we need to discuss fuel modifier

[ergRTC]

Hey guys, we need to get this out in the open and decided on.  As I see it, 1.5 is way to low.  I say we spend this time in limbo here without maps playing with the modifier.

I suggest:

1.  Always match it to hysterical/historical limits when possible.  Not actual time aloft, but time over enemy territory and so on.  So in the BOB, make sure the 109s cruising at normal power will have 10  minutes fight time (near mil or close) over england before they have to return at max cruise speed.  Supposedly if the modeling is correct, as long as we have the plane that is most fuel limited historically accurate, then the others should all fall in line.

2.  If this does not work...  I think we should try 1.8 or 1.75 something in there.  Currently planes are full throttle most of the time.  On 50% fuel my p51b has 40 minutes of flight time, full throttle.  I would be more comfortable with 15 minutes full throttle at 50% fuel.  

3.  In ahistorical maps there will probably have to be concessions to the luftwhiners, I would hope we can keep those to a minimum, and never ever go beyond known historical limits.


lets here it.  Staff, what are your current plans?

[B17Skull12]

1. not possible w/th current fuel burn.
2. You would be limiting the LW planes to defence i think.
3. "2 weeks"

[Easyscor]

IMO limiting fuel will normally impact the LW more then the Allies.

If your aim is to discourage people from flying LW in the CT, that would be the way to do it but I'm inclined to see a need to encourage more people to fly LW and balance the numbers.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Easyscor
IMO limiting fuel will normally impact the LW more then the Allies.

If your aim is to discourage people from flying LW in the CT, that would be the way to do it but I'm inclined to see a need to encourage more people to fly LW and balance the numbers.

On the other hand, fuel limiter like this also ought to discourage the overwhelming use of Spitfires when they are available.  Seems like a worthwhile idea to try it.  Historically, Luftwaffe was on the defensive most of the war, and one of the main advantages of planes like the 51 was range.

I think it's worth a try.  My guess is that in some setups it will detract from play - Battle of Britain being a good example, with short-range planes on both sides and not a lot of close bases.  For most setups, though, it achieve the plane-use-balancing that occurred in real life.  

If it doesn't work, how hard is it to change?

- oldman

[ergRTC]

Exactly oldman.  I am well aware that the fuel modifier will hurt the 109s alot, but it did historically too.  If 109s had free reign over england, bob woulda been a little different.  Spit 1 is also a gas hog.   Perhaps this will make the 110 a more important plane as well.


Please remember that the 109 carries very very little gas, that is why it cant go far.   The p51 handles like a dream when there is only 100 gallons on board.  It also has a short range with 100 gallons.  you get the idea.

I just want to see if we can try some of these historical BOB setups with actual flight times over target now.

and of course, if it doesnt work let shift it.  Currently the fuel model has no impact whatsoever in the CT, all it is good for is knowing when to head home and how slow you can go to get there.

[Grits]

I dont know what the number should be set at, but just as a generel rule, planes with short range like the 109, Hurricane and Spit should HAVE to take 100% fuel as a minimum. Planes with longer range abilities like the P-51, P-38, P-47, and 190 should still have to take more than 50%.

Most of the time, you dont need more than 50% even in short legged planes like the Hurrican and 109, which is fine for the MA where historical accuracy is not even strived for. The CT should make you calculate those things relative to your plane of choice since it was a huge factor in RL.

[B17Skull12]

easycor nailed it.

[ergRTC]

I wish.  I would also like to see restriction of drop tanks to planes with 100% fuel.  

This would be a great arena setting.

[ergRTC]

As to easycor's comment, I would like unlimited ammo in my hurricane 2.  The historical amount of ammo is limiting my fun, and more people would fly it if it had 400 rounds per gun.

[Soulyss]

While I'm totally opposed to giving it a try.  My concern in an open arena especially one where often times the #'s are relatively low.  Low loiter times means more time spent in transit than acutally fighting which means bored players.  

The problem we run into in the CT is how much of a concession to gameplay we are willing to make in the face of historical accuracy.  In this case it's a trade I would be disinclined to make.  

Now that doesn't nessesarily preclude a night where I'm planning on being in the CT for a few hours, changing the fuel burn seeing how things go and then changing it back when I leave.  But leaving a high fuel burn in an unsupervised enviorment that thrives on air battles and the ability to find a fight limiting time in air doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[Grits]

I fly the 109 most of the time I'm axis (which is 75% of the time) and I never load more than 50% (but I am usually planning for a one way trip so take that into account). Why not set it so a short ranged plane like a 109 or a Hurricane gets the same range with 100% as it gets now with 50%? That way short legged planes are still viable (especially if they have a DT option) but they will be forced to take 100% minimum as a penalty for that short range, and planes that historicly had a fuel range advantage will now be able to see that advantage.

Seems like a good compromise to me.

[ergRTC]

Soulyss, that is a very dissappointing post.  The whole reason for the fuel modifier is for realism.  If you are cruising across the channel for  a fight in england, you currently floor the damn thing and just keep going.  This is entirely unrealistic.  109s conserved fuel on the crossing so they could spend more time in the air.

I read a post by a russian pilot once where a person asked him about how on earth he could fight the 109s with his whimpy p-36 or hurri, considering they were nearly 100 mph faster.  He said he never noticed the speed difference, since people did not fly around at 350 mph.

we need to make flying at realistic throttle settings a part of the game.  For example, the hurricanes cruise speed is abominable.   A 109s cruise speed is over 50 mph faster.  These kinds of advantages are currently lost due to the little impact of fuel management.

Iets just try keeping it as real as we can in the CT, and this is part of that.  

otherwise, maybe we should get rid of blackouts too.

[mora]

Originally posted by ergRTC
Soulyss, that is a very dissappointing post.  The whole reason for the fuel modifier is for realism.  If you are cruising across the channel for  a fight in england, you currently floor the damn thing and just keep going.  This is entirely unrealistic.  109s conserved fuel on the crossing so they could spend more time in the air.

Do you call it realism when you have a map with a scale from 1:2 to 1:5. There is absolutely no realism in crossing the channel in 5 minutes. Maybe the geographically challenged don't mind.

[ergRTC]

That is why the fuel modifier is not 1:1.  

Please dont knee jerk this away, you may be suprised, but there is a reason why the MA is running at 2.00.

[storch]

Realism eh, ok I'll bite then.  make it so I can extend my flaps and not have them retract automatically on any AC.  Have formations for buffs disabled. Give the allied forces only allied GVs and the axis forces only axis GVs.  make all ack manable and no AI ack.  allow landings  anywhere in green territory to be considered a safe landing or at least anywhere on the base.  Shall I continue?  realism huh.  Psssst It's a game.  read your sig line for crissake.