Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kirin on December 06, 1999, 04:33:00 AM
-
I don't wanna hang into that Überspit & -mustang thingy again but I must say I do not like both of them. I never fly the Spit and I only fly the Mustang for long range raids.
Yesterday I was jumped by a P51 with some alt-advantage ('ello Hangtime). All I could do was to neclect his passes. So I did but the Mustang used his advantage well and kept moving into a more favourable position. I came out spiraling to the deck with the Pony on my tail. Ok I thought, drop flaps one notch and keep flat turning because the Pony surely can't follow you. Wrong, I was riding the edge of stall with flaps out but the pony still kept gaining angles on me. The only reason I survived was that a couple of friends came to my aid (thanks guys!!). So, after the fight Hangtime adressed me on the open channel that it was most questionable to flat turn with a pony on the deck. Now that puzzles me. All I thought I know of the Pony was that it was not a T&B plane! Ok, I come from AW3 and have not a very long flight experience, but a P51 outturning a George on the deck??? Man, the P51 & the Spit will dominate the skies...
Kirin out
-
You should have used guncam to analize the fight.
Hey, good idea, now we can post all our whining with some proof ! I think I have one myself, P 51 TnB with Spit on the deck, both using flat turn and scissors, P 51 killing Spit, then TnB with me. I did one mistake, but generally had E over him. Somehow he managed to meet me HO in his slow speed zoom. We both died ;(
Back to your fight now.
Hmm, it could be more things there. Maybe your flaps ate a bit of your E (dunno about butterfly flaps on Niki tho). Maybe Niki bleeds E faster than you think.
Mustang could have used gravity assist to turn better too, using oblique curves, while you turned flat.
He could have waited while you bled E in your turn, then enter the turn closer to its corner speed than you were to yours.
Or maybe, just maybe, it is the AH BND (Blue Nosed Devil)...g,d,r (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
P.S.
I never said anything about Spits being overmodeled. They play their game, my 190 plays another. So far they are losing it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
yeah, guncam, right - problem is that I always forget to turn it on when I need it! But I have tons of material showing me take off and transit to the hot spot... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Well I admit that this particular fight was not done with my most brilliant flying. I surely burned a lot of E turning with flaps but the pony kept gaining on me after several full circles. From what I've seen out off the rear window the Pony did not use any verticle or oblique manouvers once we were on the deck, but I could be wrong. Hangtime maybe you could clarify the situation. I wouldn't even take notice that much if Hangtime didn't address me on this subject.
Hristo you may got me wrong. I don't wanna whine about anything and if the Pony got me that night I would have deserved it but the way the Pony was turning really puzzeled me. Again, I come from AW3 and there it was never a good thing to start a turn fight in a P51...
I still don't like the Spit and the only reason I slightly fancy the P51 is its appearance in "Saving Privat Ryan" & "Land of the Rising Sun" (I don't know if that is the correct english title - Spielberg movie)
Kirin out
-
Heya Kirin,
I haven't been driving the Pony for a long time but I can tell that she is *very* stable. A "light" (low fuel) Mustang with a skilled pilot can be deadly. Moreover FM's have still to be fine tuned.
In AH if you are low you are really dead. Almost no matter the kite you are in. I like it but its really tough. Much worse than WB.
-
Kirin, since I wasn't there (or lack of guncam films, [nice to say that now !!]) its hard to really comment on your particular fight.
But I will make some general comments, since I have quite a bit of N1K2 time, and the next most time in Mustangs (alot of time in N1k2 in AW too).
First off, if you want to survive fights, give up the N1K2 in AH. Yes it has BFG's, and is a stable gun platform, but thats about its only advantage with the way it is currently modeled.
Don't take me wrong, I am a BIG defender of the N1K2, but given the current modeling I just don't think it is much of a late war contender. You can get alot of kills in big furballs with those cannons, but you won't make it home to land very often either. If you like the N1K2, I would suggest the F4U in AH, if you can get use to the "six view".
Yes the N1K2 does have decent moderate sustained turn rates, but with the way it burns E, and the engine power the way its being modeled, you can't even count on the turning ability to survive.
N1K2 vs P-51:
I have fought this battle many times from both sides. And given equal pilots, unless the N1K2 has a huge E advantage while the Pony is low and slow, the N1K2 is going too lose. Or at the very least the Pony can disengage at will, and survive (I equate that with winning).
No the Pony cannot outturn the N1K2, not even close.
