Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Hanny
For me the principle problem is that there is one type of fuel, rather than AVGAS and MOGAS, its simply to easy to conduct Air warfare at a tempo outside of historical norms which may be increasing loss rates outside of what was expected because both ground and air are using the same fuel and can over achieve on ground or air.

Agree, would be nice to see a different types of fuel.

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

ORIGINAL: Hanny
For me the principle problem is that there is one type of fuel, rather than AVGAS and MOGAS, its simply to easy to conduct Air warfare at a tempo outside of historical norms which may be increasing loss rates outside of what was expected because both ground and air are using the same fuel and can over achieve on ground or air.

Agree, would be nice to see a different types of fuel.

Most players would likely see this as needlessly complicating how supply works. Finding a proper balance between historical gameplay and simplicity is the eternal struggle in game design.

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: Dreamslayer

ORIGINAL: Hanny
For me the principle problem is that there is one type of fuel, rather than AVGAS and MOGAS, its simply to easy to conduct Air warfare at a tempo outside of historical norms which may be increasing loss rates outside of what was expected because both ground and air are using the same fuel and can over achieve on ground or air.

Agree, would be nice to see a different types of fuel.

Most players would likely see this as needlessly complicating how supply works. Finding a proper balance between historical gameplay and simplicity is the eternal struggle in game design.

Ignoring logistic reality is never a good game design choice.

ORIGINAL: Hanny
...

Ignoring logistic reality is never a good game design choice.

good that the game doesn't, then?

As long as there is no factory stamp on my Pz IV it does [:)].

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Hanny
...

Ignoring logistic reality is never a good game design choice.

good that the game doesn't, then?

No it does not ignore it, it just is sub optimal in its current form, fuel for both air and ground is a universal fuel, so you can minimise activity on one to increase it on another, so you can ignore historical logistical constraints and implement and execute operations based on having more fuel assets than existed.

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: Hanny
...

Ignoring logistic reality is never a good game design choice.

good that the game doesn't, then?

No it does not ignore it, it just is sub optimal in its current form, fuel for both air and ground is a universal fuel, so you can minimise activity on one to increase it on another, so you can ignore historical logistical constraints and implement and execute operations based on having more fuel assets than existed.

except as in this thread, pushing your airforce too hard leads to operational losses so you can't actually.

the game doesn't model different types of ammunition, variations in food rations, need for different uniforms. In the end making more and more distinctions are not essential to generating a logistics system that works. As can be found out when playing the game.

ORIGINAL: loki100

except as in this thread, pushing your airforce too hard leads to operational losses so you can't actually.

Your confusing cause with effect, if you use more fuel to fly more sorties because you have more fuel to do so, you will achieve an outcome of higher loss rates and higher fuel expenditure. If you reduce fuel usage and apply it elsewhere you can conduct more operations with it and achieve different outcomes with that use of the same asset.

ORIGINAL: loki100
the game doesn't model different types of ammunition, variations in food rations, need for different uniforms. In the end making more and more distinctions are not essential to generating a logistics system that works.

Sure it works, tonnage of munitions is a widely used in combat simulations, and is in game as are food requirements, it just fails to work well enough to stop users conducting operations with assets that did not exist.

ORIGINAL: Hanny

ORIGINAL: loki100

except as in this thread, pushing your airforce too hard leads to operational losses so you can't actually.

Your confusing cause with effect, if you use more fuel to fly more sorties because you have more fuel to do so, you will achieve an outcome of higher loss rates and higher fuel expenditure. If you reduce fuel usage and apply it elsewhere you can conduct more operations with it and achieve different outcomes with that use of the same asset.

ORIGINAL: loki100
the game doesn't model different types of ammunition, variations in food rations, need for different uniforms. In the end making more and more distinctions are not essential to generating a logistics system that works.

Sure it works, tonnage of munitions is a widely used in combat simulations, and is in game as are food requirements, it just fails to work well enough to stop users conducting operations with assets that did not exist.

actually no-one in WiTE2 can "conduct operations with assets that did not exist"?

No I'm not confusing cause and effect. The usual reason for what are described as excessive operational losses comes from running up too many airmiles in a turn. One reason this happens, esp with the axis in 1941, is your airforce lags as you can't both resupply advanced airbases and your armour/mot spearheads.

This becomes clear with playing. Now since many people are currently more used to #1 they are trying to use the LW as you could there. As you adapt, you find it is a powerful, fragile, tool that needs to applied with care - an outcome driven by the game's logistics model and its approach to how fatigue etc inhibits sustained high intensity air operations

ORIGINAL: loki100


actually no-one in WiTE2 can "conduct operations with assets that did not exist"?

Every user has that option in game.

ORIGINAL: loki100
No I'm not confusing cause and effect.

Clearly you did, moving on.