Interception and Patrols

[Belmakor]

Problem:

1. Aircraft are pretty useless at patrolling for any length of time due to quick fuel consumption.

2. The wide circling patrol is fine for trying to find enemy bases but not useful at providing close air support to transports when moving out of range of your interceptors.

Existing Solution:

Correct me if I am wrong but I believe I remember reading that aircraft use slightly less fuel when they are patrolling around a particular area? This was a welcome change but didn't quite go far enough.

Solutions:

Option 1. Change the options available on the 'waypoint reached' pop-up.

1. Centre on Aircraft
   
2. Patrol (current wide circle patrol as presently implemented)
   
3. Remain on Station (very small circular, almost stationary patrol using perhaps 70% of normal fuel)
   
4. Select New Target
   
5. Return to Base
   
6. Cancel
   

Option 2. Reduce fuel consumption for patrols by a further 10-20% and reduce the speed of the patrolling aircraft

Option 3. Allow us to send out interceptors with our Dropships and when they run out of fuel, allow us to send back only the interceptors instead of forcing the dropship home. Additionally, allow us to merge squadrons by selecting existing squadrons as the target.

Why:

Air superiority can only truly be achieved by aircraft already in the air. I know Chris you are not the biggest fan of this (as you already argued against the introduction of waypoints) but we currently have to accept that its really difficult to provide air cover to Dropships operating outside of Interceptor range and this is really defeating the whole point in having such long Dropship range. Allowing for aircraft to remain in the air for at-least as long as it takes a Chinook to fly from base to the edge of the radar range (if they both leave at the same time) should be a minimum goal.

[squigoth]

You would think external fuel tanks would be fitted to aircraft sent on patrols or escort missions to extend their range or time on station.

Just a thought...

[TomAce]

You would think external fuel tanks would be fitted to aircraft sent on patrols or escort missions to extend their range or time on station.

Just a thought...

Yes, we should have the option of equipping external fuel tanks on the fighters and a squadron of fighters and dropship should be able to RTB seperately according to the bingo fuel situation.

On that note, this would mean TWO droptanks and TWO missiles to be loaded(or one droptank underneath the fuselage, in which case the added weight would be only half that of two droptanks under the wings and ofc only half the maximum extra fuel you could carry), then why not bring back the FOUR hardpoint carrying option for the interceptors?

[Chris]

I'm not against waypoints at all, you can send aircraft anywhere you like and it'll generate a waypoint there. If you want multiple ones, just hold down shift to create a flight path.

No, aircraft don't burn less fuel when patrolling, it just burns at a constant rate while they are airborne. We fixed a bug where it ran out almost instantly when they hit a waypoint. Fundamentally I don't agree that you need reduced fuel consumption when patrolling, though - if you're worried about losing your dropship then wait for the wave to disperse or get better fighter / radar coverage over the areas in question (or get better interceptors).

TomAce - there's no space on the air combat UI for having four weapon slots if one is a cannon. You can only support four missiles, or two missiles and a cannon. And if the early aircraft have four weapon slots, it means we can't have an escalation towards the more powerful ones. Foxtrots used to have four Heavy slots and there was literally no point building anything else.

[Dranak]

Not to mention that Xenonaut aircraft are already lored as being modified for extra range at the cost of weapon capacity, and have range far beyond what would ever be realistic for a similar aircraft.

Anyway, I'm curious why the OP thinks patrolling is so vital. I've never found it useful in this game.

[StellarRat]

Jets don't really save a lot of fuel by throttling back anyway. The angle of attack has to be increased to maintain altitude, possibly flaps have to be lowered and both of those increase drag, so it's not a one for one fuel saving. Also, if you're "patrolling" at low altittude looking for something on the ground (like a base) you could very possibly burn more fuel due thicker air causing increased drag. Jets get optimum fuel efficiency around 31K - 33K feet due to thinner air.

Of course, with mid-air refueling jets could stay up for many hours over a target. There are limits to pilot endurance though and also generally speaking the longer a jet stay in the air the more hours it's going to spend in the hanger for maintenance when it gets back.

Edited December 23, 2013 by StellarRat

[tscho]

well it would be possible to add a tech for more fuel for combat. nano battery or something more appealing. its quite dissappointing to enter a combat with 20% fuel and crash landing before managing to retreat.