If the N1K2 can get behind the Pony and he is low and slow you got him probably.
But in your case it sounds like the Pony had both E advantage (even just a couple thousand feet can make the difference) and positional advantage (your direct 6). So basically you had alot of angles (180 degree's) to make up.
All the Pony would have too do, when you go into a flat turn, is to bank his E with a Hi-YoYo, and go easy on the stick to conserve E. It can be very deceptive at that low altitude and it doesnt' take much to be effective.
After you continue to turn hard and flat you will be burning up your E horribly (characteristic of N1K2) and the N1K2 engine cannot make up the difference. SO eventually you have to ease off or stall.
At that point the Pony has probably lost alot of angles, but he is setup to counter you. All he has too do is then drop his nose to accelerate a little, and use his roll rate to bring you back into his 12 line.
Since you are at stall speed with no banked E, he has now just made up all the angles that he lost in the initial flat turn deficit.
How do I know this? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Well, NateDog and I had this exact same fight in a 190 vs N1K2 fight about a week and a half ago. And he beat me in the above described manner.
Btw Nate, very nice fight <S> !!
Give up the N1K2, its a deathtrap. I fought two of them to a standstill last night in a F4U me at 18k, them at 25k. We fought all the way down to the deck and then I easily disengaged.
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
Thank you Gatt, and especially Vermillion. I am always happy to get every tad bit of information about the planes I fly in AH.
I have been flying the George almost exclusively these days since it is soooo stable. And I always liked the guns it beared. Getting home in a George is a difficult task, that's right, you just can't run away from any plane - what makes disengaging a futile task. But I think its stabililty goes a long way and makes up for many faults, not to mention its firepower. On the George I have my best K/D ratio of 51 kills vs. 17 deaths. I tried the Corsair on the day it came out but was not able to handle it properly (any suggestions welcome). Busc from the 51° stormo caccia tought me how to fly it in AW3. It was my favourite plane there. But I just cannot fit it in here in AH. From the way I know it it lacks a lot of climb ability and manouverability.
About the fight: Verm, I think you are absolutely right about the regaining on angles when I am out of E. It was excactly like that. Initially I was able to get the pony from my direct six but at some moment during the fight it gained tremendous angles in one move. Well, it still puzzles me that a P51 can keep up with a George in a prolonged turn fight but I have to get Hangtimes point of view for verification.
I think I will take some training lessons on the F4U - well until the c.205 gets drop tanks and a little fine tuning... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
BTW: Gatt, Verm what do you two think of the 109? I noticed that many Italian fancied it before the c.205 came out.
Kirin out
-
I have a couple of things to add here.
First, you don't know what the relative fuel states were, and that could have a huge bearing on this fight. If you guys ever do get film one of these, be sure to ask the guy how much fuel he had and record yours as well. Without fuel loading info even filmed fights won't tell us much.
Second, you POPPED FLAPS! Ok, I'm an E fighter, so I never do this, but the N1K2 bleeds E really fast, you don't need to pop flaps to help it along. I tested several planes earlier in AH looking for good turn rate flap position, but even 1 notch will make your sustained turn slower in every plane. The only use for flaps is either as a brake, or to convert some energy to angles. You can turn a bit tighter in the short term using a notch or two of flap, but any more than about 90 degrees and the extra drag will get you killed.
If you want to see what it is like to survive, try the F4U. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I am flying it exclusively now, and it is a very nice bird and in AH it is the pure E fighter that it should be. I think it is the most "surviveable" plane in AH easily. It is fast, dives very well, has tons of ammo and gas, and is the toughest fighter in the game. I got bounced by an unseen N12K today who got a short burst into me. I rolled over and dove away, but even those big 20mm cannons only took my right aelieron and damaged my elevator. Try that in a "nancy-boy" P51! ;-)
------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs
-
Lephturn:
I agree F4U is very nice bird (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) But I am still not sure which I will go with in this verison, the P51 or the F4U.
Yes the F4U is much more capable as a pure E fighter it seems to me, with its better roll and turn rates. But on the bad side that rear visibility is still bad enough to get you killed if your not careful.
The P51 still has the superior acceleration and top speed, plus the ultimate in visibility going for it.
I need more F4U stick time to decide (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Kirin:
How do I like the 109?
I love the way it flys in AH, good speed, excellent acceleration & climb, small size, and the compression at 400mph IAS is bad but controllable if you watch for it.
