What do you mean? I’d rather not have half of each team be even more suicidal.
More kills for you…
If your team takes a stupid loadout… let them.
3 Likes
I thought of the nearly same idea before. It was to actually force players have higher amount of fuel in RBEC, if RBEC is even available. But I realized fast paced combat is more fun than sluggish fight, being light weight means more dynamic vertical fight. And this is an action packed combat game so I think the important thing is the balance between the realism of having the correctly modelled vehicles and being actually fun as a game. So my point being, lighter planes are more fun to play and to play against. The main objective of this is to give planes with high min-fuel amount a choice to be more competitive with more reasonable fuel amount, not to make more racer config aircraft with wep always on. According to your opinion, it would make sense to keep the current fuel slider, but instead of lower fuel percentage, it’s the minimum fuel time that is standardized, maybe 15 mins min fuel for all aircraft at that.
3 Likes
Then we are on the same page - a standardized fuel limit based on time.
It doesn’t matter if you use a 20 or 25 minutes limit for props or 15 minutes for jets - most Air RB matches are decided way earlier.
But if i see US prop pilots struggling with their high minimum fuel loads vs highly agile Yaks or other fighters - they might have better chances then. And due to the c+p paste & mixed battle spam especially at medium prop BRs and at high / top tier it is not unusual to fight an identical aircraft - having the same min fuel for (15-25 minutes) would provide equal chances.
I see your point regarding fast paced game play and i do agree that introducing a higher fuel limit for certain planes (like jets with 7 minutes) would kill some flexibility, but as said earlier it is more about balance than to see more UFOs…
Have a good one!
That is a valid point. I would still like a lower slider though even if some aircraft had to go up as a result of their better performance. You may see more unused aircraft come back into battles as well.
1 Like
I’m gonna be contrarian here and say I think it’s fine as is on AB modes, or if it were to be lowered it should be to 20 or 25% across the board, not a fixed time. I think the negatives there would outweigh the positives, flight models are already pretty forgiving and bombers and big fighters are already hurling themselves around the sky, it would just look even more ridiculous. Honestly they don’t need the buff, a B-25 is already basically a heavy fighter if you’re playing it right.
RB/SB, and helos generally, sure I can see the argument for, say, a 15 or 20 or 25 minute minimum, if that’s less than 30% for a given aircraft, do it as a “whichever is lower” thing. I’d keep in mind Air RB and SB modes may need it more than the ground and naval CAS planes do though. Maybe just limit any reduction to those planes/helos that also have an airfield spawn, as compensation for the lower starting energy state?
31min ain’t even that bad though.
1 Like
Your whole comment makes no sense
1 Like
Wait until you see a 3+ hour minimum fuel load with some bombers
1 Like
„Trust me bro I totally need all that fuel just in case bro just one more ton bro!“
Yeah it‘s dumb
3 Likes
I imagine if War thunder had 3 times more fuel consumption rate at the same time the fuel weighed 1 third of the amount they carry. So that when you take planes with 45 minutes max air time with 100% throttle, you get 15 minutes of actual air time with 100% throttle. It’s a good option if we had RBEC.
If we somehow make the high max fuel amount desirable, reducing the air time would be logical. But simply accelerating the fuel consumption would hurt the aircraft performance with high fuel load, and the planes with less fuel would be advantageous. It’s not a good thing, considering the rhythm would be too random. The span of the re-fueling cycle won’t be synced with others. The aircraft should get less performance drop if the plane is flying at just the minutes worth of fuel. At the same time, having “3 times fuel consumption and 1 third the fuel weight it carries” definitely make fuel tanks more vulnerable as a weak point. Any fire-causing damages are critical to fuel tanks, and with low fuel settings, most planes with outer wing fuel tanks are empty at some point. That problem would be reduced if the plane carried the fuel on all tanks on some occasions.
Absolutely yes! +1
1 Like
+++
Main Facts and Thoughts
First of all, I want to highlight importance of fair balancing for every vehicle as each (or none at all) should be given a possibility to take low fuel load (not just accidentally chosen ones due to initial short operation range). More precise wording = same Fuel amount minutes minimal value (not a % based on max fuel load). Also addressing this case is a logical next step towards balancing through fuel customization after introduction of Fuel slider.
