Fuel depletion

[PrivateConrad]

Any sort of holdup of fuel during WWII could be devastating, but in Aces High fuel tanks and refineries are pretty worthless targets. I think that the fuel supply of bases should be able to run out. Every time someone ups, the amount of fuel for the whole base should go down a little bit depending on how much is in that particular plane (including drones). This should be resupplied over time by convoys. Damage to the refinery should limit the amount of fuel delivered by the convoys.

Destruction of all the fuel tanks on a field (I believe there are 4 or 5 in most cases) I would think would bring the fuel down to 25% since at full capacity bases have 125% fuel. This 25% is present in the hangars and can only be depleted by people using it, not destroyed by enemies, unless the entire hanger goes down. If you land a sortie with fuel left over, it should be returned to the tanks. Not sure about the actual amount of fuel that these bases can hold in gallons or the amount convoys deliver, but I think it should be relatively hard to deplete it while at the same time being unable to support daylong furballs, as much as I enjoy furballs.
Anyway, thoughts?

[Zoney]

How will this improve gameplay?

[glzsqd]

-1, way to complicated. Knocking out a bases Fuel is a worth while target. No more yak3s and la7s and Spit16s

[SmokinLoon]

As it is, there is no strategy in the fuel aspect, or rather there is very little.  Fuel is an afterthought in most cases, and in many cases not thought of at all.

Reducing fuel to 50% max with X number of fuel tanks destroyed will make people think twice about taking up an La7 or other such easy mode plane.  The Spitfires, in general, will be just fine.

The only few fighters that would truly be retarded would be the La5/7, I-16, Yak-3, and maybe a few others. The only bomber really affected would be the Boston III's.  But then again, we're talking about a few runs with field supplies in an M3 or C47 and *puuf* up goes the fuel tanks.  It would impact the game far less than ordnance bunkers and barracks, because EVERYTHING is still available just not for the length of flight normally taken.  Besides, just how many of the gamers take an La7 with 100% anyways?

Fuel tanks and barracks both could use a tweak.  Ordnance bunkers too for that matter.  Having a tiered system would do more for game play, imo. I think the "all or none" approach to the HQ, ordnance bunkers, and barracks is more restrictive on game play vs having a tiered system. 

[The Fugitive]

In the "old days" you could pork fuel to 25% plus we had the 2 to 1 fuel burn rate to I think. So while it hurt to have fuel down to 25% it wasn't horrible. With that being said, it was far too easy for a few guys to pork the fuel at a number of bases so that defenders couldn't up with enough fuel to get to the base under attack and so the bases were easy to take.

It was too easy for a few people to take away MANY peoples ability to play the game and have fun. I don't see it being switched back any time soon.

[SmokinLoon]

In the "old days" you could pork fuel to 25% plus we had the 2 to 1 fuel burn rate to I think. So while it hurt to have fuel down to 25% it wasn't horrible. With that being said, it was far too easy for a few guys to pork the fuel at a number of bases so that defenders couldn't up with enough fuel to get to the base under attack and so the bases were easy to take.

It was too easy for a few people to take away MANY peoples ability to play the game and have fun. I don't see it being switched back any time soon.

Again... there are at minimum 4 fuel tanks to an airfield. Fewer people than you think can take out all 4 fuel tanks all by their lonesome. Even if TWO diaper wearers come on over in their P51's loaded with ords  and take out all 4-6 fuel tanks keep in mind that each and every aircraft is STILL available. If a single fighter with any sort of talent what-so-ever can take out two ord bunkers and prevent an entire class of aircraft from taking off (bombers), then why not at least give fuel tanks a strategic value and give them some sort of worth. Remember... even at 50% fuel each and every aircraft can still up. If ords are down then you bomber for j00! Having no ords has ramifications to every plane with the ability to carry bombs. Having restricted fuel only retards a few fighters and a single bomber (ultimately), yet it certainly adds another strategic element to the game. 

[Volron]

I could understand 50%, but for game play, 25% isn't very solid.

The one thing I'd like to see different is you can't take drop tanks unless you already have 100% fuel on board.

[Karnak]

I remember the days of whole fronts limited to 25% fuel.  Couldn't even use the Mossie effectively, let alone anything with a sub 1200 mile on internal range.  It was very bad.  Basically log on, see we were out numbered and thus had no fuel anywhere near any combat, log off.

