Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: whels on August 17, 2008, 01:21:42 PM
-
need to make it where you need to carry atleast 75% internal fuel before DTs
can be carried. stop the upping with 25% internal, with DTs.
Bombers need to be limited to no less then 50%fuel on takeoff, id like to see 75%
but id settle for 50.
-
Sounds nice. I'm always at 75% for a minimum of fuel. Never know when you might get a fuel leak. P-51, Jug... etc. Works great for me.
-
Lancs only need 25%,50% tops
-
Lancs only need 25%,50% tops
i dont care what they need. they should be forced to use fuel loads closer to RL.
the fuel burn multiplier in arenas dont affect buffs like it should.
-
do u know how much money fuel costs :O :D
-
do u know how much money fuel costs :O :D
$15 a month :)
-
I always take 100% and usually no DT's, but considering what I fly fuel leaks are common and I get a nice 40 some min with 100%.
-
Whels buffs are already becoming more and more rare(it seems to me) I think this might make it even more rare :salute
-
Ask any bomber pilot from WWII just how often they went up with less than %100 fuel.
This game allows for some serious inaccuracies AND those in turn allow for some serious abuses in aircarft use. A heavy bomber with %75+ fuel is in no way shapw for form going to dive bomb. Th only thing that would see a drop in usage is the Stuka-Lancs and Stuka B17/24.
I too think that bombers should be required to take at least %50 fuel and fighters %75 for the useage of DT. I know tons of guys take DT's with %25 fuel for their fighters. That is as about as accurate is Obama's "change" message.
-
i dont care what they need. they should be forced to use fuel loads closer to RL.
the fuel burn multiplier in arenas dont affect buffs like it should.
HTC should force fighters to load 100% of fuel.
-
Ask any bomber pilot from WWII just how often they went up with less than %100 fuel.
This game allows for some serious inaccuracies AND those in turn allow for some serious abuses in aircarft use. A heavy bomber with %75+ fuel is in no way shapw for form going to dive bomb. Th only thing that would see a drop in usage is the Stuka-Lancs and Stuka B17/24.
I too think that bombers should be required to take at least %50 fuel and fighters %75 for the useage of DT. I know tons of guys take DT's with %25 fuel for their fighters. That is as about as accurate is Obama's "change" message.
But we cannot dump fuel, another inaccuracy. If they also added that feature, I would agree with this one.
-
What exactly would have stopped a pilot taking 25% fuel and DT's IRL?
If the crew chief was instructed for tactical reasons to load the aircraft in such a fashion then that exactly how they would have lifted off.
-
I never take off bombers with less then 75% fuel. First off my bomber runs typically last an hour or more. 2nd leaving fuel at the base doesnt really enhance bomber performance like it does with fighters. Not when you fly bombers like, well, bombers. And many times Ive been able to save my bacon, with a fuel leak, be having so much fuel that Im able to touchdown before I leak it all out.
AH should just write the code that level bombers cant release bombs when in a dive angle. That would put an end to the Lanc stuka lunacy.
-
"To each their own."
-
Ask any bomber pilot from WWII just how often they went up with less than %100 fuel.
This game allows for some serious inaccuracies AND those in turn allow for some serious abuses in aircarft use.
As your second sentence says...this is a game. It's not meant to be a recreation of real-life WWII battles. It's a game to let people fly WWII-era airplanes. Sure, there are ways to "game the game", and there will always be people that finds ways to exploit certain limitations/loopholes in the game.
Personally, I don't care how someone loads their plane. They can fly whatever they want, and however the game lets them...I do.
need to make it where you need to carry atleast 75% internal fuel before DTs
can be carried. stop the upping with 25% internal, with DTs.
Bombers need to be limited to no less then 50%fuel on takeoff, id like to see 75%
but id settle for 50.
It's a game. The sooner you realize this, the sooner you'll start to enjoy it more. Who cares how much fuel someone takes? According to their "mission plan", they're taking the fuel configuration that they see fit to complete their sortie. What's wrong with that? So what if it isn't 100% historically accurate according to what you consider to be "historically accurate"? This isn't a historical recreation of WWII anyway.
-
Historically heavy bombers were dead meat if fighters found them. In this game the bombers outrun fighters.
Historically bombers took full fuel, this mean slower cruising speeds, much slower climb rates, and lower effective altitudes. In this game they can take 25%, fly across the map at full-frickin'-throttle, climb faster and fly higher and have a max level speed faster than they ever did historically.