Quick examples of why current “30%” system sucks not so perfect:
- 8.0 Meteor F Mk.8 G.41K: 7m min fuel, 40m/s climbrate, among best dogfighters
- 8.0 F9F-5 Panther: 20m min fuel, 35m/s climbrate, limited afterburn duration, cannot drop wingtip fuel tanks like Banshee
As you see, agile Meteor becomes even better against sloppy Panther that additionally gets hammered by odd fuel that plays vital deadly role in all stages of lifecycle (acceleration, climb, turnfight, compression from speed). Even more, this example helps to bust the myth of impending “unskilled tunnel visioned min-fuel spammers that ruin games by becoming dogfighting godths with their strategic bombers interceptors” as this scenario already can be abused by certain set of vehicles 😲(noo waay (totally unexpected)).
Some examples of planes that _ from min fuel values (currently):
- benefit: Meteor, F-80A (9m) and C (7m), Sabres (7-9m), Hunters (4-5m), Su-11 (10m), MiG-15 (8-10m), Ayit, all afterburning jets,
- not affected much due to good frame and/or engine: Bearcats, Kingcobras, Hellcats, Yak-3 frame, Spitfires, Tempests,
sufferSUFFER: P-51 (all=27m+), P-47 (N-15 = 52m), F-9F (20m), Fw 190 A serie (18m), Bf 109 F/G series (20/18m), Ta 152 H-1 (27m), Me 262 A-1a (16m), Yak-9P (23m), Ki-100 (24m), J7W1 (30m), R2Y2 (14m + bad frame), La-11 (20m), Re.2000 (family=~30m), M.B.157 (25m), S.O.8000 Narval (17m + very heavy frame), J-21A (22m)… and all attackers, twin-engine aircrafts (like VB.10), bombers.
Examples will become even worse when it came to compare heavy twin-engine / bomber aircrafts that are severely outmatched and basically an easy food/frag to target.
Raw data comparisons for vehicle performance at certain fuel levels are not much needed for this feature since everything has been already discussed on Fuel slider addition.
Suggestions
Fast solution - to set exact same min fuel value for all aircrafts (like 5 minutes). The lower time limit - the better case covering for certain situations when low fuel is more than sufficient (like for Hunters with drop tanks)
More complex - to set same min fuel values across every aircraft role to reduce amount of situations when plane lefts without fuel in a particular aircraft class, theoretical values can be somewhat like:
| Role | Min fuel value | if twin-engine | if afterburning jet (110% WEP) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fighter | 5 minutes | +2 minutes | +2 minutes |
| Attacker | 7 minutes | +3 minutes | +4 minutes |
| l/m/h Bomber | 10/15/20 minutes | - | +10 minutes |
*l/m/h - light / medium / heavy
- For bombers (or not only) - big mostly empty fuel tanks can be compensated with higher chance of fuel evaporations explosion upon damage (if needed)
Regarding WEP jets with high fuel consumption rates - second time value can be measured for situation when full WEP mode being engaged.
Risk Assumptions / Concerns
Since this part of the game is not monetized - there should not be any concerns about keep improving this mechanic here, change can be easily reversed if something gets broken.
- If it was not so important - fuel slider would never have happened.
- This can be introduced in Air only game modes first to test and polish before applying to combined battles
- Can be step by step introduced from higher to lower Ranks/BRs (not everything at once)
- Implementation bugs (like we not get used to them)
- Long time have passed since addition of fuel slider and several BR adjustments happened so game should be ready for this next balancing leap
- Performance shifts do happens from occasional changes/updates and precisely monitored by true dedicated gameplay balancing professionals which results in accurate BR adjustments (at some point of time) - so no need to fear for potential changes in balance.
- Everybody wins:
- players will have more count of balanced planes to play spade and maybe even to put a talismane on
- ppl may discover new vehicles for themselves with no need to introduce brand new airframes (late chatting about amount of copies / gameplay clones being added in last updates)
- will improve overall player money spending during sales by 147% (can’t disclose my sources, but they are this accurate, eah…)
- It is the easiest feature to introduce with the biggest positive impact on air battle experience!
- A long anticipated feature/issue to resolve - “definitely worth it”
2 Likes
Why not compare the same plane with 7min vs 20min fuel, as that would remove variables like the Meteor itself having considerably more wing area than the Panther (33m^2 vs 23m^2) as well as a considerably different flight model?
Your post is mainly about the impact of fuel on flight performance, so using different aircraft makes no sense.
5% fuel wouldnt even get you off the runway…
2 Likes
+1
Agree fully here. Many planes are saddled with long range fuel loads that have no real purpose, unfortunately. Especially various twin-engine fighters and nearly all bombers.
1 Like
5% is probably too low, but 30% is definetly too high
1 Like