However I have to say that its weapons package totally turns me off the aircraft. When you take the single 20mm as the primary armament, it just doesn't have enough "punch" for someone with poor gunnery like me to get kills. Yes with the single 30mm, you have an all or nothing proposition. If you hit, you get a kill. But again I shoot poorly, and you get very little ammunition. Then if you take the /R6 conversion, and add the x2 20mm wingpods, it simply kills all the attributes that you are flying the 109 for in the first place.
Are you a good shot? If you are, I would say try out the Me109. If your average or lower, I would go with the F4U-1D.
Of course realize that this is all opinon and personal preference (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Vermillion
WB's: (verm--), **MOL**, Men of Leisure,
"Real men fly Radials, Nancy Boys fly Spitfires ;) "
-
Verm, I was flying the P51, but the F4U is much better for my type of flying.
First and foremost.. it's TOUGHER. It will get you home missing a couple tail feathers when you would have been dead meat in a P51. It also dives very well, and I can exit a fight at least as easy as I can in a Pony, if not a little faster. Third... and this you will like, it has more ammo! Woohoo! Guys like us that can't shoot for beans can just hose away all day long. <G>
The Hawg gets me kills and gets me home better than any other plane, including the P51. I can take a snapshot hit or 2 in the Hawg and still make my escape, where those same hits killed or busted my plane in the P51.
------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs
-
BTW: Gatt, Verm what do you two think of the 109? I noticed that many Italian fancied it before the c.205 came out
Well, the 109 is probably the most demanding and interesting bird to fly. I have been learning to fly 109's during two years in JG27, watching guys like Kats and Vigl mastering it. I still love it. Italians often fly 109's simply becouse they did it during WWII after 1943, togheter with Luftwaffe JG77. I still fly the 109 in AH, waiting for the C.205 FM fine tuning. Her poor climb rate and stability make me feel seasick ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
You want tuff? Time for the P47! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Granted, she doesn't climb real well... but how can you say no to 8x50 cals?
------------------
SnakeEyes
o-o-o-
=4th Fighter Group=
-
Hiya Kirin!!
Nice after action report! I saw it the same away you did.. usually, I can’t even recognize what planet the other guy was on, let alone all the details of an action like this…
Ok.. in the first place I fly the stang exclusively; and I fly it very aggressively. I have at this point logged an amazing number of hours in the AH Mustang; this coupled with plenty of WB’s experience as well as several other sims H2H totals up to insane numbers of hours in the ‘type’.
As an aside; I consider the AH Mustangs flight model fidelity to be the best of the rather big crowd, and in context of the AH environment and the adversaries it has to contend with it's a very competent airplane (as it should be). So; I'd have to point out that here in this arena, as it was in Europe and the Pacific 50 years ago, it's damn dangerous machine in an average pilots hands; hence, lethal as hell when used to its limits. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ain't this also true of the George???
Next.. I was in fact very light. Those insidious damn Rook buff drivers had hammered all our (bish) fields to low fuel rations, so I had only a ¼ tank on takeoff. Since I’d just nailed a pair of rook stangs to a canyon wall; I had a very light ammo load left, and was commin to the closest friendly field fer a reload of beer; pretzels, ammoo and ethyl. Only to find this Niki hangin low under the foothills NW of the field; 10k under me and ripe fer a quick whack. “Whot the hell.. a kills a kill…” and down I went.
Sadly; by the second turn; I knew I had an above average pilot for an opponent; and having been watching the kills in the textbox coupled with the guy you had recently killed still in a chute nearby gave me my first clue as to who it was in the Niki. And that I was in the deeeeep deeep doggie dooo. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
The first turn was a very tight E killin vert for me; riding the blackout circle around to where I expected to find yah.. but you wern’t there!!! Loosing SA is a very baaaad thing and in this case it was almost over right there; a mistake like this very often means I get the nylon letdown. I made the assumption that if yah ain’t in front; well then.. look back! Yup! There he is.. It looked to be like you tried to loop over; lost e and recovered in a immelman. You were a mite higher, but with no speed left at all. I pulled a snap roll to regain angles to HO and tucked under; but not a good shot opportunity. We did a two circle turn then; and since I still had a large e edge; got over the top of your turn and saddled up tight as you went by. Now I had a tail chase against a fighter that can whip hell outta me if he gets enuff time to work the plane around on to my six. Here’s where we started the low e flat turnfight; and I was nuts to cash my chips and pursue. But; being about outta gas; outta ammo; and no alt or E left; I really had no place to go… kill you and land; bail and walk, my only options left really. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Frankly; I was up to this point fairly confident I’d kill yah, and knew if I missed the break deflection shot and we got into a circle dance you’d kill me. As usual; in the crunch; I muffed the shot; and into the circle we went. (sigh) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) I was cross controlled thru most of the circle; wearing up by a few feet to a pseudo yo-yo and as the plane would start to twist out and stall I’d crush that damn rudder pedal; unload a hair; and haul her back down into the turn. I distinctly remember looking out the top of my canopy at you thinking “..he ain’t gaining.. neither am I. Standoff. First guy to drop the turn walks home...”
