B-29 Super Fortress

[Overlord925]

yeah, or they can just make some of the mountain top bases at 33.5k or above special bomber fields.  That way you can still target them specifically to knock out the bombers and it reduces the time to climb if your flying one.

[GreenEagle43]

oh hell why hold back.if your ganna ask for a big boy toyto fly........go bigger the biggest piston engine bomber ever......
THE B-36 J PEACE MAKER.

hotobucket.com/albums/jj110/GrnEagle43DHBG/b36_large.jpg[/IMG] B-29 SMALL---B-36 BIG..

[CaptainFokker]

Pull your effing heads out of your rectal orifices.  B-29s were responsible for decimating a large portion of Japan, and that was well before the nukes were ever used. Try researching something before you fill a thread up with idiotic posts about nuclear weapons, it's ridiculous.

[Karnak]

See?  Now that makes SENSE.  Not just a bunch of rhetoric.  Thank you!  I'd love to hear more!

Id gladly give up one of my B25 models for the B29 

Differing models of the same aircraft take much less work.  The B-29A would take more dev work than any unit currently in the game.

If you were able to do such a trade, it would be something like trading the B-25s, P-39s, Brewster, I-16 and the next two single engined aircraft or the next twin engined aircraft.

Clear?

[kilo2]

B-29s did play a major role in making sure we didnt have to invade main land japan. Not just nukes but in conventional ord. The plane doesnt have to have a historical load out you could make it so it could only carry as much or a little more than a lanc.

[Guppy35]

So lets dumb this down so maybe folks will get it.

Aces High at best represents a tactical airwar.  The B29 was a long range strategic bomber.  It did not fly in support of ground troops, it supported no invasions, didn't go after airfields etc.  It was basically used to burn Japanese cities to the ground, and it did it well.

We don't have a strategic aspect to Aces High and last I saw, burning cities to the ground wasn't an option.  And I seriously doubt you will get many scenario players to hang around on Japanese airfields for a few hours waiting for the B29s from the Marianas, China or Tinian to arrive so they can try and intercept them.

You can at least historically point to the use of the other 4 engine bombers in game to some tactical airwar use supporting the ground war in the ETO or pounding islands in the PTO.

In short, there is no historical justification, or practical use for a B29 in Aces high until the ranges get longer and strategic targets become part of the game.

There are far more planes that would make sense to the tactical airwar game that AH is, long before the B29

Until then the addition of the B29 would just be to grief or to unbalance the gameplay.

[Shifty]

Pull your effing heads out of your rectal orifices.  B-29s were responsible for decimating a large portion of Japan, and that was well before the nukes were ever used. Try researching something before you fill a thread up with idiotic posts about nuclear weapons, it's ridiculous.

My your 11th post and already telling people how dumb they are in three diferent threads. Not to mention telling people to do research when you obviously haven't done your own in the level bomber CV thread. Not to mention you rose this thread from the grave after nearly a year and a half to show how smart you are. My but you're going to be a very entertaining little Fokker aren't you? 

[kilo2]

So lets dumb this down so maybe folks will get it.

Aces High at best represents a tactical airwar.  The B29 was a long range strategic bomber.  It did not fly in support of ground troops, it supported no invasions, didn't go after airfields etc.  It was basically used to burn Japanese cities to the ground, and it did it well.

We don't have a strategic aspect to Aces High and last I saw, burning cities to the ground wasn't an option.  And I seriously doubt you will get many scenario players to hang around on Japanese airfields for a few hours waiting for the B29s from the Marianas, China or Tinian to arrive so they can try and intercept them.

You can at least historically point to the use of the other 4 engine bombers in game to some tactical airwar use supporting the ground war in the ETO or pounding islands in the PTO.

In short, there is no historical justification, or practical use for a B29 in Aces high until the ranges get longer and strategic targets become part of the game.

There are far more planes that would make sense to the tactical airwar game that AH is, long before the B29

Until then the addition of the B29 would just be to grief or to unbalance the gameplay.

