So how is our P-39 coming?

[humble]

Aces High is not a reenactment of WW2, its a combat sim built around WW2 aircraft. Given the parameters of the game the B-29 is pretty much useless outside of scenario's and in many ways inappropriate to general gameplay (IMO). The big difference is in bomber types, the focus should be on tactical bombers not stategic since this is really a tactical flight sim.

If/when the ground game expands and anti-tank, fixed artillary, bunkers etc come into play then the ability to have a real "tactical air war" can greatly enhance the overall game play. There is very little real use for any of the strategic bombers....

As much as I'd love to see the A-26 the reality is that the A-20 is perfectly capable of doing the same job from a US planeset perspective. I'd love to see the Judy as well as one of the russian bombers ( I know one had 2 x 20mm as well{pilot controlled}....

It's the same arguement as the GV's, you need a russian heavy tank or TD and a "stock" sherman alot more then you need a King Tiger panther of german TD....

Personally I dont think we'll see the B-29 anytime this decade...

[Motherland]

Originally posted by humble
( I know one had 2 x 20mm as well{pilot controlled}....

Tu-2

Rich, the actual kill record for the 262 is 509 according to wikipedia, which sounds about right to me, but Ill try to find a better source if you wish. It also said that there were about 100 destroyed.

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by Motherland
Tu-2

Rich, the actual kill record for the 262 is 509 according to wikipedia, which sounds about right to me, but Ill try to find a better source if you wish. It also said that there were about 100 destroyed.

                           Yeah wikipedia doesnt count tho I appreciate you making the effort.

                           If it was indeed 509, and not the 250 I said, then the contribution it made towards the German war effort was nil. American industry alone was probably spitting out 500 airplanes an hour at the time.

                          Now as a perk aircraft in a combat sim the ME-262 is superb and makes a great contribution to the game. The AR-234 is also a tremendous addition and perk bomber for us bomber types.

                        For the record I'd rather see the TU-2 and A-26 introduced in AH more then any other aircraft. 3'rd would be the B-29. But, thats my style. I fly fast heavily gunned medium bombers towards the biggest dars on the map.

                       I really fail to see how the B-29 would be inappropriate to the game. I just dont understand that statement. But I guess there are members who dont like bombers and feel that they interfere with "their" gameplay. Which is pretty selfish. 90+% of the map is unused due to this tactical/furball mindset.

[humble]

It's not a question of anyones "gameplay" per se....

I'm most likely to be found trolling around in an A-20 (which I fly strictly as a fighter)...

My questions/concerns regarding buffs are as follows...

1) you already have a very artificial system for buff gunning. given the AH realities the B-29 will be all but invulnerable.

2) There is no real strategic bombing model so almost all buff missions are somewhat artificial in nature. I think AH should limit buffs to 2 engine tactical planes outside of scenarios...

3) unrealistic formations

IRL buffs cant manuever in formation they way they do in AH. Formation flying for the heavies was very taxing and losses in both training and combat were high. The B-24 training bases in the US had losses of roughly 1 bomber & crew per day due to training mishaps.

4) easy mode bombing...

I almpst never fly buffs and I can hit stuff almost 100%. Bombing is totally s no skill proposition.


So the reality is that AH has made buffs a "lowest common denominator" endeavor that allow anyone to participate. It's the "easy mode" aspect of the game {this is not ment to take way from 999000, beefcake, solar and the others who could do it the "old fashioned way" as well}...

It's not that I'm anti buff, I'm anti what AH has done with them...

[TUXC]

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/dusen.html

This was from a very quick search for a non-wikipedia source, so I'm sure a better list can be found.

If you click on the aces' names then you can see the individual kill claims. This is only a list of pilots with 5 or more kills in jets, so taking into account all pilots with 1-4 kill claims then the total is probably well over 400.



I see no reason why we shouldn't have a B-29 in the game, but I do not want to see it at the expense of other development work. As of now, many of the aircraft that historically intercepted the B-29 are not even in the game yet. Personally I'd rather see the current planes that still have the old graphics (Hellcat, Me 262, La 5 and 7, Bf 110s, Ta 152, Tempest, etc.) get updated in both appearance and, if needed, flight models.

Also, does anyone know if our runways are even long enough for a B-29 to take off and land at the sea level fields let alone fields at altitude?

[Rich46yo]

Whats so artificial? I could say the same thing about fighters anyways. Yesterday ,for the 2nd day in a row, I shot the wing off an F-4U and the fighter stick was still able to fly it home. Earlier in the day I got shot to pieces cause I was in bomb sight mode, "which is totally unrealistic and never happened in real life.

                       The B-29 will probably be as invulnerable as the 262 is. There is no way you can model radar controlled guns. And the "skill" is in how you approach the target in order to drop your bombs. I spend a lot of time avoiding the conga lines to get in on the target, and to do so at the proper angle of attack. Releasing the bombs still takes timing and coordination.

                     What exactly is the "old fashioned way". And why would anyone still do it that way? You think dive bombing froma Jabo takes more skill?

                    I understand many in this game look down on Buffs drivers and the airplanes they fly. Its human nature this "elitism" thing and stems from our tribal instincts that we always have someone to look down on. This is mostly a fighter airplane game and i thin k a lot of fighter sticks have expectations that bombers should allow themselves to be shot down at the fighter sticks leisure. Funny but the ones who always vent that flying the bombers takes no skill are the same ones who never fly them their ownselves. As if flying a cartoon fighter takes more skill then a cartoon bomber?

                 Im not against fighters per say, Im just against what AH has done with them. And it sounds like Humble has taken some thumps while flying against bombers. There are some guys who will only come in against helpless bombers and they run when first pinged a couple of times.