Question: Don't the Japanese planes sport a left hand prop? I remember thinkin to myself "he's fightin that prop..."
One point that Shaw makes in his book is the bit about smart pilots being able to get to a draw; even in dissimilar AC. And here’s where we found ourselves.. a draw. I had every advantage; you canceled them. When it got to the nitty gritty; you again played it smooth, you didn’t mess up and ‘try something’ instead, you held the slight edge with a better turn fighter and you watched me like a hawk; waiting for my AC to fold to the circumstances. I gotta tell yah.. HT’s sheep were nauseous and had to have sprained necks; watchin us work that circle. Then yer pals showed up. I felt like the Indians in a John Wayne movie. I wonder how it woulda played out if the cavalry didn’t appear. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ok; now fer the flaps discussion. Kirin; I’m betting the flaps are what had yah sagging so bad in the turn. Here’s some flap theory for yah.. I never had mine out till we were down to about freeway speed and the stang started to get unmanageble, and then it was only one notch. I'm certain it wasn't till after the cavalry arrived and I was dodgin slashing swipes at our circle.. Never even considered using them sooner, and here’s why. In AH; the energy model is different.. I don’t know how; but it is; and it’s one reason I like this sim so much.. the e modeling is dead nuts on. (industry term) In aerodynamics we teach that lift and drag are married.. you can’t get one without the other. A flapped airfoil does produce more lift; but with a drag penalty. A little bit of flap produces a little bit more lift and a whole lot more drag. A buncha flap produces massive drag; and no damn lift at all. A well designed laminar (semi-symmetrical) airfoil reduces drag to a minimum and (YAH) reduces lift! We all know the P51 is fast.. it ain’t the merlin as much as the wing that made it so. Next obvious point is ‘how come no flap at low speeds?” Consider AOA (angle of attack) .. if I raise the nose; I’ve changed the presentation of the wing to the airflow (essentially changed the wing from laminar/symmetrical to flat bottomed) and increased the lift/drag component. Hence; why increase drag when what I really want is lift? I suspect your turn radius will decrease slightly if yah keep the flaps in above 120 knots. Induce flaps in a turn and you just slow down.. pulling into the turn has raised the AOA and provided the lift you want.. don’t screw yerself by adding drag. Kudo’s to Pyro and HT.. they got it right.. I’m just using it.
I'm not of the opinion that the stang is overmodeled here. It could certainly be argued that the Nik is undermodled; tho I don't think so. It seems to sit in the niche where it should from historical accounts I've read. I would suggest that the biggest factors in the near level apparent turning capabilities were more as a result of weight diffrences; possibly prop rotation and certainly flaps and when they were used. Had the fight gone a turn or so further I'd have probably augered. (the sheep were lookin mighty nervous) Again; I was anything but confident of the outcome after the circle dance started.
Another note on flaps to the unbelievers (there will be many howling; I’d guess) out there. Flaps also induce ‘washout’.. a function that in effect prevents a nasty lift failure at low speed called ‘tip stall’. (this is what most of the sim pilots observe; and is why they are using them at low speeds in turns) Tip stall occurs in circumstances where the airflow over the wing becomes ‘unattached’ and the wing just plain stops producing lift. It most often happens at high AOA/Low speed attitudes and usually results in the plane flipping right over. (the twist out of the plane in a hard turn is a tip stall) This occurs at the outer portions of the wing first; and the stalled (unattached) airflow migrates to the inboard portions of the wing after the tips ‘break’. Flaps eliminate tip stalling by changing the ‘waterline’ of the wing; (reduces AOA over the flapped area) and the tips then become the last portions of the wing to stop producing lift, rather than the first. Flaps may be just the thing for some planes in turn fights.. but they ain’t in the stang till its too late. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)(nor is lowering the landing gear and a few other wild things I’ve seen in the canyons)
In closing.. Kirin.. Heluva fight. My hat is off to u sir! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) My hail to you after the fight was merely to confirm that it wuz u indeed flying that nik so smoothly. I tossed a viscious extremely agressive fight at yah with all the advantage and every expectation of a quick kill; and wallah! Next thing yah know I'm in the weeds; looking over the backs of a flock of sheep at yer grinnin mug.
