B-29 Super Fortress

[oakranger]

SEMP, when asking for the B-29, some are thinking of special events.  NOT the MA.

[Volron]

This was likely mentioned before, but the perk price would have to be equal, if not higher, than the 262 for 1 plane in the MA.  Maybe 300-500 perks per plane?  Using the high end, 1500 perks to up a formation.  Not like it would be a problem for a lot of folks.  If the B-29 was added today, I would propose a wipe of perk points.  The problem with that is, it will chase away a lot of players.  As I saw mentioned in earlier posts, a lot of players are there for the furballing, mission/base hording type of style.  Having to lose their perk points just so a few folks could have the B-29, wouldn't do well for HTC.

oakranger
Currently, the IJAC line up is lacking the planes to properly intercept the B-29.  So until they are added, even in scenarios, the B-29 would be a broken plane.  The exception to this is if the staff put a alt cap on them, maybe 20-25k.  Then, it's possible for them being useful in the scenario's with current IJAC line up.  "You fly higher than this, and your side is heavily penalized.", kind of thing.  Not sure how they would keep track of the altitude's though.  It would probably come in the form of screen shots from the IJ fliers, but this would be after the fact.  Maybe putting a harsher penalty into it, would compel people to stick to the alt restrictions.  "In also incurring a heavy penalty to your side, the squad assigned to the B-29 breaking this alt cap, will not be allowed to fly the B-29 in the next scenario and/or not allowed to participate in the next scenario.  If found to be repeating-ly, breaking this rule, the squad in question, will be banned from attending Special Events.".  This would mean that a squad would need to be sure of the people they are using, are very trust worthy. 

But I already see a problem with what I said.  You can never be 100% sure about new squad mates, which in turn, might prevent you from taking them along for a B-29 mission.  They, in turn, might despise the squad for not allowing them to join for a B-29 mission.  However, the penalty for a person on a squad, shooting down a bunch of allied planes (whether he's stupid/new and doesn't know better/intentionally), is heavy on the squad that person flew with.  So maybe it isn't too harsh of a penalty?

[gyrene81]

I am talking about the mainland Japan.  20th (Strategic) Army Air Force was the only group assign to bomb mainland Japan and the B-29 was the ONLY bomber to bomb Japan most of the war. 

No the 20th (Strategic) Army Air Force was the only group assign to bomb mainland Japan it wasn't the ONLY bomber to bomb Japan most of the war...geez you have got to learn to use the english language better if you're going to argue a point. The 20th Bomber Group was the only USAAF bomb group to get it, yes. It was the only bomber to drop ordinance on mainland Japan since 1942, yes. It was used almost exclusively during the final stages of the war against Japan, yes. But it wasn't the only bomber used to drop bombs on mainlan Japan most of the war...

Japan was bombed from bases in India and China on: 7 July 1944 (14 B-29s), 29 July (70+), 10 August (24), 20 August (61), 8 September (90), 26 September (83), 25 October (59), 12 November (29), 21 November (61), 19 December (36) and for the last time on 6 January 1945 (49).

After the capture of the Marianas Islands the first run consisted of 111 planes on November 29 1944...and the numbers increased as more planes were put online...your book should have told you that.

Yes, them small island that are part of Japan have been bomb by bomber Groups of 5th, 7th and 13th Army Air Force but such a small scale compare to the maidland. 

Oh, and yes it would be a great FSO or special event it will work.

I wouldn't call several hundred bombing missions with B-17s "small scale" by any stretch of the imagination...it may not have been as much ordinance as what was dropped on the mainland but it wasn't small scale by the number of planes and sorties flown.

And no it wouldn't be great for FSO or special events...first, the Japanese planes that existed during that time don't exist in AH...and, no one would want to fly it at less than 20k alt like it was flown in early 1945 when it was decided that high alt missions weren't accurate enough and losses to anti aircraft fire were too high.




Volron, in the special events arenas they can put high speed winds at whatever altitude ceiling they want to keep people from going higher...and it's pretty effective...only problem with the B-29s would be that those settings would also penalize legitimate planes from getting higher as well.

