Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Axis vs Allies => Topic started by: Fester' on August 15, 2001, 12:25:00 AM
-
players flying on fumes currently in the Combat arena.
fuel burn rate needs to be increased a bit
-
How would that help?
They would still fly with almost empty tanks without even try to get back to base.
-
What's the scale of that map? The problem with increasing burn rates is that it gives an artificial altitude advantage to planes which can carry more fuel .
[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
I'm taking off with a full fuel tank. but maybe it is just me. I'd expect others to do the same though, seeing as it IS supposed to be a historical arena, and how many pilots REALLY took off with less than full tanks? Especially 109 pilots- they only got to fight over England for 5 minutes anyways.
-
Always 100% + ext for me.
-
Yup, using 100% and DT my self too, unless no DT is avalible, or i take off from another field. Changing fuel burn rates would give it a more feel of MA IMO.
-
The Spit and 109 didn't have the fuel to really make it across the channel and loiter for a long time. That's RL. In-game most folks won't want that as it will be too restrictive. Fly for 20 minutes to have 5 minutes of loiter/combat so you can make it home? In a scenario sure, but not every day.
But, imo once again, there should be a decent compromise between historical reality and our virtual insanity. It would help for people to show test results other than saying there is a problem becasue some players are "flying on fumes"
What was take off fuel load? With or withouth drop tanks? How far did the fly? How high did they grab to first? Was it on 100% throttle the whole way? How much dogfighting did they do? etc ect
Westy
-
Funk,
Wouldn't it be possible to calculate a fuel burn rate that would allow an airplane to perform historically _without_ an artifical advantage?
It should be possible to calculate a burn that would allow (for example) a -109 to takeoff at a historically correct field, climb and fly to say London, remain over London for a historically correct loiter and then RTB in a relatively low fuel state which was also historically correct.
Should be able to do that for about all the planes, I'd think. At least get close.
To enhance the value of a successful RTB... if you don't land at a field or at least ditch in friendly territory.... "No Perk Points for you!"
I don't see where this would provide an "artificial" advantage. Having more fuel was sometimes a real advantage and sometimes a disadvantage. I think this is what you'd get.
Just my .02.
-
Fuel burn rate is fine right where it is.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-:
Fuel burn rate is fine right where it is.
I concur. Maybe if you put a lower limit to what is available in the CT will work better. For instance, lower limit is 50%. If the fuel is so hit that it gets down to 25%, the field gets closed for a while.
What about this idea? :)
To enhance the value of a successful RTB... if you don't land at a field or at least ditch in friendly territory.... "No Perk Points for you!"
NICE idea Toad!!! I agree 100% with it!.
[ 08-15-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Fuel burn seems about right to me.
Heck, I seem to run out of ammo before fuel anyway. Plus, if people are flying on fumes, I think Fester means decrease the fuel burn rate so that it doesn't go so fast but I think it's perfect right where it's at. I either get shot down or I run out of ammo and have to run and the enemy has to really think about his fuel useage before chasing me.
-Puke
332nd Flying Mongrels
-
Does anyone have any information that might indicate what conditions would necessetate loading less than 100% fuel in WW2?
Maybe the option to take less should be disabled? If that's the case, then its time to assess fuel consumption for strat. Each fuel tank supplies x number of sorties. They must be re-supplied to send up more aircraft. In come the trains with more fuel. With all your fuel tanks in tact, the base doesn't need to be filled that often. With less tanks, the frequency is upped. That's where the trains and trucks come into play.
AKDejaVu
-
what he wants is more loiter time over England so he can club seals and increase his perk points. At current setting his A5 can stay long as he would like and land his kills.
-
Weell as it is now, a 109 can load 50% fuel and fly to london and back...
When the longer range aircraft appear, they will never need more than 50% fuel
SKurj
-
S!
Historically, the 109E`s could fly to London, stay 20 minutes and then have to bail.
Of course, that includes the time they spent assembling, plus the fact they weaved over the bombers en route to London.
190`s with drop tanks and bombs could hit targets in southern England and then return to France. There approach was made at approx. 5,000ft.
-
Once again it's coming down to "historical accuracy" vs "gameplay concession."
By now most of you realize I'll probably end up playing either way, without handwringing.
It would be nice to see a little consistency in the arguments, however.
One can't be "for" historical accuracy when it is a benefit and then cheer for gameplay concessions when historical accuracy would be detremental.
Can one? ;)
-
Toad, what is me I'd love to see a 1/1 scaled map of the zone of the Channel map :) That way there should be no arguments about fuel multiplier :D
Of course then we would have the same problem as with the Norway map...so you are right that we will have to make some concession, one way or another ;)
-
There is nothing realistic about SpitV pilots taking 25% fuel on their "missions".