Salute!
------------------
PALE HORSES
"I looked, and behold; a Pale Horse, and it's riders name was Death, and Hell followed with him" Rev 6.8
[This message has been edited by Hangtime (edited 12-07-1999).]
-
Whew, what a report. Great work done Hangtime, it's really informative to see the battle through your enemies eyes. I especially appreciate the small technical introduction to flap mechanics and use - always eager for information. I am not sure if I really deserve the praise, I mean I can handle a plane and know some basic acm, but I am not that experienced to use such tricks like a reversed prop spin on japanese planes against my foes... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) (was lucky on this one I think - or maybe Shaw found its way to my brain??)
Well, that you were on less than 1/4 tank explains some of the mystery of the turning pony.
This brings me to a completely different subject: <short intermission> Maximal fuel load on destroyed fields should be calculated in absolut numbers (e.g. liters, gallons or whatever) that would be much more fair to planes with smaller tanks. I mean 1/4 on a pony prolly means full on a macchi (just figuring). So, if a planes with 500 liter capacity is limited to half its tank, a 250 liter plane still could go full!!! Get the point? That would stop 1/4 ponies still flying all over the map while 1/4 La5s only can round trip over their field. <intermission over>
It was a tough fight indeed. As said all I could do was to neglect your passes, which was hard enough. When on the deck I basically started the flat turn because I had some buddies coming which I was in radio contact via RW... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) . I thought that low level, low speed manouvering would buy me enough time and might even reverse conditions. Well, I learned that the Mustang is a very nimble opponent even under those conditions. Or was it just the pilots skills? <S> to you Hangtime - my buddies warned me of you... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
About the F4U: As stated I like that plane very much in AW3, but AH is obviously different. In AW I used 1 notch of flap to improve its turn abbilities, even 2 notches under near stall conditions (if I ever was so bold let it slow down like that). But as I learned this is not a good thing to do, is it? My favourite manouver, the double loop (with 2 notches of flap on top), does not work either. Roping the dope I also find hard here. The F4U just lacks the climbing I used to have. So what is the secret? Ok, keep it fast, use its roll & instant turn ability. Hmm, any other hints?
109: I had to get used to it. I mostly flew the Franz in AW, which I used in T&B. So I found it hard settle with the fast but turn-like-a-truck version of the 109. I like its performance though, if we only get the rocket climb back... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ('ello fishu). The only thing which keeps me from flying it more is its so called "compression" beyond 350... which makes diving highly impractical, and as Verm mentioned it's unbalanced weapon load-outs. I heard different opinions on this one. One like the gondolas "which add more stability" (besides the firepower of course) other think they take too much away from the performance. Since I did not yet master the more complex vertical manouver I keep my hands off 109 for now. Any hints on hammerheads, wing overs and such? I just see them reverse on the top instantly...
Lost the thread - Kirin out
-
Kirin;
Why don't you just say you don't want 51's, 17's, F4's, and 190's (26's) to be able to take off from fuel damaged fields.
I have no clue what the ratios are, but 25% fuel for a 109, Spit, LA5 or c.205 just might be just enough to get a 190 airborne. Make one circle around the field and then land.
You might have guessed, although very creative on your part. I do not like your idea. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Mino
-
Actually Minotaur, kirin's idea about absolute fuel capacity, rather than percentages, makes a lot of sense to me.
What is the biggest whine we hear on this board? "There's too many P51's". Why do so many fly 51's? Perhaps because you can take off from a field with 50% fuel and no drop tanks, and still fly for 20 minutes at least before thinking of RTB.
I was flying 190 exclusively today until our field fuel was bombed. Suddenly I can only get 25% fuel and no DT's. So what plane did I grab? The P51 of course.
Now if we used absolute fuel capacity instead of percentages, the 50% fuel in the P51 might have equated to full fuel in a Spitfire, or 75% fuel in a 190.
