A26 as new perk ride

[TUXC]

Good point on the Bostons, though I'm willing to bet that most of those Bostons were below 10k when then died. Even Ar234s become vulnerable when they get low enough.

So imagine something with the speed of a Boston with 4x0.5"MGs that cover the rear hemisphere. Now you have an A-26. There's no way it would justify anywhere near the number of perks the Ar234 has, just enough to give people a reason to fly the other twin engine bombers and attack planes so you don't see the sky filled with Invaders.

[humble]

Originally posted by Rich46yo
I have no problem with perking the A-26 as long as it isn't perked heavily. It just didn't have the impact to justify a heavy perk, and wouldnt in the game. The A-26 in WW-ll was a pretty lost bomber always looking for a mission.

                     I suspect in AH it will have more success then it had in actual life. In AH it will probably be used more as a "bomber-killer" then a "bomber".

                   Perked heavily it would end up a Queen. It wasnt as fast as a Mossie, didn't have the bombload of a B-26, and was defensively armed about as good as the B-25. I love flying the mediums so Im all for it but not with a heavy perk.

                  I dont see how the A-26 outguns the Marauder. It may have a few more guns in the nose but the B-26 has waist guns and a tail gun, as well as a chin gun. How to defeat the A-26?? Either side attacks or rapid climb attacks. Hitting a fighter climbing quickly with a ventral turret, with a tail turret, is very difficult. I just dont see defending the A-26 as being easier then it is a B-26. Forget the nose guns unless for strafing, or unless a noob HOs you. Im assuming it will turn about as good as the A-20 correct?

             Its best defense would be its speed. Its "speed" would put fighters into making decisions of either pursuing a poor angle of attack or breaking off.

1st the A-26 (and the A-20G) are not bombers. They also are not bombers modified as "strafers" like the B-25. They are really an early attempt at the "strike fighter" concept IMO before the technology existed. The A-20 is much more nimble and responsive then any other bomber and its pilots actually loved its ability to "dogfight". The A-20G we have is actually much more of a true attack plane then a bomber...think of it as an early skyraider or such...

I have no reason to argue the weaknesses in the control surface and wing structure. Those are the only things that keep the A-20 from being competative with any fighter in the game. An A-20 with the control surface/wing "integrity" of a P-38 would be formidable as long as it had air to play with.

The A-26 actually had a better then 1 to 1 K/D ratio in the ETO. Speed would not be an issue, the A-20 is more then fast enough. The real question would be the ability to withstand G's at high speed and the control surface authority at those speeds...

Obviously I'd love to see the A-26...but truthfully the A-20 fills the niche quite nicely and other true bombers are needed more. The A-20 was basically the US equivelent of the IL-2. It's a close support attack plane...not a bomber or fighter. It is however a suprisingly good air to air plane as well.

Now the boston is as manuevable but has the glass nose and bombsite as well as the .303's up front. But a well flown Boston will make you sweat a bit also.

[humble]

From what I can find the A-26 has a maximum dive speed of 425 mph. If this is the high G # then its about 30 or 35 MPH above the a-20 which can pop wings under 400 at high G's. I can dive the A-20 to about the same speed if I'm well trimmed and have shallowed the dive angle. Any real control input over 410 will shed stuff. So if the A-26 is fully manueverable to 425 and requires finess up till 450 or so {just throwing a number out} then it would be a formidable step up over the a-20 as an E fighter.

[SIG220]

Originally posted by SuBWaYCH
Ok, #1: They will not be adding another aircraft for atleast 4-5 months, so stop your whinin' already.
#2: Don't pressure/Say/Do anything to HTC. A PNG and most likely a ban will result in that.
#3: Although I agree A-26 should be added, There really is no reason to perk it.
#4: If we get any sort of bomber next it will NOT be an american one. Other countries need planes to ya' know.
#5: Accept the fact that the Arado 234 is the only perked bomber in the game.


Wow,
Subway

I sort of disagree with much that has been said in this thread.   To me, the game should focus on the planes that played actually significant roles in the war.   Both the Arado 234 and the Me 163 were insignificant planes that had no real impact on the war.  I personally don't see any reason to have either of them, if one wants to replay real history.

To me, the Me 163 actually harms the game, as it clearly flies much better in Aces High II than it did in real life.   These planes were never ever able to maneuver that well, or engage multiple aircraft in the actual war.   In fact, they had no throttle you could even control.  By all historical accounts, the plane was an absolute failure.   But here in the game, it plays a major role in combating high flying bombers.

It is a shame that fighter pilots have so many perk planes to choose from, yet all us buff pilots have is the Arado 234.

To me, the bomber that should be added as a perk plane is clearly the B-29   This bomber played a huge role in the last several months of the war in defeating Japan.

The A-26 would be nice to have too.   But I would say the B-29 deserves to be added before it is, due to its much greater role in the war.

That said, the game already has way more planes than any person is capable of mastering.   And certainly the most significant ones are already represented.

If I could have one wish, it would be to actually remove the Me 163.   That would make life for Buff pilots much more fair.

SIG 220

[TUXC]

Originally posted by SIG220
If I could have one wish, it would be to actually remove the Me 163.

Lol. If they ever add a perked B-29 will the bomber pilots quit complaining about the 163s that are everywhere?  

[Relorian]

Sorry there Sig, but the B-29 wouldnt be a good choice. Given the current limit on bomb pounds per plane and my understanding that they wont make one heavier than the lancaster, the B-29 is out.  Add that to all the idiots who'd then demand the ability to drop a "nook" out of it.

I think the Invader would fit quite nicely into AH2. Id sure as hell fly it. Of course Ive posted wishlists with great plane choices as well, but I somehow missed the invader.