[PrivateConrad]

You guys seem to think I mean that the maximum fuel people can carry is 25%. I'm not saying that, I'm saying at some point the fuel supply should run out. The point of this fuel depletion idea is to at some point kill furballs, they're fun but they don't move the lines forwards at all. If one side runs out of fuel, then the other side might actually have a chance to break through and do something. What I mean is that since it would be a bit easy to get all the fuel tanks at a base, and some fuel was stored in trucks at the hangars, enemy action should only be able to reduce the amount of fuel at that base to 25% maximum capacity, if you wanted to you could still run a full tank but depending on the size of the tank this could very quickly run the entire base out of fuel.

[The Fugitive]

Again... there are at minimum 4 fuel tanks to an airfield. Fewer people than you think can take out all 4 fuel tanks all by their lonesome. Even if TWO diaper wearers come on over in their P51's loaded with ords  and take out all 4-6 fuel tanks keep in mind that each and every aircraft is STILL available. If a single fighter with any sort of talent what-so-ever can take out two ord bunkers and prevent an entire class of aircraft from taking off (bombers), then why not at least give fuel tanks a strategic value and give them some sort of worth. Remember... even at 50% fuel each and every aircraft can still up. If ords are down then you bomber for j00! Having no ords has ramifications to every plane with the ability to carry bombs. Having restricted fuel only retards a few fighters and a single bomber (ultimately), yet it certainly adds another strategic element to the game. 

A NIK with bombs could knock a field down to 25% fuel. I'm not going to aurgue about it, I'm just telling you how it was and why it was changed.

You guys seem to think I mean that the maximum fuel people can carry is 25%. I'm not saying that, I'm saying at some point the fuel supply should run out. The point of this fuel depletion idea is to at some point kill furballs, they're fun but they don't move the lines forwards at all. If one side runs out of fuel, then the other side might actually have a chance to break through and do something. What I mean is that since it would be a bit easy to get all the fuel tanks at a base, and some fuel was stored in trucks at the hangars, enemy action should only be able to reduce the amount of fuel at that base to 25% maximum capacity, if you wanted to you could still run a full tank but depending on the size of the tank this could very quickly run the entire base out of fuel.

Many people pay their $15 to do nothing BUT furball and your here asking HTC to have an easy way to remove them? WHat do you think willl happen to subscriptions if people CANT do what they pay to do?

[SmokinLoon]

A NIK with bombs could knock a field down to 25% fuel. I'm not going to aurgue about it, I'm just telling you how it was and why it was changed.

Many people pay their $15 to do nothing BUT furball and your here asking HTC to have an easy way to remove them? WHat do you think willl happen to subscriptions if people CANT do what they pay to do?

I think you're forgetting something-

HTC allows ordnance to be completely disabled.  They allow troops to be completely disabled.  That means none, no, nada, zip, zero. Even if fuel tanks were all destroyed on a field the gamers would STILL be able to up any plane they wanted for defensive purposes. Though, they'd have to choose a difference base to up their long range fighter escort from since the max fuel would be 50% and no DT under the proposal.  The 50% max would simply make guys who rely on the short legged La7 to think about another plane.  *gasp*  We have to do that when ords are down.  We have to do that when barracks are down to the next step because when ords and barracks are down they are are 100% down, no partial.

All these arguments of "poor gamers/furballers and their $15" is a bit hypocritic, no? Why is there no movement to allow some ords all the time (100 lb bombs)? Why not let the jeep deliver troops all the time, it now take four people to deliver enough troops to capture a field.  Etc, etc.  Reducing the fuel down to 50% would simple add another strategic element to the game. Like I said in another post, it isnt like the fields with destroyed fuel tanks cant be re-supplied.

[The Fugitive]

Im just telling you what happened before.

Many people will log on, see whole fronts porked of fuel and as they DON'T like flying goons or driving GVs they just log off. Now picture a player doing this a number of times. How long before they just stop sending in the $15? Sounds like an awesome business model to me.

[thndregg]

Just what I want to find when I log in... not. 

[CASHEW]

+ 1

[Chilli]

The majority of the WW2 gaming appeal, is the ability to take command of WW2 war machines and look good while in control.   

The majority of the Aces High gaming appeal, is the ability to find multiple online player controlled war machines to battle against, and hopefully return to base with bragging rights (text buffer).

The strategic portion of Aces High gaming, should be centered around creating action, and or choke points for action. 

I like the premise of the OP, however, unless it is limited to the 15 minute down times that always apply to hangars, then the possibility of extended downtimes that currently exist in other areas, will not add to the Aces High experience.