B-29 Super Fortress

[waystin2]

I could care less about having a nuke. I mean, in the lifetime of countries having nuclear weapons only one country has used them for hostile purposes and that was the United States dropping the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the war without a mass invasion of mainland Japan thus causing more casulties. The B-29 would be a nice bomber to have WITHOUT the nuclear weapons. Just leave it with conventional weapons, and no incendiary bombs either.

I feel the same way.  B-29 would be a great add to the game, however I do not feel that there is anything positive for the AH community in the addition of nuclear weapons to the arenas.

[glock89]

I feel the same way.  B-29 would be a great add to the game, however I do not feel that there is anything positive for the AH community in the addition of nuclear weapons to the arenas.

Even if we did get the nuke won't it just lag every one out of the game?

[Chalenge]

I dont think so glock but the radio buffer after the first drop might just scroll so fast it lags.

I dont think there is anything wrong with the B29. I was just mentioning a way the nuke could be added that would not be too awful and yes I think it would boost fights to some degree if the B29 and nuke came together. If you feel differently thats fine. Even Pyros position could be changed if it involved increasing fun and fights in the arenas.

My concept was an attempt to introduce the nuke in a way that represents a nations entire GNP being used to produce one (undamaged US territory reproduced in an undamaged country). Because we dont have TAC/R or photo recon planes (thanks for relaying that information clone) the drones would not be required.

I do think however that replies like those of our dear Mr Iron_Cross are childish beyond description and rise to the same level of the 'OMG add teh N00K! it was used u must add it!'

IC if you spent anytime at all on these boards you would know I am in and out of these discussions all the time that I usually take position AGAINST the B29 (being someone that actually has flown one in a realisc simulation) and that I usually take an even measured view of any topic (without screaming or acting the fool). Your responding the way you did and your relative low post count tells me more about you then the lack of quality in your posts.

The odds that I would ever be online at precisely the same time that a nuke became available under the guidelines I suggested would exceed something like 150000:1 and the odds of a NOOB being online and haveing the perks to use one would exceed something like 3000000:1. ENY could also eliminate the nook quite effectively. Just saying.

[vonKrimm]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the B29. I was just mentioning a way the nuke could be added that would not be too awful and yes I think it would boost fights to some degree if the B29 and nuke came together. If you feel differently that's fine. Even Pyros position could be changed if it involved increasing fun and fights in the arenas.

You are correct in that there is nothing wrong with the B-29, it existed, it was used; it just has no place in an operational level FPS game loosely set in WWII.  THERE IS NO WAY THAT USING AN ATOMIC BOMB COULD EVER BE CONSIDERED "not be too awful".  Nuking imaginary people is contreversal in its own right; using a nuke that will also kill friendly pilots/GVers, or at least should, in the game is also a can of worms best left unopened.  People outside of the AH community that discover that AH has a nuke for casual use might not look too fondly upon us either.  I doubt that Pyro could eve be convinced that adding a nuke could EVER increase "fun" in the game.

Adding a n00k will never be constructive to AH.

[uberslet]

i like your proposed idea chalenge (even though im so far from wanting it) i find it a fair way for a nuke to be introduced,  nice thinking!

[Chalenge]

You are correct in that there is nothing wrong with the B-29, it existed, it was used; it just has no place in an operational level FPS game loosely set in WWII.  THERE IS NO WAY THAT USING AN ATOMIC BOMB COULD EVER BE CONSIDERED "not be too awful".  Nuking imaginary people is contreversal in its own right; using a nuke that will also kill friendly pilots/GVers, or at least should, in the game is also a can of worms best left unopened.  People outside of the AH community that discover that AH has a nuke for casual use might not look too fondly upon us either.  I doubt that Pyro could eve be convinced that adding a nuke could EVER increase "fun" in the game.

Adding a n00k will never be constructive to AH.

I have dropped a lot of bombs in AHII. They DO NOT kill friendlies. What people outside of AHII say/think/feel doesnt interest me in the least. Just saying...

[Chalenge]

i like your proposed idea chalenge (even though im so far from wanting it) i find it a fair way for a nuke to be introduced,  nice thinking!

 

I dont want it either because I just like flying my pony with the squad but it is a popular 'want' and if it were introduced I cant see anyone really getting upset about it and if they did so what?