[oakranger]

No the 20th (Strategic) Army Air Force was the only group assign to bomb mainland Japan it wasn't the ONLY bomber to bomb Japan most of the war

The 20th Bomber Group was the only USAAF bomb group to assigned to bomb mainland Japan.  The other bomber groups where assigned south-west pacific, India – Burma operations and China.  If you keep telling me it wasn't the only bomber bombing Japan, what other bomber keep bombing it besides B-29?





I wouldn't call several hundred bombing missions with B-17s "small scale" by any stretch of the imagination...it may not have been as much ordinance as what was dropped on the mainland but it wasn't small scale by the number of planes and sorties flown.

And no it wouldn't be great for FSO or special events...first, the Japanese planes that existed during that time don't exist in AH...

Yes it would make a great FSO event.  Yes we do lack on a few IJ planes but we still have the Ki-84, Ki-61, NIK2-J and A6M5 that too took on the B-29 historically.    But that would not matter sine we have the B-17G in some early war event (Too Little, Too Late- Philippines December 1941) way to early to be in this event.

and, no one would want to fly it at less than 20k alt like it was flown in early 1945 when it was decided that high alt missions weren't accurate enough and losses to anti aircraft fire were too high.

Volron, in the special events arenas they can put high speed winds at whatever altitude ceiling they want to keep people from going higher...and it's pretty effective...only problem with the B-29s would be that those settings would also penalize legitimate planes from getting higher as well.


I am sure some will not get that high give time factor to hit the targets.  and with the wind factor, i seen people go 1,000 feet or higher and sill dose not effect their performance. 

[Volron]

Volron, in the special events arenas they can put high speed winds at whatever altitude ceiling they want to keep people from going higher...and it's pretty effective...only problem with the B-29s would be that those settings would also penalize legitimate planes from getting higher as well.

Though I didn't know that they restricted altitude in that manner, that isn't what I meant.  It would be a, "fly by honor", type of thing for the squad assigned to the B-29.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I doubt that ANY of the squads in SEA's would break that altitude cap intentionally.  There may be one or two folks in the assigned squad, that may do that, but how is that any different than if those one or two folks, shot down a bunch of allies?  Seeing as the B-29 is a broken plane against the current Japanese AC lineup, the penalty can be set to be heavy until more Japanese AC capable of intercepting the B-29 came into play.  As those planes are introduced, you would remove the altitude penalty.  I'm just tossing out a thought on this issue, in which the B-29 could be introduced for SEA.

[Karnak]

Though I didn't know that they restricted altitude in that manner, that isn't what I meant.  It would be a, "fly by honor", type of thing for the squad assigned to the B-29.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I doubt that ANY of the squads in SEA's would break that altitude cap intentionally.  There may be one or two folks in the assigned squad, that may do that, but how is that any different than if those one or two folks, shot down a bunch of allies?  Seeing as the B-29 is a broken plane against the current Japanese AC lineup, the penalty can be set to be heavy until more Japanese AC capable of intercepting the B-29 came into play.  As those planes are introduced, you would remove the altitude penalty.  I'm just tossing out a thought on this issue, in which the B-29 could be introduced for SEA.

Why add the B-29 now in that case?  It would take HTC a lot of dev time to add the B-29, whereas many of the needed Japanese aircraft could be added in the same time.


I do think people grossly exaggerate the impact it would have on AH.  The people who advocate for it also seem to ignore the resources it would cost to add it.


If the need for another perk bomber is so dire, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI or A-26 would take a fraction of the resources to add.

[oakranger]

Why add the B-29 now in that case?  It would take HTC a lot of dev time to add the B-29, whereas many of the needed Japanese aircraft could be added in the same time.


I do think people grossly exaggerate the impact it would have on AH.  The people who advocate for it also seem to ignore the resources it would cost to add it.


If the need for another perk bomber is so dire, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI or A-26 would take a fraction of the resources to add.

Hey, in all argument i do agree.  There are many other AC that are needed too.  Diversity in plane set what make AH more interesting.

