Frame 01 observation

[Nefarious]

I should have added that I agree with the fuel burn rate comments and discussion, perhaps Bino will consider editing it for frames 2 and 3.

[captain1ma]

I agree with the fuel burn should be adjusted some.  The Yak7 which should be a major player in this setup is severly handicapped.  Possibly a 1.25 for next frame, should put them closer to being able to defend a base till T+60 even if they have to loiter at low fuel burn for quite a bit to be effective. This should help the balance as well.

 
BigRat

shouldn't that be lower? like 0.75? i always thought the higher the number, the more fuel burned?

[VonMessa]

What if you ran the same frame next week, with the pilots switching sides/rides?

Just to see what the outcome would be..

[Stampf]

What if you ran the same frame next week, with the pilots switching sides/rides?

Just to see what the outcome would be..

Would be the same...turnout dependant.

Not enough fuel for second strike/rearm - action.

[BowHTR]

shouldn't that be lower? like 0.75? i always thought the higher the number, the more fuel burned?

That would be correct. The lower the number, the less fuel burned.

A 1.25 burn rate would be lower that what it is currently at, which is 1.5. The MA has a 2.0 burn rate.

[captain1ma]

i always thought burn rate was at 1.0?

[ImADot]

i always thought burn rate was at 1.0?

It's at whatever the designer of the event decides. Sometimes it's good to have to manage your fuel and not run MA-style full throttle 100% of the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't work so well.

[captain1ma]

i stand corrected, ill have to pay more attention to that. thanks!

[Viper61]

A solid impute from Dantoo on the fuel burn setting at 1.5.  I'm beginning to plan the ALLIED Frame 3 orders and the fuel burn setting really has a weakening effect on the ALLIED side especially defending the bases.  By the current set up I'm required to man the YAK7B a min of 20 and I-16 with a min of 10.  And to be clear because of the set up the YAK7B is the "filler" AC meaning that it has no Max number so there could be 40-50 pilots in the YAK's or I-16's.  But at least a min 30 pilots get effected (2-3 squads) by the following limitation:

     YAK7B 100% fuel = 39 min - FYI The YAK is one of 3 ALLIED fast enough to catch a AXIS bomber.
     I-16 100% fuel plus DT's = 34 min

         NOTE the setup also only provides 3 ALLIED AC types that are fast enough to keep up with the ALLIED bombers - P-39 / P-40 and YAK - A good AXIS planner can do his homework and see the critical short coming the ALLIED planner has.  And then take advantage of that.

So a smart AXIS CIC plans to hit my targets this way.  And I'm not giving away state secrets here either any AXIS planner can see this as its clearly in the setup:

    Hit the Target at H+40 to 50.  Send in a High Altitude Fighter Sweep starting at H+30 to do nothing more than disrupt refueling at the target base or the nearest base where refueling can happen.  All this Fighter Sweep needs to do is "disrupt" the refueling.  Cause the squad to take more time by only sending down a portion of their force at a time.  The AXIS squad doesn't even have to dive on the rearm pad.  They can now see the squad, size, type of AC.  Wait for them to lift off and then start B and Z profile to hold the squad or slow its return to the real fighting area.  A squad with 4 - 6 X 109's with their DT's and 56min of flight time can do this and tie up a much larger ALLIED squad low and slow after lift off.

   So let me counter the arguments now:

      Have the guys lift late H+05 to 10 - Can be done but why?  Its a dam game why would we intentionally have to have a guy sit on a runway and wait because we didn't give him enough fuel to fly with?  On the tactical side of this and because this is a Eastern Front set up and the front line bases are close waiting 5 to 10 min's is 1 to 2 grid squares (25 to 50 miles).  The AXIS could potentially have a "rush" set up in which a AXIS squad lifts at H+0 and rush low level to the base before the ALLIED AC leave the ground forcing a early fight.  The ALLIED AC full of fuel and the AXIS fighters with 50%.  The AXIS Engage, disrupt, damage or destroy AC, RTB and lift again on a primary mission of defense or escort.  The old "Double Duty" mission profile.

     Stagger the refueling - Can do this and no matter how you plan that a portion of the defensive CAP is on the ground, descending or climbing when the attack happens.  An AXIS advantage.

     Or perhaps better yet - I as the CIC can call on ALL of my defenders to RTB for fuel on my command and leave all of the bases undefended to make a point on this.

I know why the CM Planners use the fuel burn.  I disagree with using a fuel burn adjuster at all.  The FSO should be set to 1.0.  The other rules and special rules force the fight by H+60 anyway.  All the increased fuel burn rating does is hamper one side or the other and there's no need to.  Its not fair to the game play.  And to be clear I'm not a historical cartoon reenactor out to exactly fly what happened 70 odd years ago.  Its my Friday night fun and it needs to be fun for me and as even and fair as the planners can make given the plane sets and terrain and host of other issues.

Now there's also the FSO rule that all targets requiring defense are required to defend the target space until H+60?  Cant be done with a I-16 or a YAK without refueling.  Is leaving a base undefended or so weakly defended it not fun for the attacker or defender fine?

Being required to refuel any AC prior to H+60 should be removed from the game play by adjusting the fuel burn rate unless both sides have the same issue.

Change the Fuel Burn rate to 1.0 and leave it alone.

Thanks to all that posted ideas and comments on this issue.  Its long over due to be resolved.   

[Drano]

Viper I clearly remember your first scenario playing out in a frame with this setup not long ago. The 412th had La5's and the plan was--had to be in fact- that we'd boogie on the deck to the field we were to defend so we could maybe refuel and be on station in time for an attack. We split some guys off to climb a bit and cap the field at reduced throttle. Lo and behold the LW came in while we were half up and half down with a low attack and followed that up with a high attack about 10 minutes later. We had no chance at making a credible defense mostly due to having to manage an impossible fuel situation. You have set variables of time and distance. You can vary the fuel. Vary the fuel.

I don't know if the right number for fuel burn is 1.0 either. I get the spirit of the thing. Somebody should have done their homwork to find the proper setting. If 1.25 works--go with that. If it's 1.1, so be it. Like I said before--no need to be ham handed with the settings. But it needs to be right. As far as I know the Japanese were the only ones that knowingly sent pilots on one way missions.