-
I have no clue what the ratios are, but 25% fuel for a 109, Spit, LA5 or c.205 just might be just enough to get a 190 airborne. Make one circle around the field and then land.
Minotaur - Huh? How do you get that out of Kirin's idea?
Say the Bf109 carries 100 litres of fuel at 25%. For the P-51 100 litres might be equivalent to 15% or less of total capacity. However, the P-51 will go further on 100 litres of fuel because it's engine/airframe combination is more fuel efficient than the Bf109.
Once the field is damaged enough to limit even the short ranged planes to 25% fuel, people will take up the P-51 anyway because of its better fuel efficiency. So it probably won't even solve the issue at all, in the end.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-08-1999).]
-
Juzz;
I don't really know what I understood when I read Kirin's ideas. I thought that they were very good, creative ideas. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
IMO, in effect it becomes a way to get around the current fuel use multiplier, and give an advantage (or disadvantage) to a plane type that it should not have.
I look at it this way. Kirin's ideas just go against what I consider to be "The Grain of the Game" as far as attacking bases and damaging fuel.
Currently, bases provide an unlimited amount of fuel, but restrict plane capacity(%) to a set amount per sortie. The amount of fuel capacity per sortie depends on how much damage has occured to the fuel at the base.
Therefore; NME plane range is what you attack when you attack a bases fuel. You do not attack their ability to get airborne nor do you attack how many planes can actually get airborne.
This method seems reasonable to me because, there are no "No Fly" restrictions based on fuel. The only restriction is how far you can fly.
IMO for Kirin's idea to be effective, you must limit the total amount of fuel available at each base. As planes load up with fuel the total amount of fuel at the base drops. As fuel re-supply arrives, the total amount of fuel goes up (Supply and Demand). When a base has no fuel, you can't fly from it.
Now then; the strategy for attacking a bases fuel would be two fold. Attack the bases current supply and attack the bases re-supply capacity.
This "Supply - Use - Re-Supply" is not currently modeled. So it seems unreasonable to me to model fuel capacity for planes in gallons(liters).
One option I think would be more fair to smaller capacity fuel airplanes, would be to always give them the option to load 50% fuel. Base this not one the planes inherent range capablities, simply base it on the planes physical fuel capactiy.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino
-
One option I think would be more fair to smaller capacity fuel airplanes, would be to always give them the option to load 50% fuel. Base this not one the planes inherent range capablities, simply base it on the planes physical fuel capactiy.
That's basically very similar to Kirin's idea, by calculating fuel in an absolute volume instead of by % of total capacity, smaller tanked planes aren't hit so hard by the limitation of fuel at an airbase. I don't think he mentioned any more complex supply/use model like you think?
So instead of loading 25,50,75 or 100% fuel you would load up 50,100,150 etc... gallons. Damaging fuel at an airbase would reduce the number of gallons you can load.
Or another way of doing it would be to have the gallon details in the "background" so you still choose 25, 50, 75 or 100% fuel, so that when when fuel at a field is damaged to 25% max for a P-51, it would still be 50% for a Bf109.
-
Juzz;
cc Thanks for you reply. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So instead of loading 25,50,75 or 100% fuel you would load up 50,100,150 etc... gallons. Damaging fuel at an airbase would reduce the number of gallons you can load.
This effects range only, by equalizing the range of different plane types.
IMO, in effect it becomes a way to get around the current fuel use multiplier, and give an advantage (or disadvantage) to a plane type that it should not have.
This helps to distinguish one plane type from another, strengthes and weaknesses.
IMO for Kirin's idea to be effective, you must limit the total amount of fuel available at each base. As planes load up with fuel the total amount of fuel at the base drops. As fuel re-supply arrives, the total amount of fuel goes up (Supply and Demand). When a base has no fuel, you can't fly from it.
This effects range, quantity and specific plane type effectiveness. (Not modeled)
I could agree totally with you if bases had a "Finite" amount of fuel available and if only specific plane types could take off from designated bases. Currently, bases have an "Infinite" amount of fuel available and any plane type (infintite number as well) can take off from any base.
I succom to the idea that the AH arena is like a Chess Game (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). For Chess, each piece on the board has its definable strength and its definable weakness. If you equalize the specific strentghes and / or weaknesses of the individual Chess Pieces, you end up with a game that resembles Checkers.
