Seriously though... I think the point has been made over and over again why some of us dont think there should be a B-29 in the game. Why do I post the Soup Nazi with his B-29? Because MOST of the B-29 posts out there are just "Gimme Gimme Gimme"... and I decided that the kittens need a break.
There are very few serious discussions about it... and then you have the whole "Me wantz teh No0kie" crowd... that always tag along onto a B-29 thread.
While I agree that it does meet the criteria for inclusion in AH2, these are the problems I see with adding it:
1) It was the single most powerful weapon in WW2, excluding the atomic bomb. The firepower even one can carry is more than most, it not all of the 3 bomber formations that we have in the game now. HiTech has said in other threads, on other topics, that there is a fine line between realism, and playability. I think that the B-29 crosses that line. While is it a perfectly realistic addition to the game, it has the serious potential to make the game less playable, and less fun. There are many other WMD's and weapons platforms that were in WW2 that have not, and I seriously doubt, will be added. Tall Boys, V1's, V2's, Kamikaze's, Landmines... were all used in WW2... but I doubt they would bring much overall fun to the game, and would detract from the ability to effectively play. The B-29 is the same way. The ability to wipe a town or base off the map in one pass, by one player, is not going to help the game at all in my opinion. We dont have an organized, rigid command structure like the military has. No one HAS to follow the orders of their teammates. So, the player that just wants to drop a base, cv group, town, or even just "lancstuka" a whole division of tanks with his B-29 has no reason not to. On this same point, B-29's woult not be used in this game like they were in the war. They would be used just as described above. Not for the long range, strategic bombing of cities as they were designed to do.
2) Perks... Every time there is a discussion about the B-29, the supporters just say "Perk the Hell out of it!" Well, here is the problem with that. Most of the experienced bomber pilots in this game, and the ones who would be flying the B-29, have more Bomber Perk points than they will EVER be able to use. I realize that is partly due to there be a limited selection of bombers that require perks, so you just keep building and building them. But... what it means is that guys like 999000, myself, and other guys that have the perks to fly them, can do so with impunity, whenever, and wherever we feel like it. Will we get shot down? Not that often... and not if it is used like we would use it. Not as a "lancstuka" or on an NOE raid... but high level, and in formations... thereby adding to the perks we already have. But, even if we did use it in unrealistically silly ways... we could afford to do so. So, the only people who would be restricted in flying the B-29 would be the new players... and those that dont normally fly bombers. Add to this the defensibility of the B-29. Good bomber pilots and gunners can tear up fighters... even multiple fighters with the guns we have now. Do we really need something better? Combine that with the altitude that we would be flying them at, and there is NO PLANE... no... not even the 262, that could get up to us to engage by the time they realize we are coming, we drop our payload, and are GONE. True, that does not take into account making multiple passes at a target. But in a B-29? Why would you need to?
3) The point that people make about there being other planes that need to be added first is 100% valid. The LW plane set is far heavier than the EW or MW. There are many other planes, vehicles and systems that should be added first. But again, it comes down to playability and fun... and the time it takes to add things to the game. Not really much more I can add to this point. I think it speaks for itself.
4) Opponents - While AH2 allows us to fight against aircraft we normally would be allied with, there are few fighters that will be able to challenge the B-29 when it is in its true element... high altitude. The key is that you would have to know it was coming. Yes, you would be able to see a "Dar Bar" in the adjacent sectors for a LONG TIME... but not too many fighter pilots are going to take the time to get that high, for that long, and even if they do... they are going to have to either pack a ton of fuel, or have to land before the 29's even get there. To kindof go back to point #1, the B-29 was the pinnacle of weapons development during the war... so there wasnt much that could challenge it. Yes, there were losses of 29's during the war. But there were more losses to mechanical failure than there was to actual combat according to most sources.
5) Changing the specs on the B-29 to make it less powerful, not do what it did in the war, not function the way it did, but still look like a B-29... I see no reason to do so. Why bother? If it doesn't perform like the B-29, then its just an over-modeled Lancaster or B-24. We have those already. If HTC is going to take the time to model a B-29, then it need to FLY and FIGHT like a B-29. So yes, the guns would need to operate like a B-29, the payload would need to be what a B-29 could carry. Speed, armament, climb rate, ceiling... all the same. And yes, as has been pointed out... we would need longer runways, which would require a remodel of the current bases, or at the very least, the addition of a new base type.
Now... I would... and I cant believe I am saying this... actually LIKE to see the B-29 in the game. But, with that said... I do not believe the game as it is now, would be better off for having it. I think quite the opposite. In order for the B-29 to be added, there should (as many have previously stated) be MANY other elements added to the game. You want the B-29? Give us a REAL STRATEGIC BOMBING SYSTEM. Not what we have now. Give us more flexible troops. More flexible task groups and ships. Artillery. Bridges we can actually capture and drive a PT or a LVT under. Convoys. Roads that mean something. Ground speed affected by terrain. Fill out the Japanese and Russian plane sets. Add more ground vehicles. The list goes on and on. But until THESE things are added, I do not see the need for the B-29.
I think the B-29 has been asked for, and asked for, and asked for enough on the forums. Will it stop? No. But why not do this? Instead of posting it here, only to be tossed in the bucket with all the other B-29 threads to be answered by the masses with NO or my "Soup Nazi" pic, just send an IM or email to HiTech. Get HIS take on it. Let him tell you, out of the public fray, why he thinks it shouldn't, or SHOULD, it wont, or dare I say, it WILL be added to the game. Get it straight from him. WE arent the ones who will decide ANYTHING that gets added to the game. HTC is. Just ask the man. You may not get the answer you like, or the answer you expect... but I bet you will get an answer. (Sorry HiTech... if your inbox gets flooded with B-29 questions now, it's my fault!) Maybe the Skunkworks at HTC is secretly developing the B-29 and no one knows it.
So... there are the reasons why I dont think we should have, or need the B-29. Oh... and just to make you smile, and to let you know I am not bashing, flaming, or devaluing the argument of those that WANT the B-29 in the game:
So until we get answers to all the questions and concerns I have listed above... get used to seeing this guy, and everyone else who opposes the idea, telling you no... we dont want it. The request itself is valid... but the CONSTANT requesting isnt going to get it into the game. But keep em coming... I like my "Soup Nazi". He makes me giggle.