Because the groundwar is the lynchpin of this game. Theres plenty of historical justification for it as if it matters(163,The jetbomber).
We have strat targets now IE AA, Ammo,Radar, factorys we even have towns to bomb. Nobody says that they want to see it right away just at some point.

Lets dumb it down so maybe you can get it. It should be added if not now at some point. Oh and it doesn't have to have a 22,000 lbs bomb load.

[salun]

There is a lot of things that we like to see in AH. But the fact is there's also 50 gadrillion reasons why we don't have some of them. If I had my choice, More boats, frigates, teh ability to steer the ability to steer the CV as though a normal ground craft(For quicker responses to attacks, mobile land based Howitzer cannons and My person #1 thing I'd want, SUBMARINES! For sneakign up on TG's.

Really though most requests like the B-29 have just to many complications or tip balances to much.

[Guppy35]

LOL and which part of the lang range strategic bomber don't you get?

They didn't attack shipping.  They didn't attack radar. They didn't attack airfields.  They burned cities in Japan to the ground.  Again they were good at what they did, but they are far down the list of usefulness in AH.

The A26, which is also one I'd have down the list, is way above the B29 on my list of what makes sense for the type of 'airwar' in AH.  At least the A26 was involved in the tactical airwar.

So back to dumbing it down.  You are correct, the ground war, or tactical air war that supports taking ground is at least a part of AH.  The B29 did not participate in that part of the airwar, which you yourself say is the lynchpin of the game.

Make up your mind

[Saxman]

LOL and which part of the lang range strategic bomber don't you get?

They didn't attack shipping.  They didn't attack radar. They didn't attack airfields.  They burned cities in Japan to the ground.  Again they were good at what they did, but they are far down the list of usefulness in AH.

The A26, which is also one I'd have down the list, is way above the B29 on my list of what makes sense for the type of 'airwar' in AH.  At least the A26 was involved in the tactical airwar.

So back to dumbing it down.  You are correct, the ground war, or tactical air war that supports taking ground is at least a part of AH.  The B29 did not participate in that part of the airwar, which you yourself say is the lynchpin of the game.

Make up your mind

Technically, by that argument we shouldn't really have the B-17 and B-24, either, because their use in the European Theaters WAS primarily strategic. And FSO has had no problem whatsoever implementing strategic bombing campaigns in ETO (or PTO, for that matter) setups.

[Guppy35]

Technically, by that argument we shouldn't really have the B-17 and B-24, either, because their use in the European Theaters WAS primarily strategic. And FSO has had no problem whatsoever implementing strategic bombing campaigns in ETO (or PTO, for that matter) setups.

But 17s and 24s were hitting airfields, bombing the beach heads, etc.  Part of the problem on Omaha beach was the 4 engine guys missed their targets.  Eisenhower had the 8th and 9th doing tactical bombing priort to and after D-Day.  The campaign against strategic targets was secondary  Opening Operation Cobra they bombed their own guys, slowing Bradley's start.  The hit shipping and islands in the Pacific and operated at all altitudes.

The 29 did none of that.  In the MA it would be the griefer of choice and the fight killer of choice.

Think about how you'd do a historical scenario with 29s.  Do we have the guys first fly in their own fuel from India to China, then go again to Japan?  Do we have the fighter guys wait hours til the 29s get to the rendevous points so the 51s and 47Ns can up from Iwo?  how bout the Japanese guys sitting around waiting for those long range birds.

Bottom line for me, is it's way down the list in terms of what should get added for both the MA or FSO/Scenario/Snapshot use.

[5PointOh]

I'll take one of these before the 29...sexier too...kinda a like a giant 38!

[Guppy35]

I'll take one of these before the 29...sexier too...kinda a like a giant 38!
(Image removed from quote.)

And it would be more justified then the 29 at this point and it's a night fighter, but at least it was used by the TAC air guys

[NCLawman]

In case any of you didn't notice... CaptainFokker punted a thread that had been dead since April of 2008 (over a year).

WTG... keep the replies coming.