On top of that they have the guns of 3 different planes all singling out targets from ranges 3x historical effective gunnery ranges because their unrealistic forward speed gives the rearward-firing bullets that much more momentum on pursuing craft.
Oh, yes, this is in any way balanced gameplay... riiiiight :rolleyes:
This is a game, but it's a game that supplies you with historical performances and specifications on the planes IN this game. The problem is bombers are heavily abused in regards to historical specs.
-
You guys ever notice that DT's aren't listed in the damage display. Think about it. :D
-
because their unrealistic forward speed gives the rearward-firing bullets that much more momentum on pursuing craft.
Krusty, you wanna splain that one?
-
Again... A cute idea. But no bearing of truth, so no!
-
Again... A cute idea. But no bearing of truth, so no!
What do you mean no bearing of truth, explain it more.
Whels i agree.
-
Bullet impact loses power over range. Hit something with 50cals at 100 yards and it does a lot more damage than tickling them at 800 yards. So the bullet leaves the barrel and based on that point it loses power. However if the barrel is moving forward at 300+mph, the second the bullet leaves the gun, the point of reference the fighter has is rapidly closing. The bomber may still say 1.0k range, but by the time the fighter is impacted by the bullet it has only traveled 500 yards (to make an example) and on top of that the fighter's forward motion probably adds more punch to the bullet as well.
It's hard to explain without a diagram.
Aside from that, there's the usual...
Bombers fly so fast in this game they force 90% of fighters into a dead 6 tail chase. Not only does this reduce the closure rate to that of a yugo in first gear, it lets the gunners (really 1 gunner with upwards of 18 guns all firing where he aims) have a very slow moving easy target.
On top of that the fighter, just to keep even with the bomber, has to fly at high speed head-on directly into the bullet stream
The forward speed of bombers takes a 500 yard max range (historically) and turns it into 1.5k (unrealistically) because they are running away so fast the trailing planes can't do anything else.
However, with a bomber at 180MPH (or whatever the cruise speed would happen to be) the fighters do not sit dead 6 because they actually CAN overtake and set up attack runs on bombers. Even a dead6 attack, if the bomber fires 1.0k the bullet still travels (let's say) 800 yards and is much less effective by the time it hits the target.
It's a compound problem that many aspects of would be minimized if the max speed of bombers was lowered. How exactly we lower it, I don't know. I suggested a 8x fuel burn for 4-engines before, so that bombers have to take 100% all the time and HAVE to use cruise settings or won't get far. Others (and myself) would like to see some sort of engine related problems or a more realistic limitation on bomber "full throttle" use.
-
What exactly would have stopped a pilot taking 25% fuel and DT's IRL?
I'm not familiar with the operation of other aircraft's drop tanks, but I've read that in the 109 the internal fuel tank was what fed the fuel to the engine, and the drop tank topped this off the entire time it was attached- thus it would be impossible for the internal tank to be under 100% when the drop tank was attached.
-
Bullet impact loses power over range. Hit something with 50cals at 100 yards and it does a lot more damage than tickling them at 800 yards. So the bullet leaves the barrel and based on that point it loses power. However if the barrel is moving forward at 300+mph, the second the bullet leaves the gun, the point of reference the fighter has is rapidly closing. The bomber may still say 1.0k range, but by the time the fighter is impacted by the bullet it has only traveled 500 yards (to make an example) and on top of that the fighter's forward motion probably adds more punch to the bullet as well.
It's hard to explain without a diagram.
Aside from that, there's the usual...
Bombers fly so fast in this game they force 90% of fighters into a dead 6 tail chase. Not only does this reduce the closure rate to that of a yugo in first gear, it lets the gunners (really 1 gunner with upwards of 18 guns all firing where he aims) have a very slow moving easy target.
On top of that the fighter, just to keep even with the bomber, has to fly at high speed head-on directly into the bullet stream
The forward speed of bombers takes a 500 yard max range (historically) and turns it into 1.5k (unrealistically) because they are running away so fast the trailing planes can't do anything else.
However, with a bomber at 180MPH (or whatever the cruise speed would happen to be) the fighters do not sit dead 6 because they actually CAN overtake and set up attack runs on bombers. Even a dead6 attack, if the bomber fires 1.0k the bullet still travels (let's say) 800 yards and is much less effective by the time it hits the target.
