Author Topic: a fuel proposal (simple) (Read 1549 times)

straffo · « **Reply #45 on:** May 31, 2004, 01:17:25 PM »

Forgot : whatever I'll say or write it's your game and you make the design choices.

Batz · « **Reply #46 on:** May 31, 2004, 03:20:18 PM »

Ht simple question

Is the fuel mod staying at 2?

Pyro · « **Reply #47 on:** May 31, 2004, 03:38:48 PM »

If you're asking whether consumption will remain higher than in AH1, the answer is yes. If you're asking whether it will remain specifically at 2.0, the answer is it might, it might not. But that will be determined through observation and analysis rather than what initial kneejerk reaction people have to it.

Shane · « **Reply #48 on:** May 31, 2004, 04:11:42 PM »

but but....

think of the cartilage!!

Karnak · « **Reply #49 on:** May 31, 2004, 06:56:33 PM »

I'd like to see how it works with the FBM at 1.75 or 1.5.

Tilt · « **Reply #50 on:** May 31, 2004, 07:33:43 PM »

I note that this thread started on the subject of fuel attrition models and Pyro and HT have now had to answer re fuel burn multiplier.(basically cos the thread drifted........)

HT has touched on an analysis that % fuel attrition is fair because it affects all AC (it has consequences for all)

In fact it does not now have a consequence for all......... many ac have ranges far greater than gameplay requires and so initial % attrition stages do not affect them.

So a model where differing amounts of absolute fuel (or absolute range) attrition affect different ac differently would not be unusual.....% does that now.

Ignoring all this however we can refer back to the logic of the implementation of better fuel management systems and an FBM that forces critical fuel management in short legged ac.

So we note that fuel management and FBM is (in actuality) selective (in terms of ac types) in its gameplay application. So why should attrition not be selective? (as it is any way it seems),and why should attrition not reward those ac that are more economical with fuel?

Regardless of what we think of the FBM chosen here we see an AC's fuel consumption rate and capacity characturistic being brought into game play to add challange to those ac with limited endurance.

However the fuel attrition model does not look at fuel consumption rate and capacity it looks only at capacity as a % of each ac's maximum.

And this is what IMO seems so unreal. If your airfield was short of fuel would you really be sending gas guzzlers (which happen to have very big tanks) up (to defend it or counter attack) instead of more economical ac? and yet this is the result of the % only fuel attrition model.

ergRTC · « **Reply #51 on:** May 31, 2004, 09:22:08 PM »

yeah tilt. That is the problem. Personally, at least for the ct, I believe gallons should be the determinate. e.g. we can only give each aircraft 100 gallons, you figure out the best way to use it. Otherwise it is arbitrary and just a little odd.

IF you up with a p51 with 50 gallons of gas, well, your the fool. Maybe a hurri 1 would be better.

Ecliptik · « **Reply #52 on:** May 31, 2004, 10:31:37 PM »

Quote

Imagine the following :
A after their father death the 4 sons have to resolve the inheritance (the father had an infinite fortune)
Son 1 and 2 have each one a car with a 100 gallon.
Son 3 and 4 have each one a car with a 50 gallon.

The Will of their father is : each one of my sone should recieve 25%.

What if sons 3 and 4 have cars that are twice as fuel efficient? Then the 12.5 gallons they have is just as good as 25 gallons for 1 and 2. If you give them both 25 gallons then 3 and 4 can go twice as far.

straffo · « **Reply #53 on:** June 01, 2004, 01:31:28 AM »

True Ecliptik
I forgot to specify the car were strictly identical except for the amount of fuel.

Tilt · « **Reply #54 on:** June 01, 2004, 03:12:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ecliptik
What if sons 3 and 4 have cars that are twice as fuel efficient? Then the 12.5 gallons they have is just as good as 25 gallons for 1 and 2. If you give them both 25 gallons then 3 and 4 can go twice as far.

But is this not the actuality..............?

The resource has been equally divided...........how the beneficiaries use it is upto them........... should your fuel be cheaper at the gas pump because you own a car with a big fuel tank? should your fuel be cheaper at the gas pump because you own a car with high fuel consumption?

or should the fuel be the same price for every one?

hitech · « **Reply #55 on:** June 01, 2004, 09:43:22 AM »

Tilt that discision has nothing to do with AH. Because there are lots of other choices to be made on where to send the gas, not just a simple is it fair with the same amount of $ for gas.

Think of what would realy happen. If gas was short the kids wouldn't get any gas for the cars, so the planes could still fly. The planes with large tanks would still be filed if the mission required a long range. No mater what the short range plane still couldn't be used for that roll.

You say the long range planes are not effected. Well they are effected just not when flying a short range roll.
In fact short range planes are not effected either if you are just looking at field deffence.

HiTech

ergRTC · « **Reply #56 on:** June 01, 2004, 09:49:04 AM »

any thoughts on restricting DT to planes with 100% fuel loadout? Perhaps an arena setting for this?

Tilt · « **Reply #57 on:** June 01, 2004, 11:03:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech

In fact short range planes are not effected either if you are just looking at field deffence.

HiTech

I agree that the $ analysis is not a military model.........my responce to Ecliptik was a bit tongue in cheek the whole "tale of talents" analogy is misleading in this context.

I think short range air craft are effected.........in fact more accurately small tanked aircraft are effected..........I would point out that in the military model small tanked aircraft would not have been limited to an arbitary % of their max fuel capacity.........they would have been given the fuel to do the job .............particularly if that fuel was less than would have been required by larger tanked gas guzzlers.

I believe that a form of absolute fuel attrition would represent this more than a simple %....I need to do some maths to check for myself..............

straffo · « **Reply #58 on:** June 01, 2004, 12:12:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Tilt that discision has nothing to do with AH. Because there are lots of other choices to be made on where to send the gas, not just a simple is it fair with the same amount of $ for gas.

Think of what would realy happen. If gas was short the kids wouldn't get any gas for the cars, so the planes could still fly. The planes with large tanks would still be filed if the mission required a long range. No mater what the short range plane still couldn't be used for that roll.

You say the long range planes are not effected. Well they are effected just not when flying a short range roll.
In fact short range planes are not effected either if you are just looking at field deffence.

HiTech

You said it yourself, but if it's a pinpoint defense like an interception the best tools for this job can't be used because the long range fighter are filled in priority.

Depending of the tactical situation IRL fuel will be affected(assigned ?) to the correct tool to handle the job.
Actually a long range fighter is a better tool to defend a field because it can climb to combat altitude a short range fighter can't.

Tilt · « **Reply #59 on:** June 01, 2004, 03:03:02 PM »

OK an "Actual absolute fuel attrition model" with maths for each plane type is here.

http://www.tilt.clara.net/data/fuel.xls

If I knew the mpg for each ac at cruise I could plumb those figures in the spaces provided and show the range ramifications.

It uses existing shapes but 2 new object types

It assumes the large silo in each town can be a fuelk silo of considerable capacity and hardness.

The fuel bunkers are as they are.

A tank next to (or part of) the present re arm pad becomes a refuel tank.

What we see is that considerable attrition has to take place before any fighter is heavily effected although some are effected before others.............

A comparison with the present % figure is shown in the last column............ we can see that heavy bombers are most effected by complete attrition of a field.