B-29 Super Fortress

[Vadjan-Sama]

I hate to come in a burst your bubble, but you know everyone here already knows you copied the rest of our posts?

Don't worry though, you sound very smart. 

I still give this thread a FAIL.

Not really, every one that knows the game knows this cuz is what we need, is not about to copy, is about what we need, and I think 80% of the vets want those ones, I have 6 years waiting for the Yak-3/Tu-2 and if god HT like it an PE-8 ^^ (and im not talking about fighters, just bombers) the day that AH have the same planes/GV's that IL2, then I can die with a smile (of curse after using everyone of them) 

[SirFrancis]

.

 

[JunkyII]

Trigger2, I said it in the first post...


SCREW THE KITTENS!!!     I hope they DIE!

No, my other thread had a different title.

Guys I am not supporting the Nuke. I say it should go the way of the kittens in fact.

I want something to spend perkies on that offers something other than speed, almost pointless bombload, and no defensive armament.

And for all you who whine that it will slaughter fighters, answer me this... Have you ever survived fighting a 190A-8? If so then you should be fine ATTACKING, as long as you are not stupid enough to stay still and attack in the cannon armed areas.

but i like cats

[DaveJ]

No need to say why we don't need the B-29, they already said... the main point is that we don't need another heavy US bomber we have enough heavy bombers, we need heavy/midle Russian, Italian, Japanese and German midle bombers. (aka PE-8, TU-2, HE-111, ME-410, P.108, SM.79...) before the B29, we have a lot of holes in the bombers set just to add another-we-already-have-type bomber.



 

Why would we ever want an Italian bomber? That is like an oxymoron.

[Twizzty]

SOP

[Nemisis]

You know what, for all those who say we shouldn't get the B-29; Tell me why. Use good solid facts, not "it will completely un balance the game". And take into consideration that I have suggested it be only 1 plane (formation of B-24 and lanc can carry more, and I think a Ju88 formation can carry almost as much, if not as much), not a formation of B-29's. Please give me good reasons. If you don't I will consider it an admition of defeat.

[Ruler2]

Why would we ever want an Italian bomber? That is like an oxymoron.

+1

[Strip]

The B-29 looks great over my new Reno terrain...

Even has a few test craters to the NE...

(Just have to know how to get to in game!)

[Nemisis]

Nice strip. You should email me your reno terain.

[trigger2]

You know what, for all those who say we shouldn't get the B-29; Tell me why. Use good solid facts, not "it will completely un balance the game". And take into consideration that I have suggested it be only 1 plane (formation of B-24 and lanc can carry more, and I think a Ju88 formation can carry almost as much, if not as much), not a formation of B-29's. Please give me good reasons. If you don't I will consider it an admition of defeat.

Here's some that I found convincing...

Three reasons why it would unbalance the game:

1) 60,000 lb of bombs for one formation.

2) 33,000+ feet altitude capability, combined with speeds of up to 355 mph. 

3) One 20mm cannon and two .50 cal MGs in the tail. That means having to tail chase and close on a very fast bomber formation with double the firepower of a formation of B-24s.

Great for the Buffers, very bad for everyone else... Don't expect to see the B-29.


My regards,

Widewing

Alright then lets try this....

When the B-29 was operating, very little if any opposition was mounted by the Japanese.  Thus, scenarios/events involving the B-29 would be rather boring.  Hence, no B-29 needed for a scenario, NO B-29.

Another reason is that except for the tail guns, all guns were remotely sighted and fired. To do that would really be a coding challenge.


My regards,

Widewing

The periscopic gunsight can indeed be a problem. They tried to implement it for the Ar 234 long time ago, but ti didn't work. It's not so much a coding problem we do have remote controlled  turrets in AH already but a graphical one - Trying to put the point of view into that small periscope resulted in clipping errors. Of course it's all specualtion about how difficult that would be the fix - but after all those years, we still don't have the periscopic gunsight for the 234

B-17
-----
13 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
Maximum speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h)
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Range: 2,000 mi
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)

B-29
-----
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position
Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km)
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to
externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)

Difference
---------
12,000 lbs of ord (not counting the T-14 "Earthquake"). - B-29
70 mph faster - B-29
Guns - B-29 (Same number of guns, but 20mm tailgun packs a punch).
1,250mi Range difference - B-29


Why I don't want to see it.
--------------------------
A plane at ~35k going 357 mph with our planeset is going to be INCREDIBLY difficult to catch.(the lala has a max speed of 423 on the deck...)
Bombload. 20,000 lbs of bombs? That's MORE than enough to level a field, with or without t3h n00k.

[Nemisis]

You did not listen Trigger. I said we were assuming that it would be a single bomber. It's a good compromise, good bomb load, but you get shot down, that was your one and only plane. The single plane will also solve the problem of getting shot at by 3 20mm's + at least 6 .50's.

[Vudak]

Honestly, I see the first few months being terrible, but after the novelty wears off, and several of these start to get shot down (hey, they NEED to come down to land, eventually), or have takeoff accidents (seems like a challenging bird to get airborne on a short runway), I just don't see it being that unbalancing.

People say there are so many bomber pilots with 1,000's of perks that they could fly it nonstop.  Well, that's also currently true for fighter jocks and the 262, yet for various reasons you don't see those nonstop.

Give it an absolutely massive perk price (500?), deal with two months of whines, and after that you'll finally have something decent for aspiring bomber pilots to save for.

[Nemisis]

Well we could have it perked like that if you get a formation with it. Otherwise no. I don't see people saving 500 perks to take out ONE B-29 and probably crashing and loosing all of those perks. I say maby 150-200 per plane (have an option to take out 1, 2, or 3 planes), and then it won't be unbalancing. We can't perk it at 3 times the rate for a 262 or you will get people whining that it is almost pointless to have.

[trigger2]

or you will get people whining that it is almost pointless to have.

It is.

Read all the quotes I gave, not only the first one...

[Denholm]

You did not listen Trigger....

You didn't read. Skip the part about the bomb-load.