It's a compound problem that many aspects of would be minimized if the max speed of bombers was lowered. How exactly we lower it, I don't know. I suggested a 8x fuel burn for 4-engines before, so that bombers have to take 100% all the time and HAVE to use cruise settings or won't get far. Others (and myself) would like to see some sort of engine related problems or a more realistic limitation on bomber "full throttle" use.
All you had to say was increased bullet velocity relative to the target. However, For rear guns firing on a trailing fighter, I believe you're actually describing it in reverse. In any event, it's essentially a wash. Decreased muzzle velocity relative to the fighter is balanced by the deceleration of the round and the forward velocity of the fighter. Besides, 264 f/s (180 mph) really isn't much of a delta compared to 2850 f/s muzzle velocity. I think you'll find the effect is actually quite small. 50 BMG loses that much velocity in only 100 yards. Of course, the faster the buff goes, the larger this effect you're describing becomes, with a larger resulting reduction in initial velocity relative to the target. (This kinda reminds me of the early body armor tests the NIJ did. Cops were asking if the vests were still effective if they were running towards the shooter. The researchers asked them tongue-in-cheek "How fast do you run?" )
As far as making dead 6 attacks on buffs going 300 mph, you're absolutely right. It's bogus. And forget about overtaking one and turning for a head-on attack. The only plane we have in-game which can consistently do that is the 262.
:salute
-
You guys ever notice that DT's aren't listed in the damage display. Think about it. :D
The point I was making here is that apparently DT's can't be damaged. I've had both internal tanks holed in the Dora, but because damage to the DT isn't modeled, I cruised home no problem. :)
-
All you had to say was increased bullet velocity relative to the target. However, For rear guns firing on a trailing fighter, I believe you're actually describing it in reverse. In any event, it's essentially a wash.
I don't think it is. The distance the bullet has to travel before hitting the target is significantly shorter if the bomber is flying faster, because the target can barely keep up in a tail chase.
A bomber travelling 320MPH (yes I've clocked B24s in game doing 320 steady before, because they have no bombs and no gas to slow them down) is doing 470 feet per second.
So the second a bullet is fired rearward at a fighter, a second later its NORMAL impact speed to target is increased by 470 feet because while the fighter/bomber may stay the same relative distance they are moving forward and the bullet is moving backward. Not even counting net lag and individual clients showing up closer than they really are (etc etc) that's a range boost of over 150 yards of efectiveness. Meaning if you fired at a target 800 out it would have the impact of firing at them from under 650 yards.
I don't think I'm explaining it very well. :confused:
-
I don't think it is. The distance the bullet has to travel before hitting the target is significantly shorter if the bomber is flying faster, because the target can barely keep up in a tail chase.
A bomber travelling 320MPH (yes I've clocked B24s in game doing 320 steady before, because they have no bombs and no gas to slow them down) is doing 470 feet per second.
So the second a bullet is fired rearward at a fighter, a second later its NORMAL impact speed to target is increased by 470 feet because while the fighter/bomber may stay the same relative distance they are moving forward and the bullet is moving backward. Not even counting net lag and individual clients showing up closer than they really are (etc etc) that's a range boost of over 150 yards of efectiveness. Meaning if you fired at a target 800 out it would have the impact of firing at them from under 650 yards.
I don't think I'm explaining it very well. :confused:
I follow what you're saying. I'm just saying that I don't think the change in impact velocity is really that significant. Have to see ballistic tables to 50 BMG to say for sure. (especially against a soft target like an aluminum A/C, but that's another discussion)
-
i dont care what they need. they should be forced to use fuel loads closer to RL.
the fuel burn multiplier in arenas dont affect buffs like it should.
planes were loaded with the required amount of fuel needed to make the target with X amount of spare fuel for emergency's.