[jdbecks]

The only good thing that the B29 would add if it had a high perk price, would hopefully lead to alot less suicide bombing runs and also more buffs to shoot down 

[1Boner]

If the need for another perk bomber is so dire, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI or A-26 would take a fraction of the resources to add.

I keep hearing people call the A-26 a "bomber", wasn't it an "Attack" plane made for attacking ground targets? (trains, gvs, troops etc.)

I thought thats what they were supposed to be used for, despite the misuse of the "attack" category in the game.

[Karnak]

I keep hearing people call the A-26 a "bomber", wasn't it an "Attack" plane made for attacking ground targets? (trains, gvs, troops etc.)

I thought thats what they were supposed to be used for, despite the misuse of the "attack" category in the game.

It would still fall under the "Bomber" category in AH, just as the A-20 does.

[JOACH1M]

I think we need B29 becasue a WW2 flight sim the b29 was apart of WW2 and the only issue issue is the nuke that it would carry. I think you you guys should perk the plane to about 5-10 and perk the nuclear bomb so people just cant go aroung a nuke airfields. Lastly i would like for it to be banned from the DA because the rooks think they are the Eighth airforce bombing the Knites are getting bombed 24/7. 

[oakranger]

I think we need B29 becasue a WW2 flight sim the b29 was apart of WW2 and the only issue issue is the nuke that it would carry. I think you you guys should perk the plane to about 5-10 and perk the nuclear bomb so people just cant go aroung a nuke airfields. Lastly i would like for it to be banned from the DA because the rooks think they are the Eighth airforce bombing the Knites are getting bombed 24/7. 

I am not sure why some see no need for the B-29 other than they think ppl will milkrun 3-4 bases in one sortie.  Oh wait, i was told that it will not balance the plane set on AH, a overstatement.  The perk would have to be really high with the overrated 262.  No nukes.  they only drop 2 with a total... something tons where other ords was + 100,000 tones. 

[gyrene81]

I am not sure why some see no need for the B-29 other than they think ppl will milkrun 3-4 bases in one sortie.

What exactly is the need for the B-29?

AH already has:

B-17G - 6000lbs payload - ceiling 35,600ft at 287mph
B-24J - 8000lbs payload - ceiling 28,000ft at 290mph
B-25C - 3000lbs payload - ceiling 21,200ft at 256mph
B-25H - 3000lbs payload - ceiling 25,000ft at 275mph
B-26B - 4000lbs payload - ceiling 21,000ft at 214mph
A-20G/Boston MkIII - 4000lbs payload - ceiling 23,700ft at 312mph

Lancaster III - 16000lbs payload - ceiling 23,500ft at 264mph


Please tell us what you cannot do with those bombers that you could with a B-29 on any terrain available in AH right now...aside from dropping a nuke or wiping out a large airfield in one pass.

B-29 -20,000lbs payload - ceiling 33,000ft at 357mph

[Beefcake]

What exactly is the need for the B-29?

I'm going to ask you the same question.

What exactly is the need for any other fighter in AH? We already have a ton of fighters to do other fighters jobs.

Why do we need a P51H when we have the CHog?
Why do we need a 410 when we have the 110s and Mossie?
Why do we need Panther when we have the Firefly?
Why do we need a Ki43 when we have the Ki84?
Why do we need a Helldiver when we have the SBD?
Why do we need a Judy when we have the Kate & Val?
Why do we need the He111 when we have the Ju88?
etc etc etc

Do you see what I'm getting at? Pretty much every aircraft that is NOT in AH already has an AH counterpart that could do it's job. Does that mean we shouldn't add them because of that? No.

AH needs a perked bomber that can be used for a wider role than the Ar234. However, it doesn't have to be a B29, honestly I would like to see the glass nose A26 with drones. It could fly at what? 400 MPH with a decent gun defense and it could carry 8000lbs of ord.

[1Boner]

It would still fall under the "Bomber" category in AH, just as the A-20 does.

So then IF it was introduced to AH, it would be able to be flown in "attack" or "Bomber" mode only?