B-29 Super Fortress

[DaddyAck]

While I want to see the He-111 first.  I do not think a b.29 with limited enabled fields for use, single ship no formations, and a high perk cost would be a bad thing.

[araiguma]

The dropping of atomic bombs from B-29's was a HUGE FACTOR in ending the war in the Pacific and I don't recall reading of any B29 missions in the European theater before VE day 7 May 1945 other than as a method of deception to make the Germans think they were being deployed in theater.  5 June 1944 B-29's flew from bases in India to bomb the rail yards in Bangkok in its first combat mission.

Therefore I would expect to see many other more deserving bombers to be represented in AH prior to the B29.  Some specific examples to name but a few are:

German - HE-111, DO-17
British - Beaufighters, Wellington B, Halifax,
Italian - SM79, SM81, BR20,
Soviet - PE2, DB3, and IL4
   

[Pannono]

just be truthful
i bet 9 outta 10 posts wishing for B-29 are from people who have 15 posts and know nothing about bombing in aces high
they dont care that it can carry 20,000lb of conventional ords, they just want the n00kerz!
*wishes some1 inserts GIF of nook because pannono is at school and it wont display*

[AWwrgwy]

*wishes some1 inserts GIF of nook because pannono is at school and it wont display*

stolen from the intardnet:




wrngway

[Pannono]

i meant this one but those are good

[DPQ5]

do we realy want 2 see this all over place

[C(Sea)Bass]

do we realy want 2 see this all over place



(Image removed from quote.)

No, and we won't as long as you don't mix me, beans, and fire.

[Saxman]

all bombers, because why would you NOT give other formations the same capability once an adjustable convergence is coded?

Because the B-29 would be a perk bomber and therefore this would be a feature restricted solely to the B-29 to reflect this performance advantage? Technically, the way bomber guns work in Aces High is ALREADY more or less how you described the function of the B-29's guns. One gunner in control of multiple gun positions simultaneously.

The solution then as I see it would be either:

Allow gunners in all bombers other than the B-29 to ONLY control the guns at their respective position (but include the same position in the drones, IE, all top turrets or all tail mounts, but that's all that would fire).

However, as this would just lead to whines about how vulnerable bombers are if HTC didn't also allow fully crewable bombers, the alternative is:

Leave gunner positions in all other bombers as they are, but give the gunner in the B-29 the capability to adjust his convergence range in-flight (like, a .convergence <yardage> command or something of that nature). This function could be locked out by plane type.

[Latrobe]

do we realy want 2 see this all over place



(Image removed from quote.)

"V1 was just nooked"
"There goes A76"
"A32 turned to glass"
"P45 is gone"
"What idiots, they're just gonna kill themselves with that much radiation when they capture the base"

[chase4]

Lol Latrobe that last bit would be interesting,  You can't send in troops for say, 46 minutes  as the radiation would kill all the idiots who forgot the NBC kit 

[wrongwayric]

How hard can it be to make the guns auto converge? Heck the cv group ack already uses it! At least that's the excuse i'm useing when i get hit 10k plus altitude and 5 miles or more out. I think we will see the B29 someday but it's going to be a few years yet. I agree there are other earlier and countries bombers and fighters needed first.

[trigger2]

Very few people have said it should not be in the game. They are saying it should not be in the game RIGHT NOW. We don't need another American bomber especially a late war one. we have mor eimportant aircraft. We need another german bomber, at least 1 russian bomber, Judy, maybe an italian bomber, another british bomber, SB2C as well as a few other before the B29 can be considered.

Not only that, but I do believe that HT has said that planes with the capability of carrying that much ordy wouldn't be added. Lancaster if I remember right is the top of the food chain weight wise when it comes for bombers for AHII.

Although when you say 'fighter pilot snobs', I'm a bomber all the way, love my liberators, I'll up a p38J lightning every now and then for a combat sortie or if I'm needed with the squad as a fighter rather than bomber, but back on subject, although I'm a bomber, I strongly oppose the b29 being added to AHII, it would cause such a plane imbalance that would be quite hard to fix.

[C(Sea)Bass]

Not only that, but I do believe that HT has said that planes with the capability of carrying that much ordy wouldn't be added. Lancaster if I remember right is the top of the food chain weight wise when it comes for bombers for AHII.

I never heard that. They have said that no bombs bigger than 4000lbs would be modeled, but TMK the have never said anything about total ords.

[Hitman20]

I don't think HT would even make a "NOOk!!!111!!!" So we wouldn't even see that.  Becides, only 2 where ever dropped.

B29 didn't have as much impact as the say 100,000 other bombers in the sky during the war. So in turn, they didn't paly much of a role in WW2 other than the last years. It would be fun to fly, and even more fun to "try" to shoot down, but as everyone else is saying, lets look to other bombers before we go for the big bad 29.

[Jerlle]

I think it would just be fun dropping 3 earthquake bombs on base to level it and 3 in town to level it.  Who needs a nuke when you can carry two 22,000 lb bombs externally.  It would probably make HQ raids more frequent.