« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Reasons to add the B-29  (Read 4457 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2005, 12:13:51 AM »
I actually do want to see the B-29A added at some point.  It will need to be perked heavily and of course there will be no nuke.  I don't agree with SELECTOR that it should be limited to rear bases or that it should lack the formation option.  The nearly 80lbs/sq.ft of wing loading will limit it to certain bases as it is.  To compare, a fully laden Lancaster is just over 60lbs/sq.ft of wing loading as I recall.
Logged
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline SuperDud

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4587
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2005, 02:15:47 AM »
alrifght guys, icve had a few(amany) drinks. I'm ready now...


zOMDFGER@@R N00okieoes@$@$@R BVig MUTHA bb000mm@!$$R@R YEAHDADFWQD!E..



YEDHAADSCF big nboommedery@!#$$@@$ QUAH!@##!#!
Logged
SuperDud
++Blue Knights++

Offline KD303

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 201
#####
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2005, 06:42:58 AM »
It'd certainly be good to have another perked bomber, rather than just the Arado, even if the B29 didn't see action in Europe. Not that that matters, but, hell I'm European, so I'm biased as hell. However, ME163s against B29s, seems to strip away yey another layer of historical accuracy. Not that that seems to matter. And why should it? I guess. Mumble...
Logged

Offline nirvana

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5640
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2005, 09:13:17 PM »
100 points for formation or per plane?
Logged
Who are you to wave your finger?

Offline toadkill

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2005, 11:30:03 AM »
i would like to see the b29, i think it should cost more than the arado, because the arado is just sort of pointless. the b29 i think should cost about 75 perkies per plane. so in the end it would cost about the same as the me-262
Logged
<S>
Toad

Offline viper215

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1076
      • http://www.bops.us
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2005, 08:25:18 PM »
ok before you post more crap about b29s READ THE 49872938769965736978593947979 47094790469009757101234567889 09876543 other posts about trying to get them:rolleyes::furious :rolleyes: :furious :rolleyes: :furious :rolleyes: :furious
Logged
- Viper215 - Birds of Prey - Falcon Wing -
               - www.bops.us -

Offline Raptor

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7577
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2005, 09:05:43 PM »
difference in this post and the billion other posts about B29 is he put in a feasible reason to have it. All bombers (a20 and Il2 are exceptions) are easy targets below 10k, even a B17 or B24. Hell, B24 catches on fire with 1 pass. When the time comes for the B29, it should be available at all fields, I say this because what moron in his right mind is going to up a perked bomber on the frontlines and have to climb with enemy fighters around. Only a few would be interested in the hour+ flight required for a B29, not to mention the amount that will die bacause they hit a tree on takeoff. B17s and B24s would still be the most heavily used bombers

There were Japanese plans to use 163s, so the 163 vs B29 could fall under the "what if" scenarios.



Right now, be wishing for an earlier B17 and B24 instead of later B29.
Logged

Offline BBQ_Bob

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
      • http://uknightedstates.net
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2005, 12:42:55 AM »
OK here's the deal, give each country one B29 with a nuke and only the person with the best rank from each country can pilot it. That way we would have assured mutual destruction, who knows maybe we can end this unholy war.


P.S. Just so the Knights win :aok
Logged
UKNIGHTED Propaganda Minister
"There are no Hells Angels in the MA, never"

"they are nowhere near the airport ..they are lost in the desert...they can not read a compass...they are retarded."

For a good time ~~ www.uknightedstates.net

Offline toadkill

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
would everyone shut up about nuke!
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2005, 03:38:54 PM »
i dont really like the nuke idea its just too powerful, it would have to cost lots of perkies from everyone on the team, because of the massive damage, and hiteck would have to add a "fallout" effect, where if you fly too long in a recently nuked zone you start to black out and die. the nuke if it was the same size explosion would flatten only 1 grid square anyways, thuse the only reall usage would be as an hq buster (or to level the furball areas, just to see eveyones reactions), but hte "fallout" would really spread over an area of at least 9 grid squares, and that woudl be annoying, having to fly around a 9 square area just  because some score potato used his nuke. this nuke, not the b29 idea would fall into the category of stopping people from flying in a flying game.

:furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious
Logged
<S>
Toad

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2005, 06:45:13 PM »
See, you start off with "no No0Kz", but you've obviously considered it, or you wouldn't have posted that whacky rationale.

NO NO0KS 4 j00!!!!111!!!1
Logged
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline PropNut

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 124
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2005, 12:22:33 AM »
Duck and Cover :p
Logged

Offline toadkill

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 384
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2005, 03:36:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hubsonfire
See, you start off with "no No0Kz", but you've obviously considered it, or you wouldn't have posted that whacky rationale.


to deny something you must consider it. to blindly deny something is a mistake.
Logged
<S>
Toad

Offline Schutt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1138
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2005, 05:19:37 AM »
Please add a B 29 arena where all the b 29 dudes can fly around with their b 29s.

Since in that arena only plane would be b 29 you could pretend the b 24 is a b 29, just relable the bomb load.
Logged

Offline outbreak

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 422
Reasons to add the B-29
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2005, 06:25:59 AM »
lmao thats a good one, Rename the bomb load lol. One thing tho! THE DAMN 24 DONT LOOK NOTHING LIKE THE 29 LOL! but that was a good one =] shoot ya later.

P.S i need to visit the forums more hehe
« Last Edit: October 25, 2005, 06:33:00 AM by outbreak »
Logged

Offline Skilless

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 578
      • http://www.4remnants.com
Re: #####
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2005, 10:39:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by KD303
It'd certainly be good to have another perked bomber, rather than just the Arado, even if the B29 didn't see action in Europe. Not that that matters, but, hell I'm European, so I'm biased as hell. However, ME163s against B29s, seems to strip away yey another layer of historical accuracy. Not that that seems to matter. And why should it? I guess. Mumble...


Like P51s dogfighting with Spitfires or a Jug having it out with a LA7 is historically accurate?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »