Fuel limit x fuel consumption

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by RedBull, Mar 15, 2005.

  1. RedBull

    RedBull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2001
    Messages:
    552
    Location:
    Czech Republic
    Its a long time when has been introducen 100% fuel limit till 5kills streak. I know the arguments for this feature - but cant say it improves gameplay on FH. IMO on the contrary it has more contraproductive effect.

    My point of view if following:

    100% fuel limit = no sense for strategic fuel strike missions
    100% fuel limit = in many plane types means possibility of flying around whole map

    The argument of issue with "25% fuel" pilots who goes only for furballing when 100% limit is off - could be simply eliminated with higher fuel consumption. It means lower fueldiv parameter set in arena. Current fueldiv is set to 0.8 - its too high. When it would be set to cca 0.3 - 0.5 - it would prevent "one way ticket" pilots.

    With 100% fuel limit off - this settings would be useful for defenders, who could take only low fuel load. Attackers would have to plan more precisely their missions in relation to fuel consumption. Attacking missions to enemy territory with less than 25% fuel would be dangerous, or with almost impossible rtb.

    Strategic bombing of fuel on front-line fields would prevent sudden strikes from close enemy airfields. Game would go to be more tactical, would reqire more team coop and strategic planing.

    So my propose is:

    100% fuel limit - off
    Increase fuel consumption (decrease fueldiv param - from 0.8 to 0.3-0.5 - in relation to the used map)
     
  2. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Hmmm... and how about the pilots who make no sorties shorter than 1 hour? I know plenty of pilots who don't like to furbal that would be seriously handicapped by your rules. When fueldiv was set to 0.6 (or what was it?) many pilots were incapable of even returning to base. And I'm not talking about the trigger happy impatient furballers here. I think your solution would tie the hands of the wrong people.

    It's already dangerous to attack an enemy field if you only have 25%. Then again, you don't really need all that much fuel if you're succesful in your attack. As far as I know the problem was that field defenders had plenty of ways of tackling an airstrike while tactical players have less and less of an advantage in the arena.

    This would be nice, but it would handicap numerous of other players that really don't need to be handicapped. There's another way to limit sudden strikes, limit the ammount of planes available for spawn at a certain field a) by time and b) by ammount. That would for example you could take off with 4 planes in 1 minute, while somebody would have to wait 10 minutes to spawn in a plane at that field. Just out of the top of my head, not even suggesting this, just to illustrate there are better ways to improve tactical/strategical influences on the game.

    BTW, I agree they should turn off the 100% fuel "limitation".

    <Z>
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2005
  3. strafe

    strafe Guest

  4. spuint

    spuint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    4,736
    i dont mind 100% fuel limit to be revoked but.. higher fuel consumption?

    redbull, some planes are almost unable to fight with lower fueldiv;
    did u ever make 15min sortie in p47 with one climb to 5km and find out u have no fuel for a fight?
    well i did, and to be honest i didnt like it

    lower fueldiv encourage ppl to fly low, furball and avoid any tactical missions behind enemy lines or cover buff raids
    it makes gameplay more simplified and shoot-out like

    low fueldiv gives bonus to planes that dont need alt for effective fight (all type of natural dogfighters) and gives no credit for pure efighters except those with extreme fuel load (p51 for example)

    i say NO! for lower fueldiv
    let us choose if we want furball or mb sth more!



    as for limiting fuel load to 100% i cant decided which is better:
    - strategical fuel hits at attacked fields (gives defenders less flight time, but lightens the aircraft which improves defend maneuvers slightly) - btw i think 10-15% of max fuel capacity should be available if that rule would be reintroduced;
    - possibly limiting kamikaze rollers at attacked field (guy who has streak of 5 is more likely to think twice before taking risk of quick death; guy with 100% fuel load is rather an easy prey for any vulcher) - but here again: if u have streak on bombers u can roll at attacked field over and over again with no penalty;

    so i really cant decide about this one
     
  5. big-jo

    big-jo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2002
    Messages:
    3,634
    Location:
    Spain
    and 70%?
    before give me a p47 with climb rate of a 109K4
     
  6. beryl

    beryl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    19*08'E 51*30'N
    i wanna see 262 with double fuel consumption, guess it wouldn't even climb to more than 2km :)
     
  7. spuint

    spuint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    4,736
    262 would work just like me163
    just with worse climb rate :D