[Karnak]

They've never said they won't make one heavier than the Lanc.  The B-29 is used as an example of a possible perk unit in their description of the perk system.

What they said is they won't make a bomb heavier than the 4k 'cookie' the Lanc carries.  But that doesn't stop the B-29 from carrying ten 2,000lb bombs, or twenty 1,000lb bombs or forty 500lb bombs, or some combo thereof.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by SIG220

To me, the Me 163 actually harms the game,  

A plane that usually has only 0.5% of all kills?

Originally posted by SIG220

But here in the game, it plays a major role in combating high flying bombers.

No it doesn't, because of low number of kills and being available at one base only (and some maps don't even that)

[Rich46yo]

Originally posted by humble
1st the A-26 (and the A-20G) are not bombers. They also are not bombers modified as "strafers" like the B-25. They are really an early attempt at the "strike fighter" concept IMO before the technology existed. The A-20 is much more nimble and responsive then any other bomber and its pilots actually loved its ability to "dogfight". The A-20G we have is actually much more of a true attack plane then a bomber...think of it as an early skyraider or such...

I have no reason to argue the weaknesses in the control surface and wing structure. Those are the only things that keep the A-20 from being competitive with any fighter in the game. An A-20 with the control surface/wing "integrity" of a P-38 would be formidable as long as it had air to play with.

The A-26 actually had a better then 1 to 1 K/D ratio in the ETO. Speed would not be an issue, the A-20 is more then fast enough. The real question would be the ability to withstand G's at high speed and the control surface authority at those speeds...

Obviously I'd love to see the A-26...but truthfully the A-20 fills the niche quite nicely and other true bombers are needed more. The A-20 was basically the US equivelent of the IL-2. It's a close support attack plane...not a bomber or fighter. It is however a suprisingly good air to air plane as well.

Now the boston is as manuevable but has the glass nose and bombsite as well as the .303's up front. But a well flown Boston will make you sweat a bit also.

                     Anyone who sweats from a Boston on their tail deserves to get shot down. Its true many probably do fly the Boston to low. Its also true that to many fly to many bombers to "low". I fly medium bombers in the 10,000' to 15,000' range, so Im somewhere in the middle.

                 I call the A-26 a bomber cause it has bomb bays and a bomb sight. At least the "C" Model did, and Im sure the "C" model would be included as well. For the same reasons I call the B-25 a bomber too, even if the bomber "C" model has become an AH hanger Queen.

               What other "true bombers" do you have in mind? Except for the B-29 we already have the most effective heavy bombers of the war so what possible heavy addition is worth the sweat of modeling it?

             I would say the fast mediums/attack bombers will fill more airspace because they are better suited to the fast pace of the game. Offhand the TU-2 and A-26 are the ones that come to mind quickest. They would have been better choices then the B-25 was.

[humble]

The A-26B was the solid nose and the C had the glass nose. My understanding is that the "B" was the original concept with the C being added as a replacement for the B-26 in the level bombing capacity. Can it be used as a bomber....sure. But the real strength of the A-26 is its ability to interdict both ground vehicles and enemy ground attack aircraft.

As for someone behind you in a boston. Well if that person knows how to fly the boston you'll have your hands full if he has a +E state.

[1redrum]

why is the HE-111 so overlooked ,IMO that and the Japanese "Betty" bomber should be done before any other bombers,,for historical and event purposes/reason

[Bronk]

Originally posted by humble


As for someone behind you in a boston. Well if that person knows how to fly the boston you'll have your hands full if he has a +E state.

Rich sorry for what I'm about to say but.........


Humble he has no idea about ACM at all. Unless it had more DEFENSIVE guns , huge bomb load an/or silly fast. It's all but useless to him.

[SIG220]

Originally posted by Lusche
A plane that usually has only 0.5% of all kills?

No it doesn't, because of low number of kills and being available at one base only (and some maps don't even that)

That is an extremely high number of kills, when one considers that the vast majority of fighting is fighter against fighter, and how it can be flown from only one base.

I'm not talking about your typical bombing runs to attack bases and towns.   I'm talking about long range high altitude bombing raids deep to the heart of the enemy land.  Such strategic bombing was what a lot of the Air War was all about in the war.  So if you actually want to replay a major part of history, the Me-163 really makes the entire scenario historically inaccurate.

And besides, as I noted, the computer model here gives the plane many abilities that it did not have have in the real world.

So I don't consider your arguments to be at all valid.

Bomber pilots do not like the Me-163.  Period.  I would settle for just the perk points being increased significantly.  They are currently quite low, in my opinion.

SIG 220

[SIG220]

Originally posted by 1redrum
why is the HE-111 so overlooked ,IMO that and the Japanese "Betty" bomber should be done before any other bombers,,for historical and event purposes/reason

That is a very valid point that you raise.   The bomber support in the game already has an allied bias to it.   And adding the B-29 first would make that even more pronounced.

SIG 220

[Lusche]

Originally posted by SIG220


  So if you actually want to replay a major part of history, the Me-163 really makes the entire scenario historically inaccurate.


So I don't consider your arguments to be at all valid.

Ever noticed that the whole Main Arenas and planes usage there isn't historical accurate in any way?


If you want to replay a major part of history, the AvA, & SEA arenas are the place to go. These arenas and the events there strive for historical accuracy of that kind (in varying degrees)

BTW, on most maps you can easily do long range strat runs without running into lots of 163's - careful planning is the key.

Originally posted by SIG220

That is an extremely high number of kills, when one considers that the vast majority of fighting is fighter against fighter, and how it can be flown from only one base.

Last Tour, Me 163s were responsible for 226 B-24 kills. That's only 1.3% out of all 16788 B-24 deaths by enemy action in LW Arena. (At same time, B24's managed to kill 49 Me163's)