Fuel depots

[shotgunneeley]

Currently, fuel probably has the least affect on game play in the MA. Destroying all storage tanks at a field to reduce max fuel load to 75% might mean something to a short-legged fighter, but that has no ill result for bombers. Seems kind of weird that a damaged field would have an equal fuel ration for both small-tanked fighters and large-tanked bombers. It would take way more precious gallons to fill a bomber to 75% capacity as it would for a small fighter. Let's put this in perspective - a fully laden Bf-109F holds 185 gallons of fuel; a B-29 carries 6,650 gallons (almost 36 times more!)

I propose limiting the fuel load by class and not a just a blanket limitation as we currently have it. When all fuel tanks are destroyed at a field, set the maximum fuel load out to 25% for heavy bombers, 50% for medium bombers, and 75% for fighters/light attack aircraft. Could alternatively set the limitation by fuel tank size relative to other planes in the game: large - 25%, medium - 50%, small - 75%. I say that because the La-7 and P-47N would be under the same fighter class, but they carry 123 gallons and 550 gallons, respectively. Perhaps a change like this would enhance the fuel dynamic of the game without it crippling play.

 

[Ack-Ack]

You used to be able to pork fuel and bring it down to 25% but was changed due to game play reasons. 

[shotgunneeley]

You used to be able to pork fuel and bring it down to 25% but was changed due to game play reasons.

Yes I know, but I'm not asking for an overall restriction back down to 25% for all planes. Basically, the only change would be for heavy and medium bombers. Now, most of your typical bomber groups won't be lifting off from a front-line base susceptible to porking anyway. This could be used strategically to restrict the range of bombers, much like disabling ords at a rear field with a 5k alt advantage.

[Beefcake]

To be honest this wouldn't change anything, 25% fuel for a B17 or Lanc is more than enough for a short hop mission, and most people with common sense wouldn't be taking off from a front line field to do a long haul mission. It might affect some medium bombers like the Tu-2 as I like running it with 100% so I can burn the WEP all the time and boost that baby up to 330mph, but I don't see a huge change, not enough for HTC to waste the time coding it IMHO.

[guncrasher]

if you really want to limit the bombers range.  then kill the ords.

your wish has been granted.



semp

[bustr]

Is it about wanting to see tangible real time restrictions against something in the short period of time you have to personally make any impact on the front you are operating at? Or restricting without completely denying the use of bombers in a simple manner to protect the few fights you can find these days?

Pigs take out ords for two to four bases around when we don't want repeat visits by bombers. I can see this being unfeasible if you are only a single player wishing the fun police would find something else to single finger salute down the crapper for the evening.

We have reached the point where too many players are looking to leverage too few fights to the max with their highly honed abilities. The bomber guys are pretty much the main arbiters of everyone else's fun these days knowing they are screwing a fight out of existence with a single finger. No one in this game pays $14.95 to orbit 20k over furballs at fields just to protect the furball for everyone else. They are paying $14.95 to be in the furball.

Just like furballing, the only thing worth achieving is the satisfaction of sending the other guy to the tower. Bombing something that doesn't have an immediate effect on other players is not worth bombing.

[Beefcake]

Just like furballing, the only thing worth achieving is the satisfaction of sending the other guy to the tower. Bombing something that doesn't have an immediate effect on other players is not worth bombing.

Which is funny because I tend to go out of my way not to bomb things that's going to ruin a fight. I'm an odd fart. I'll usually bomb some fuel, barracks, town, maybe 1 hanger if others are up, but I rarely take them all down anymore since it's so hard to get a fight. I can't shoot people down with my tailguns if no one can up.

[icepac]

Just make the fuel farms harder and make the percentage higher.

[bustr]

Which is funny because I tend to go out of my way not to bomb things that's going to ruin a fight. I'm an odd fart. I'll usually bomb some fuel, barracks, town, maybe 1 hanger if others are up, but I rarely take them all down anymore since it's so hard to get a fight. I can't shoot people down with my tailguns if no one can up.

Epidemics so far with the human race have not been 100% fatal. No matter how horrible, there has always been a statistical anomaly of individuals who survive without intervention. To the majority who may be the next on the reapers list to suffer, the escaping the epidemic of the moment is not something they want to well wish the statistical anomalies over. They want a solution for the majority even if it's as silly as a sudden world wide epidemic of adult diaper rash.

Everyone, lets give a big round of applause for Beefcake's very long arms. 

[Tilt]

Its moot now. But when fuel porking was much more intrusive my view was that fuel should be rationed in litres per engine.

% rationing is just so wrong IMO.