I can see we are not really going to agree on this one. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Thanks for your feedback. <S>
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino
[This message has been edited by Minotaur (edited 12-11-1999).]
-
OK Ok ok... I don't think you understand
At the moment, when you attack an airfields fuel the biggest effect is to limit the plane types coming out of the field. Small tanked planes like the La-5FN, Spit 9, Bf109G-10 become too short-legged to be worth flying. So people pick the P-51D, because it's huge fuel tanks let you fly around for a decent amount of time even on 25% fuel.
If you calculated fuel by volume and not percentage, then attacking an airfields fuel would mostly affect the range of the planes coming out of the field, and not the types of planes. Planes that are more fuel efficient(P-51D) would gain some advantage, by being able to go further on the same number of gallons than a less fuel efficient plane(Bf109G-10). Therefore; NME plane range is what you attack when you attack a bases fuel. You do not attack their ability to get airborne nor do you attack how many planes can actually get airborne.
This method seems reasonable to me because, there are no "No Fly" restrictions based on fuel. The only restriction is how far you can fly.
The current system unfairly discriminates against planes with a small fuel load. The volume system wouldn't seriously affect any plane type more than another. One option I think would be more fair to smaller capacity fuel airplanes, would be to always give them the option to load 50% fuel. Base this not one the planes inherent range capablities, simply base it on the planes physical fuel capactiy.
Planes with long range will still have the historical advantage of a long endurance and being able to fly deep into enemy territory, loiter and rtb.
The fuel burn modifier is the way to descriminate long range from short range planes, not indirectly via airfield fuel damage.
-
Thinking about the idea of finite supply, I realised that it would cause some big problems of its own.
Say you have your airfields with a finite fuel/ammo/ordinance supply. Some idiot keeps taking off and getting vulched; each time he gets killed, that airfield loses the fuel/ammo/ordinance he was carrying. Pretty soon that base is bled dry by the actions of one dweeb pilot, and rendered useless. Or someone REALLY EVIL could switch sides to the enemy and constantly .fly .ef in a fully loaded B17G until all their bases were empty of fuel, .50 ammo and bombs.
Finite supply/re-supply would be fantastic in a limited-life scenario with a real goal to defeat the enemy by reducing his capacity to fight, and IF the pilots behaved realistically, but in a "Fantasy Air Combat Arena" it just wouldn't work.
[This message has been edited by juzz (edited 12-11-1999).]
-
I'd better make at least one post that is somewhat relevant to the topic, so here goes.... Fix the N1K2-J flaps so they are automatic, like on the real thing! (please?)
-
Juzz;
I agree with your thoughts on finite field resources. It does not fit the AH game model. It would probably not work well or be very complex to model for a balanced play envoirement.
I think that I do understand you. I consider your points very valid. I just don't agree with them. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
At the moment, when you attack an airfields fuel the biggest effect is to limit the plane types coming out of the field. Small tanked planes like the La-5FN, Spit 9, Bf109G-10 become too short-legged to be worth flying. So people pick the P-51D, because it's huge fuel tanks let you fly around for a decent amount of time even on 25% fuel
You state IMO to be "The very thing you are attacking when you attack a bases fuel". You are very correct and these planes are the probably the most effective at base defense or counter attacking. By attacking the range of these planes your attack has greater merit.
There must be a viable reason to attack the fuel at bases. It must be an immediate and noticable result. If not, why do it then?
I believe however; this is not the "True" thrust of your discussion, hence where my disagreement with your opinion lies. I believe there should be no strengthening the the role of one fighter at the expense of weakening the role of another.
In essence, reducing the role of the P-51, because that is something you personally disagree with. Please let me know if I am wrong in my thinking about this.
I succom to the idea that the AH arena is like a Chess Game . For Chess, each piece on the board has its definable strength and its definable weakness. If you equalize the specific strentghes and / or weaknesses of the individual Chess Pieces, you end up with a game that resembles Checkers.
This analogy carries over once again to Chess. If you don't want to use a Knight or don't believe in a "Knight Strong Game". You don't get to carry over any of the Knight's movement to a Rook's movement.
This motiff of changing strength conditionally however; works well in the game of Checkers. Checkers is a game that quickly is out grown and becomes boring.
Chess is a wonderfully simple game with unlimited complexity. Chess creaties the much beloved idea of "Multiple Stategies" and the game becomes endlessly interesting.
Interesting discussion, thanks again for the reply. I have enjoyed your posts greatly. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Mino