B-29 Super Fortress

[Jiblowey]

1)Would you like to see the B-29 added to the LW Arenas?

  b:Yes, I'd like to have the B-29 added to the LW Arenas

2)If the B-29 was added to the MA, should it be in a single bomber form? (Like the Ar234)
  a:Yes, bomber form (Formations disabled)

3)If ENY equals 0 what should the average perk value be per bomber?

  b:200-300

4)If the B-29 were to be added, should it be limited to one base for launch (Like the 163s)

  b:Launch it anywhere, I'd enjoy the whines on 200 for vulching a B-29 on take off

[GlacierGirl]

B-29s are ugly

[Denholm]

He's asking nonsense questions.

First he asks if you would like it. Then he assumes you do, asking "if it's included" but then gives options that make no sense
The Ar234 has formations. He says "no formations, like the Ar234" then he gives another option "no, give them formations" then he gives another option "yes, formations, but you have to pay for each"

Well, 1) the Ar234 has drones already in this game. He's giving a false comparison. 2) obviously the B24 would have formations, so why would you vote to have formations? and 3) you pay additional perks for each drone as-is, that's how it works already for the Ar234.

I figured with such scattered and inaccurate thoughts that he wasn't being serious or COULDN'T be taken seriously, and voiced an opinion relevant to the topic at hand and on-subject.

So my response was valid.

*Runs the data through the Krusty Translator.*

Final product: I am not having a good day!



P.S. This product retails for $2.39

[ShrkBite]

Let me add my voice to the pro-B-29A group.

Mind you, we need other bombers first, Pe-2, Tu-2, G4M2, S.M.-79-II, He111, Wellington B.Mk III and Ju188 all stand out as higher priority to me.

But the idea that the B-29A should never be added is absurd.  It was a very important aircraft that saw heavy service and was produced in the thousands.  Of course it will need to be perked, and at arelatively high cost.  Of course it will not have a nuke as a load anymore, less in fact, than the Lancaster Mk III has the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam' as an option.  To constantly rebuff the B-29A request due to the nuke is ridiculous as they are 100% separate issues.


Some people claim the B-29A would need to be perked outrageously high, say 3,000 per plane or some such, because they say it would be nigh indestructible.  This is false.  It would be very survivable, for a bomber, but far from indestructable.  If used at medium or low altitude it could be easily destroyed by a Bf110 or Mosquito VI.  The Typhoon, La-7, Fw190D-9 and Bf109K-4 would all be effective against it at low and medium altitudes.  If the B-29A player spends the time to climb to high alt then the Ta152H and P-47N would both be effective.  Adding perk planes in, the Tempest and F4U-1C at low alt and the Spitfire Mk XIV at high alt, and the Me262 and Me163 at any alt would also be effective B-29A killers.  Remember, the B-29A has a wingloading of 80lbs/sq.ft. and is not at all a B-17 in agility at altitude.

Meh, All of the people who do poll for the B-29 before all of these Bombers, Just want that damn nuke without letting HTc develop towards the final B-29........It'll prolly be in AH3 

[C(Sea)Bass]

All that the B29 did could have been done with the B24 and the B17. By the time it showed up, Japan was already in its death throes. The B29 far from ended the war, it just quickened the process.

Japan was far from defeated when the B29 came along. In fact Germany had not even fallen yet when the first 29s were rolling off the production lines. The B17s and B24s stayed in Europe to finish that job. The B29 was considered for service in Europe but commanders decided to send them all to the PTO instead, because the B17's and B24's would not be as effective against Japan. The leaders saw that, even then, when it was brand new, that the B29 was the superior bomber.

[ShrkBite]

Didnt they go on into the korean war or some other war, i forget.

[RAIDER14]

It saw action in Korea but was phased out when jets were developed.

[SKYGUNS]

i can see the b29 in this game, why not, it would have to be a perk and only used in SE and late war, its a deffinate possibility if u ask me, i know tons of people whod love it, no atom bomb though

[angelsandair]

Anyone can see it in the game. Just alot of the older guys are subject to change. And instead of pointing out to the post, hey, there is like 10 million of these posts, they do something immature like "<-search" or "wow noob, thats 'original'"

[DPQ5]

i think we should honor the b29 by adding it, after all it was the most expensive project in all of ww2 and i believe is still the most expensive project so far 

[EskimoJoe]

i think we should honor the b29 by adding it, after all it was the most expensive project in all of ww2 and i believe is still the most expensive project so far 

B-2? F-117? V-22?

[Strip]

If your talking known declassified military planes the B-2 has by far been the most expensive.

When you expand your quidelines to include all government agencies I would say the Space Shuttle is the most costly government project of similar nature.

Strip

[Furball]

noOk!1!

[DaddyAck]

Ok so weekly we all see the B-29 post, I want a the B-29, I don't want the B-29, ect ect.  So I thought, why not see what a selection of the players think in a mutliple choice questionaire.  Sorry, would have just done a poll, but I guess that went away with the new forum.  So Please just be an adult so to speak and answer the poll questions.

1)Would you like to see the B-29 added to the LW Arenas?
  a:No, I would not like to see it.
  b:Yes, I'd like to have the B-29 added to the LW Arenas  c:I really don't care, either way

2)If the B-29 was added to the MA, should it be in a single bomber form? (Like the Ar234)
  a:Yes, bomber form (Formations disabled)
  b:No, a set of B-29s...wahoo or something.
  c:Yes but each plane will cost ya

3)If ENY equals 0 what should the average perk value be per bomber?
  a:100-200
  b:200-300
  c:300-400

4)If the B-29 were to be added, should it be limited to one base for launch (Like the 163s)
  a:Launch only from an uncapturable field.
  b:Launch it anywhere, I'd enjoy the whines on 200 for vulching a B-29 on take off
 
Just answer, and well see a little bit of what people think. 

[Rich46yo]

He's asking nonsense questions.

First he asks if you would like it. Then he assumes you do, asking "if it's included" but then gives options that make no sense
The Ar234 has formations. He says "no formations, like the Ar234" then he gives another option "no, give them formations" then he gives another option "yes, formations, but you have to pay for each"

Well, 1) the Ar234 has drones already in this game. He's giving a false comparison. 2) obviously the B24 would have formations, so why would you vote to have formations? and 3) you pay additional perks for each drone as-is, that's how it works already for the Ar234.

I figured with such scattered and inaccurate thoughts that he wasn't being serious or COULDN'T be taken seriously, and voiced an opinion relevant to the topic at hand and on-subject.

So my response was valid.

                     What on Gods green earth are you blathering about? It was a poll request. Either answer the poll questions or dont answer at all. What the heck does the 234, or the speed of a B-24, have to do with anything?