A nuke would change some of the dynamics of AHII. The way things are when HQ is attacked the goons launch even before HQ falls and I have seen so many goons flying that HQ was back up before the attack flight landed (what was left of it). That would not be the case with a nuke. 

[Iron_Cross]

Chalenge, You don't know me.  Just because I have a low post count, you think you know everything about me.  Well my churlish friend, just because I don't see fit to post in every topic I come across does not make me "childish", and as to the lack of quality in my post, I tailor them to the receiver, so that they may get the point more readily. 

I have dropped a lot of bombs in AHII. They DO NOT kill friendlies. What people outside of AHII say/think/feel doesnt interest me in the least. Just saying...

That statement is false.  Bombs can kill friendlies.  They just have to be in the blast radius, which is a highly unlikely event, given the largest blast radius for the 4000lb cookie is somewhere around 150-200 yards.

...if you spent anytime at all on these boards you would know I am in and out of these discussions all the time that I usually take position AGAINST the B29...

This statement then makes you, and this whole thread, a TROLL.  I suggest you climb into your pony, start flying with your squaddies again, switch back to shooting down B-29 requests, and leave B-29/n00k wishes to n00bs.

[Chalenge]

Well I choose to ignore your suggestion and I will stick to my original assessment of your posts. They were childish.

Bombs will not hurt you under killshooter and they will not hurt friendlies. If you think they will then you dont play the same AHII that I do.

This thread is not a troll since you dont know about bombs not hurting friendlies we all know you are an expert at TROLLING. Have a nice day.

[oakranger]

It is simple what you can do with the b-29.  Perk it like 262, assign bases where 163 are at, give it the pay load that it should half.  I would still like to see b-32 pop up too.

[Nisky]

I dont know how i feel about the b29 being added, but i do know that ive carpet bombed squadies for fun and i never die and neither do they. Lolz

[Iron_Cross]

Well I choose to ignore your suggestion and I will stick to my original assessment of your posts. They were childish.

Bombs will not hurt you under killshooter and they will not hurt friendlies. If you think they will then you dont play the same AHII that I do.

This thread is not a troll since you dont know about bombs not hurting friendlies we all know you are an expert at TROLLING. Have a nice day.

Well, argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy that only weakens your position.  Please enlighten us as to why, someone who admitted in this thread, that they are against the introduction of the B-29, would suddenly switch their view, and on top of that, campaign for the introduction of a bomb that would totally unbalance MA play?  Attacking me is not a rebuttal of the facts that the B-29, if introduced, will unbalance MA play, and the introduction of the atom bomb, no matter how many limits placed on it, will further kill the fun play in the MA.

As to my lack of knowledge that bombs don't kill friendlies.  I admit that I was under a logical fallacy of my own.  I logically thought that bombs kill indiscriminately, whoever was unlucky enough to be hit by one.  Friend or foe alike, it didn't matter to the bomb.  Also please explain how my lack of knowledge in this subject makes me a troll? 

To my knowledge, a troll is someone posting blatantly inflammatory topics on the BBS, and attacking anyone who disagrees, or points out the fallacy of the topic.  By that definition then, you sir are the troll.  Your own admission that you usually disagree with adding the B-29, means you have seen how posts for adding the B-29 are received, and by default the knowledge on how inflammatory those posts are received.  All I have done in this thread is point out the fallacy of this thread, my views and opinions on why this thread (the introduction of the B-29 and the atom bomb) is a failure that will only hurt the fun in the MA.  You, on the other hand, have only rebutted by attacked me, telling me I'm childish, and a troll.  You have never countered any of my arguments, against the introduction of these two items.  Argumentum ad Hominem, does not make your point stronger.   If you can convince me that carpet-bombing an airfield from 30k with 20,000Lbs of ordinance, or nuking the sight from orbit would be fun for everyone, I may join you in asking for them.  Please enlighten me, otherwise continue with your weak, pathetic, ad hominem attacks, and receive the ire of the community.

[glock89]

Ouch that got to hurt. 

[caldera]

 If you can convince me that carpet-bombing an airfield from 30k with 20,000Lbs of ordinance, or nuking the sight from orbit would be fun for everyone, I may join you in asking for them. 

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

"Effin-A!"

[Chalenge]

Well, argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy that only weakens your position.... 

Ha! Your still in here arguing against me? What part of that 'I dont care about this' didnt you understand? I really hit the nail on the head with that 'childish' quip.