need fuel burn multiplier turned up a notch

[Toad]

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?  

[R4M]

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  

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  

[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?

[jihad]

The ETO terrain is close to a 1-1 scale.

[AKDejaVu]

Thought the channel was 70miles across at the narrowest point.  Looks to be about 35 on our map.

AKDejaVu

[-ammo-]

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.

[Sancho]

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??  

[Fester']

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.

[Nifty]

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.

[SKurj]

I dunno, but I thought the channel was around 21 miles across at its narrowest...

SKurj

[AKSWulfe]

Isn't the map scaled down?
-SW

[Regurge]

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.

[Nashwan]

Range on Spit V around 450-500 miles.

[Nifty]

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.

[janjan]

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.