Or just let them retreat when a airfight is just unrealistic with that low fuel. a little before the point of no return.

How much fuel is needed for a straight fight? (no changes in movement)

Edited December 23, 2013 by tscho

[Majestic7]

Why not just give us AEW craft for patrolling? For example, E-2 Hawkeye and Tu-126 were in use by 1979.

[Dranak]

Or just let them retreat when a airfight is just unrealistic with that low fuel. a little before the point of no return.

How much fuel is needed for a straight fight? (no changes in movement)

It already gives you a warning when the plane is critical, and you're shown how many second worth of flight time you have fuel for before starting the engagement (with an option to disengage then), and your fuel level during the fight where you are free to disengage at any time. How many more low fuel warnings are you looking for?

@Majestic7 - What would adding them add in terms of gameplay?

[Majestic7]

@Majestic7 - What would adding them add in terms of gameplay?

Mobile, vulnerable radar for those who think patrolling zones beyond land radar is useful and essential. I'm not really advocating adding them as such; just thought it would be an easy solution for people who want better and wider patrolling.

[Dranak]

Gotcha. It seems like if they were beyond the range of your ground based radar, they would just die to any alien fighters that spawn since Xeno fighter craft don't have the range to linger that far out from base.

[Valentine]

I wish refuelling took an hour and repairing took a day or two.

Waiting for a refuelling squadron seems unrealistic and tedious.

That way there could be an option to send a plane/s on a constant patrol just out of radar range in a ring until they automatically come back to re-fuel and then go back out again automatically until you tell them to stop. No option to change their course or distance just a ring around the base at a reasonable set distance.

[StellarRat]

They also need to arm first and refuel second. Right now they get fuel first. That's pretty useless if there are no weapons onboard. You can always take off to defend your base if you have just a little fuel but a full weapon load.

Edited December 27, 2013 by StellarRat

[Max_Caine]

I strongly believe based on comments Aaron has made in the past about wanting to limit the number of sorties that squadrons can make that this order of rearming/refuelling is intentional and will not be reversed. EDIT: Bear in mind he has outright said that the slow rate of refuelling is intentional.

[StellarRat]

I can see why, but it extremely frustrating to have your jets sitting on the ground refueling when an alien ship is heading to your base. I'd put pistol to the heads of my ground crew if that was happening in real life and "encourage" them to get some missiles under the wings ASAP.

[Belmakor]

If not an extension to the geoscape fuel consumption then perhaps the devs might consider the benefits of reducing fuel consumption during combat? That way you can still realistically tackle something larger than a corvette. At the moment, you often need to spend the first 30 seconds of combat maneuvering - which is already 1/3 of the time a typical 75% fuel capacity gets you. Its pretty much an automatic fail if you don't spend time maneuvering and sometimes you simply can't afford to when you start the battle with less than 40-50s of fuel on board.

I'd like to see the time in combat doubled.

[Gam]

If not an extension to the geoscape fuel consumption then perhaps the devs might consider the benefits of reducing fuel consumption during combat? [...]

I'd like to see the time in combat doubled.

Totally agree. The fuel consumption in combat is WAAAAAAAAY to fast.

Gam

[Gauddlike]

If not an extension to the geoscape fuel consumption then perhaps the devs might consider the benefits of reducing fuel consumption during combat? That way you can still realistically tackle something larger than a corvette. At the moment, you often need to spend the first 30 seconds of combat maneuvering - which is already 1/3 of the time a typical 75% fuel capacity gets you. Its pretty much an automatic fail if you don't spend time maneuvering and sometimes you simply can't afford to when you start the battle with less than 40-50s of fuel on board.

I'd like to see the time in combat doubled.

That value is set in gameconfig.xml.

Currently combat fuel use has a multiplier of 200 compared to the geoscape burn rate, I assume this is a percentage increase rather than a straight multiplier but I haven't looked at it beyond reading the file.

There are also values for afterburner and roll fuel use multipliers and the speed at which aircraft ream, refuel, and repair.

[Xitax]

Right. It seems silly that I just made it 2000mi to engage the target, but a couple of seconds in a 10x10mi sq (or so) area consumes so much fuel (w/o afterburner use of course) so that I have to go home immediately.