat, then fine, they can fly that way freely, but under the same conditions - the need to conserve fuel/ the problem of burning fuel - as SAME as the other planes.
The DTs are an advantage and they should make a difference. But they should make a difference in total range that exceeds the internal fuel, not as a quickie-exploit for "carrying small fuel, at the same time avoiding all the problems of carrying small fuel".
-
I say leave it the way it is. Allowing drop tanks with partial fuel is just another game variable which people can use to customize their planes and add variety. Why restrict people unnecessarily?
(BTW, I'm not saying this to give myself an advantage, because I don't usually use drop tanks these days).
-
Amazingly, I actually agree with Kweassa... flying around with 25/50% fuel and DTs is a little silly, I know the MA isn't supposed to be historical, but I don't recall this ever being done. Regardless, I tend to always carry my fuel internally as I hate the drag from drop tanks.
edit: I know many aircraft, the P51 for example, would drain certain tanks first to move their CoG forward. That is alot different than carrying 75 gallons in the aircraft and 300 gallons in the drop tanks.
Before this degenerates into a flame fest, I hope HTC considers 'shading off' parts of fuel not available instead of that annoying pop-up box.