                     

Originally posted by humble
It's not a question of anyones "gameplay" per se....

I'm most likely to be found trolling around in an A-20 (which I fly strictly as a fighter)...

My questions/concerns regarding buffs are as follows...

1) you already have a very artificial system for buff gunning. given the AH realities the B-29 will be all but invulnerable.

2) There is no real strategic bombing model so almost all buff missions are somewhat artificial in nature. I think AH should limit buffs to 2 engine tactical planes outside of scenarios...

3) unrealistic formations

IRL buffs cant manuever in formation they way they do in AH. Formation flying for the heavies was very taxing and losses in both training and combat were high. The B-24 training bases in the US had losses of roughly 1 bomber & crew per day due to training mishaps.

4) easy mode bombing...

I almpst never fly buffs and I can hit stuff almost 100%. Bombing is totally s no skill proposition.


So the reality is that AH has made buffs a "lowest common denominator" endeavor that allow anyone to participate. It's the "easy mode" aspect of the game {this is not ment to take way from 999000, beefcake, solar and the others who could do it the "old fashioned way" as well}...

It's not that I'm anti buff, I'm anti what AH has done with them...

[humble]

The current calibration is basically point and click. The prior "original" calibration model was more realistic. In fact the "distain" you note is nothing other then a combination of the following...

The entire bomber experience is dumbed down now to make it the lowest denominator. Easy to gun, easy to bomb...any zipcode can bomb effectively.

As a side note I can kill any bomber in any fighter including the 202 95%+ of the time without taking damage let alone dieing regardless of pilot. Now obviously if your facing a good pilot/gunner then you may have to give up your attack at times since your positioning and speed are much critical. The higher the altitiude that more marginal many fighters capabilities are vs the 4 engine buffs in particular. Most of the time (not always) if I die to a buff it's because I'm trying to break up a bombing run.

BTW it was not uncommon for planes to RTB missing wingtips, just like buffs could absorb huge amounts of damage IRL as well as the game. Jabo attacks take far far more skill then bombing from buffs, now divebombing using buffs in really just an even dweebier form of buffing.

As for skill, the reason that buffs even exist is because learning to fly fighters well does take so much time and effort.

[MajIssue]

I agree that the P-39 would make a good addition to the game... With the Soviet gun package it would be a fun airplane to fly. It would be great to have the "Red Star" version as well as the US version... A "no nuke available", heavily perked B-29, HE-111, A-26 and JU-52 would be welcome additions as well. More choices=more fun...

The argument that there are to many US bomber types is simply dumb... What other country [not counting the UK] had a SUSTAINED strategic bombing offensive in WW2? the answer in NOBODY!!! Most other combatants used bombers in the CAS role. This includes Germany who was unable [due to heavy losses] to sustain it's strategic bombing of Great Britain during the BoB. Representing every fringe aircraft would be a waste of effort to model hanger queens that would be religated to EW and MW arenas that few(other than score monkeys... you know who you are ) fly in anyway

[Arlo]

Originally posted by MajIssue


The argument that there are to many US bomber types is simply dumb... What other country [not counting the UK] had a SUSTAINED strategic bombing offensive in WW2? the answer in NOBODY!!!  

Lighten up, Francis.

[straffo]

SUSTAINED strategic bombing

I guess it explain also why there is so much US tactical bombers in AH

[Tilt]

Yak3 remains the most heavily used mid 44 fighter yet to be added to AH....and I reckon it is the Spit 8 to the Yak9U's Spit 9.

P39N/Q would be neat to..............

[TUXC]

Originally posted by MajIssue
Representing every fringe aircraft would be a waste of effort to model hanger queens that would be religated to EW and MW arenas that few(other than score monkeys... you know who you are ) fly in anyway

There's a lot more to this game than the main arenas. All those "hangar queens" are important for use in historical scenarios, FSO, snapshots, and the other special events.

[Hien]

P-39Q, yes, add it.  We need more planes in general.

B-29, sure, whatever.  Add it, perk it, no nuke for it.  Problem solved.  Let it exist, not many people will use it up where it was known, because they want to drop their payload, not fly for an hour, just climbing.

Pe-2, yes.  Very yes.  Even better.  Pe-3 bis.  The fighter version, with 2 20mms and 2 12.7mm guns.  Slightly faster than the standard Pe-2.

Tu-2, yes.   It's just good.   No two ways about it.

I could go on and on about aircraft I want, or just think we need.   At the end of the day everyone wants planes they like.  And I don't see anything wrong with that.

If it is possible, I wish that every aircraft from WW2 that fits the requirements should be added.  Why?  Because there is nothing wrong with that.  It would give experienced MA players more choices in the MA, and would make the Snapshots/etc much better.  And open up more choices.

I was reading an old Air Warrior Site a while back, and they were using the Zeros as Ki-43s.  

 And though Aces High is not Air Warrior, I would prefer to use Ki-43s as Ki-43s.  So why not just add every plane (that fits the requirements) to the planeset?  Who cares if it 'impacted the war greatly' or 'didn't actually do anything.'   Just add EVERYTHING, that might actually make most of us happy.

Who cares if something is a Hanger Queen.  Better to be a Hanger Queen than not an option, at least to me.  

[Motherland]

Originally posted by Hien

 And though Aces High is not Air Warrior, I would prefer to use Ki-43s as Ki-43s.  So why not just add every plane (that fits the requirements) to the planeset?  Who cares if it 'impacted the war greatly' or 'didn't actually do anything.'   Just add EVERYTHING, that might actually make most of us happy.

Thats not the problem. The problem is what to add first.

[Hien]

Yeah, I suppose.  It's too bad the staff isn't available for multiple add ons at once.