IE: if the target was 1 hours flight time away why take 2 hrs worth?
the plan would be loaded with 1 hours worth of fuel + 30 Min's for emergency like leeking fuel or damaged engine or another 1,000 reasons.
a Lancaster hitting a target in France would have less fuel loaded than a Lancaster hitting a target in germany.
had a discussion smiler to this about speed of a vehicle vs the speed of an object moving inside of a vehicle and this is how i explained it to him.
a train is doing 100mph
a guy walks towards the front at 10mph how fast is the guy moving relative to the ground?
answear = 110mph
a train is doing 100mph
a guy walks towards the back at 10mph how fast is the guy moving relative to the ground?
answear = 90mph
short answear to the bullet is that u either + or - the speed of the plane to the speed of the bullet depending on which way the bullet is fired.
bomber speed = 200mph
bullet speed = 800mph
fired forward bullet speed = 1000mph
fired backwards bullet speed = 600mph
now if a fighter is flying in trial doing 200mph then the impact speed is 800mph due to the forward motion of the fighter added to the speed of the bullet.
-
planes were loaded with the required amount of fuel needed to make the target with X amount of spare fuel for emergency's.
IE: if the target was 1 hours flight time away why take 2 hrs worth?
the plan would be loaded with 1 hours worth of fuel + 30 Min's for emergency like leeking fuel or damaged engine or another 1,000 reasons.
a Lancaster hitting a target in France would have less fuel loaded than a Lancaster hitting a target in germany.
had a discussion smiler to this about speed of a vehicle vs the speed of an object moving inside of a vehicle and this is how i explained it to him.
a train is doing 100mph
a guy walks towards the front at 10mph how fast is the guy moving relative to the ground?
answear = 110mph
a train is doing 100mph
a guy walks towards the back at 10mph how fast is the guy moving relative to the ground?
answear = 90mph
short answear to the bullet is that u either + or - the speed of the plane to the speed of the bullet depending on which way the bullet is fired.
bomber speed = 200mph
bullet speed = 800mph
fired forward bullet speed = 1000mph
fired backwards bullet speed = 600mph
now if a fighter is flying in trial doing 200mph then the impact speed is 800mph due to the forward motion of the fighter added to the speed of the bullet.
hyster, what you're describing is bullet velocity relative to the ground, not relative to another plane traveling at the same speed. It's necessary to take into account the fact that, relative to the two planes, the bullet decelerates at different rates depending on who's firing: the plane in the front, or the plane in the back. I believe this is what Krusty was trying to say.
Let's use a simple aerodynamic convention. Instead of the planes moving relative to the air, let's make the planes stationary, and consider the air as flowing past both. So, from that perspective, let's look at this again. Let's place our two planes 100 yds apart, and consider 4 examples:
1) Planes parked on runway: (NO Wind)
a) Rear plane fires .50 BMG at front plane. Bullet leaves muzzle @ 2850 f/s and decelerates 270 f/s to 2580 f/s at impact.
b) Front plane fires .50 BMG at rear plane. Bullet leaves muzzle @ 2850 f/s and decelerates 270 f/s to 2580 f/s at impact.
Now, let's use Krusty's haul bellybutton B-24 as an example:
2) Both planes flying @ 470 f/s 100 yds apart. Just like planes parked on runway, but now there's the equivalent of a hurricane blowing from front plane to rear plane.
a) Rear plane fires .50 BMG at front plane. Bullet leaves muzzle @ 2850 f/s, but because it's essentially fired into a 470 f/s head wind, it initially decelerates much more rapidly, and drops to ~2280 f/s before it impacts the front plane.
b) Front plane fired .50 BMG at rear plane. Bullet leaves muzzle @ 2850 f/s, but because it essentially fired with a 470 f/s tail wind, it initially decelerates much more slowly, and may actually hit the rear plane at a speed higher than 2850 f/s.
Krusty, you buying this? :salute
-
:salute
Force a certain loadout of internal fuel before drop tanks are allowed... Yet in real life, they were able to do what they wanted. So truth is, we follow as close to life as possible don't we? And the cuteness, not out of disrespect, comes from the idea of equalizing the playing field, which is what ENY should be doing in the first place, no? And what the fuel/drop tank debate is meant to do I see it as.
What do you mean no bearing of truth, explain it more.
Whels i agree.
Should I explain it more? Or just slower? By this time of day I figure you're 5 or 6 bowls in! :rock
:salute
-
Bombers fly so fast in this game they force 90% of fighters into a dead 6 tail chase.
Any fighter (a6m2 included) outrun all heavy level bombers (lanc, b-17 and b-24) at any alt (with few exceptions).
I would like to see speed limit for drones though.
-
what we need is to be able to setup fuel loadout on each internal tank separately, and % by %.
-
"need to make it where you need to carry atleast 75% internal fuel before DTs"
No thanks!..
Maybe if we didn't have such a high fuel multiplier.
-
100% fuel to load DTs would be ever better.
-
Any fighter (a6m2 included) outrun all heavy level bombers (lanc, b-17 and b-24) at any alt (with few exceptions).
I would like to see speed limit for drones though.
Not true...
I've gotten my b24j's up to 415 mph, compression hits a zeke at 400...
Running off of just engine, level... it's debatible...
-
Not true...
I've gotten my b24j's up to 415 mph, compression hits a zeke at 400...
Running off of just engine, level... it's debatible...
1) I mean in level, of course.
2) Compression doesnt prevent further acceleration (dont sure what maximal dive speed for zero though)
3) Try to compare:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/a6m2spd.gif
http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/models/charts/b24jspd.gif
-
What exactly would have stopped a pilot taking 25% fuel and DT's IRL?
If the crew chief was instructed for tactical reasons to load the aircraft in such a fashion then that exactly how they would have lifted off.
Yep. This wish is bogus unless we're flying in a scenario or something, and even there, there's no reason why the pilot can't do what he damn pleases to ensure mission success.
-
But we cannot dump fuel, another inaccuracy. If they also added that feature, I would agree with this one.
Most WWII bombers could not dump fuel.
-
Yep. This wish is bogus unless we're flying in a scenario or something, and even there, there's no reason why the pilot can't do what he damn pleases to ensure mission success.
tsk tsk tsk
You are thinking too far outside the box. The goal here is make things a bit more "realisitic" when flying the aircraft. A couple of things that need to be brought up after reading your previous responses:
1> The burn multiplier is X2, which means our aircraft burn fuel TWICE as fast. If it were to be lowered, we'd never see any aircraft with more than %50 fuel. Period. Even the short ranged Spitfires would be able to go almost all the way across the map.
2> Remember that in these maps that we are playing on the bases are far closer to each other than they were in WWII (there were a few specific exceptions during an advance/retreat). In no way shape or form would the US/UK would have put their precious heavy bombers within a stones throw from established enemy bases. So your arguement for "tactical" purposes to the job done however the pilot damned well pleases is bogus in its own right. Simply put, the aircraft in WWII didnt go up with %25 fuel and %100 DT to jaunt on over 10 miles and dog-fight or level bomb a city. There were far to many other factors to worry about.
With this idea of having a fuel minimum prior to being able to take DT, I think also the idea of not allowing hvy bombers take off from small airfields needs to be explored. If not having a minimum of fuel load of X is required, than make it so the hvy bombers MUST take some extra fuel in order to get to the target and back.
Or..... just up the burn multiplier to 2.5 or even 3 and that will change a LOT of things. Say good-bye to %25 fueled bombers and
%50 fueled fighters. That may be the easiest for the AH2 coders to work with. **listens to the whining** What? You mean one cant take their beloeved Spit16 or Lala clear over yonder and dogfight due to the range? Aww. Guess that means you'll have to up a P38, P47, Bf109, Fw190, or a Zeke w/ DT (but dont worry, you "l337" pilots that MUST take a "l337" planes will still be alright, the Nik2 and Pny have decent DT to get you there and back). Oh the horror. The more I think of this idea the more I like it.
Just up the burn multiplier to 2.5 for a tour and see how that changes things. If we're still seeing massive amounts of %25 fueled hvy bombers and %25 w/ DT fighters... then up the burn multiplier to 3.0 and problem solved.
-
Bombers fly so fast in this game they force 90% of fighters into a dead 6 tail chase
Regardless how often you bring that up, it's not true.
90% of all fighters end up attacking buffs from 6 oclock because their pilots choose so. Either out of lazyness, ignorance or pure dumbness.
However, with a bomber at 180MPH (or whatever the cruise speed would happen to be) the fighters do not sit dead 6 because they actually CAN overtake and set up attack runs on bombers.
Almost all fighters can do that now as well. As I said above, most pilots just choose not to.
(http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6810/speedcompui5.jpg)
3/4th of all fighters are at least 80mph faster at 10k (and that number doesn't change at 15k). And most of those those models "only" 40-80 mph faster than the B17/Lanc are very rare birds in the MA anyway
-
I like this idea
-
I've gotten my b24j's up to 415 mph, compression hits a zeke at 400...
In fact, A6M2 can reach 440 mph (IAS) before it starts loosing pieces. And I couldnt break 375 mph in B-24, didnt try too hard though.
-
In fact, A6M2 can reach 440 mph (IAS) before it starts loosing pieces.
Onset of compressibility and losing pieces don't necessarily occur at the same time. Plenty of completely intact P-38's augered due to compressibility.
-
Onset of compressibility and losing pieces don't necessarily occur at the same time. Plenty of completely intact P-38's augered due to compressibility.
I said exactly same several posts above, didnt I?
Just specified speed zero can reach w/o rips to pieces.
-
I have yet been able to take off in a lanc w/ full ordance and 100% fuel =/ always crashed when i try to get enough alt to avoid them tree!!
-
I said exactly same several posts above, didnt I?
Just specified speed zero can reach w/o rips to pieces.
Didn't see that Oleg. I have to occasionally "appear" to be working. It's very distracting.:D
:salute
-
tsk tsk tsk
You are thinking too far outside the box. The goal here is make things a bit more "realisitic" when flying the aircraft. A couple of things that need to be brought up after reading your previous responses:
1> The burn multiplier is X2, which means our aircraft burn fuel TWICE as fast. If it were to be lowered, we'd never see any aircraft with more than %50 fuel. Period. Even the short ranged Spitfires would be able to go almost all the way across the map.
2> Remember that in these maps that we are playing on the bases are far closer to each other than they were in WWII (there were a few specific exceptions during an advance/retreat). In no way shape or form would the US/UK would have put their precious heavy bombers within a stones throw from established enemy bases. So your arguement for "tactical" purposes to the job done however the pilot damned well pleases is bogus in its own right. Simply put, the aircraft in WWII didnt go up with %25 fuel and %100 DT to jaunt on over 10 miles and dog-fight or level bomb a city. There were far to many other factors to worry about.
With this idea of having a fuel minimum prior to being able to take DT, I think also the idea of not allowing hvy bombers take off from small airfields needs to be explored. If not having a minimum of fuel load of X is required, than make it so the hvy bombers MUST take some extra fuel in order to get to the target and back.
Or..... just up the burn multiplier to 2.5 or even 3 and that will change a LOT of things. Say good-bye to %25 fueled bombers and
%50 fueled fighters. That may be the easiest for the AH2 coders to work with. **listens to the whining** What? You mean one cant take their beloeved Spit16 or Lala clear over yonder and dogfight due to the range? Aww. Guess that means you'll have to up a P38, P47, Bf109, Fw190, or a Zeke w/ DT (but dont worry, you "l337" pilots that MUST take a "l337" planes will still be alright, the Nik2 and Pny have decent DT to get you there and back). Oh the horror. The more I think of this idea the more I like it.
Just up the burn multiplier to 2.5 for a tour and see how that changes things. If we're still seeing massive amounts of %25 fueled hvy bombers and %25 w/ DT fighters... then up the burn multiplier to 3.0 and problem solved.
Your post is too masken long. Brief it to three lines. AH is a game. In reality, the pilot's wishes trumps anything else... he might piss off the crew chief by burning out the engine with overbootst, but IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is him coming out on top. It that means taking a gamble on fuel load so that he might have a weight/weight distribution advantage on the enemy, then SO BE IT.
No need for a wall of text to make that point. Unfortunaltely for you... The fuel distribution (any internal load + DT) will be allowed despite your baseless whine... And I'll kick your arse anytime I diddlyen wish.. Even drunk as hell. KMA.
-
Just up the burn multiplier to 2.5 for a tour and see how that changes things. If we're still seeing massive amounts of %25 fueled hvy bombers and %25 w/ DT fighters... then up the burn multiplier to 3.0 and problem solved.
The problem with further increasing the burn multiplier is that fuel burn multipliers penalize slower climbing aircraft. Even at 2.0 it has an effect, and at 3.0, aircraft choices would be primarily dictated by which airframes can climb to altitude and still have any fuel left to engage.
Krusty has a valid point regarding bombers - but pointing out the non-realistic throttle settings used by bomber pilots because the game is different than real life is just as valid when applied to fighters. Neither fighters nor bombers flew b***s to the wall for anywhere near the percentage of time that we do.
<S>
-
Yep.
-
bombers need thier own fuel multiplier, or thier engine fuel useage
cranked up.
-
Too gamey.