I think the following should be in effect:
Minimum of 75% gas load with no DT.
Minimum of 100% gas load if DT is selected.
No perk points if no RTB/succesful landing on FRIENDLY FIELD.
LAST POINT, JUST MAYBE, PROLLY TOO HARSH?
No kills awarded/reported/recorded to your kill chart at all if you die or are captured.
Comments?
-
The ETO terrain is close to a 1-1 scale.
-
Thought the channel was 70miles across at the narrowest point. Looks to be about 35 on our map.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ:
There is nothing realistic about SpitV pilots taking 25% fuel on their "missions".
I think the following should be in effect:
Minimum of 75% gas load with no DT.
Minimum of 100% gas load if DT is selected.
No perk points if no RTB/succesful landing on FRIENDLY FIELD.
LAST POINT, JUST MAYBE, PROLLY TOO HARSH?
No kills awarded/reported/recorded to your kill chart at all if you die or are captured.
Comments?
mercy on me, for that matter a 109 pilot too should take 100%
You can ask my squadies, I take 100%..even in a heavy Jug. Every sortie. But thats just a personal thing with me.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Thought the channel was 70miles across at the narrowest point. Looks to be about 35 on our map.
AKDejaVu
Na it's like 34-35 miles or somethin. Don't you remember the scene in "Battle of Britain" when Goering is looking in the binoculars from France at the white cliffs of Dover?? :)
-
wrong
fuel burns off to slowly for the size of the map.
planes should need to bring more fuel if they want to stay longer.
currently you can fly for a long time on very small amount of fuel.
-
What's the actual range of a Spit V (real life)? I flew maybe 200 miles (total guess) and had about 50% fuel left when I landed.
-
I dunno, but I thought the channel was around 21 miles across at its narrowest...
SKurj
-
Isn't the map scaled down?
-SW
-
Fuel burn mult should be whatever it was in the last TOD frame. Assasins took 109s 100%+dt from a7. That let us climb to alt, cruise to a43, a few minutes of combat/loiter, cruise back to a7 and land on fumes.
-
Range on Spit V around 450-500 miles.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan:
Range on Spit V around 450-500 miles.
Then 50% left after 200 miles or so sounds right to me. However, since we find fights a lot sooner and more often than the real WWII fighters did, increasing the modifier makes sense from that perspective. Also, both sides probably didn't use airfields that were right on the coast of the narrowest point of the Channel (though they might have...)
Jihad worked on the map and he said it's basically 1/1 scale, SWulfe.
-
yup, fuel should burn a bit quicker - now it lasts forever with full power. Maybe people would even throttle back a bit if faster burn rate.
-
keep it realistic, please. If map is 1/1 then fuel multiplier must be 1
What I think is that we should NOT allow the use of DT in the CT without putting some limits to it.
First, because one can load 25% fuel and DT and go a long way with a too much light plane. Historically if you loaded a DT was because you had 100% internal.
So delete the DTs or at least force a 100% internal load if you get a DT.
[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
Yup, what Regurge said (if you're trying to make it more accurate).
Fuel for the TOD is set to 1.5. Our escort 109s flew with our JU88s over England, and stuck around just a bit longer than they should have (maybe 10 minutes or so). They ended up as gliders approx half-way over the channel on their trip back home.
-
Originally posted by Nash:
Yup, what Regurge said (if you're trying to make it more accurate).
Fuel for the TOD is set to 1.5. Our escort 109s flew with our JU88s over England, and stuck around just a bit longer than they should have (maybe 10 minutes or so). They ended up as gliders approx half-way over the channel on their trip back home.
Guys dont make the mistake of confusing the 109F4 with the 109E4. The 109E7 had an bigger range than the 109F4 because of the DT, and the 109F4 had even longer range than the 109E7 due its better aerodynamics and cruise speed.
A 109F4 with DT could have escorted day bombings well into England. The "20 minutes over London" Thing applied only to the 109E4s.
It is accurate as it is now.
[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: R4M ]
-
The map covers 512x512 miles of northwestern europe, which is the maximum map size in AH. So no, it's not scaled down, it's a 1/1 map.
And I'm pretty sure about that, I created it :)
Redwing
CM Terrain Team
-
Don't fly around at full power all the time. Range can be increased (by about 25%) by climbing at a faster speed (around 200 mph for fighters), with little loss in climb rate. Once at altitude, throttle *way* back to cruise between 150-200 mph.
-
my 2 cents.
Raise the fuel multiplier.
Since we use bases closer to the coast than RL and we tend to get into battles much quicker than in RL.
It would make fuel management a necessity instead of an afterthought.
That being said, no matter what the setting, it's the same for everyone so it's 'fair' in that regard. I'd just prefer to making fuel management more important.
[ 08-22-2001: Message edited by: Wlfgng ]