Prototype Days (or arena)

[1carbine]

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/world-war-2-aircraft.asp


I posted the link above to a lot of planes we don't have, some we do, others not so popular but one that did see air time was the B-29 but apparently it didn't have enough "historical significance" to be put in the game but oh well thank you for taking the time to read my post and thank spell check for my grammar   

[Spikes]

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/world-war-2-aircraft.asp


I posted the link above to a lot of planes we don't have, some we do, others not so popular but one that did see air time was the B-29 but apparently it didn't have enough "historical significance" to be put in the game but oh well thank you for taking the time to read my post and thank spell check for my grammar   

There are other reasons the 29 isn't in game.

[Ack-Ack]

Historical insignificance as you put it is not the reason why the B-29 isn't in game, nor would I consider the plane that dropped two atomic bombs during war time to be 'historically insignificant'.


ack-ack

[RufusLeaking]

Historical insignificance as you put it is not the reason why the B-29 isn't in game, nor would I consider the plane that dropped two atomic bombs during war time to be 'historically insignificant'.


ack-ack

OK.  I'll bite.  Why isn't the B-29 in the game?

It would probably be unbalancing, but the same can be said for the 262. 

Has there been anything official on the B-29? 

It is not on my wish list.  I am curious.

[haasehole]

 I think it would end up being the most common bomber flown due to defense and pay load. currenly if you want large payload you pay the price of not having a belly gun.

[Bubbajj]

I think they'd be fun to include. Perk the hell out of it so there is something to do with bomber perks and then reduce the perk on and expand bases of Komets   Being perked, you might actually see people landing bombers after a strike.

[1carbine]

There are other reasons the 29 isn't in game.

If you could give me all of Hitechs reasoning's that would be nice I've been looking for them on the boards but can't find him saying anything on it I'm probably not looking hard enough. 

[dhart]

OK.  I'll bite.  Why isn't the B-29 in the game?

It would probably be unbalancing, but the same can be said for the 262. 

Has there been anything official on the B-29? 

It is not on my wish list.  I am curious.

The 262 contributed less to the war than the B-29, why have it if you dont have the other?

[Ack-Ack]

It would probably be unbalancing, but the same can be said for the 262. 

Has there been anything official on the B-29? 

Search back a few years (about 6 or 7 years) for Pyro's post and you'll read why it isn't in game.  It's due to balancing issues, at least according to Pyro's post.  It would render the other bombers in the game hanger queens.


ack-ack

[Chalenge]

I believe that is a mistaken thought. By all rights the bigger bombers should have made the Ju87 a hangar queen and yet we still see them. If the ENY of the B-29 makes perk farming with it impossible then the other bombers will still fly. A hefty perk value can go a long way in that department.

[Gabriel]

Like the 262 renders everything a hangar queen 

[1carbine]

Search back a few years (about 6 or 7 years) for Pyro's post and you'll read why it isn't in game.  It's due to balancing issues, at least according to Pyro's post.  It would render the other bombers in the game hanger queens.


ack-ack

even if we had the B-29 it wouldn't make up for the IL-2 in tank killing and it doesn't climb like a B-17 so I'd still use it for short range bombings but with the new strat system i think it would be well suited for long range runs I can do without the CFCS controlled guns

[Ack-Ack]

even if we had the B-29 it wouldn't make up for the IL-2 in tank killing and it doesn't climb like a B-17 so I'd still use it for short range bombings but with the new strat system i think it would be well suited for long range runs I can do without the CFCS controlled guns

The IL2 and the B-29 hardly compare, so using that as a comparison as to why other bombers wouldn't be rendered hanger queens isn't valid. 

B-29 carries a larger payload and carries more of it and would be the fastest piston engine bomber in game, don't kid yourself if you don't think it would be selected over any other bomber, regardless of the mission.

I believe that is a mistaken thought. By all rights the bigger bombers should have made the Ju87 a hangar queen and yet we still see them. If the ENY of the B-29 makes perk farming with it impossible then the other bombers will still fly. A hefty perk value can go a long way in that department.

Hefty perk cost will only hinder those that haven't been playing that long.  There is a very large group of players with enough bomber perks that they can fly the B-29 exclusively and lose them every flight for as long as they play.


ack-ack

[Chalenge]

Bring them on! Great fighter perks killing B-29s! 

[1carbine]

The IL2 and the B-29 hardly compare, so using that as a comparison as to why other bombers wouldn't be rendered hanger queens isn't valid. 

B-29 carries a larger payload and carries more of it and would be the fastest piston engine bomber in game, don't kid yourself if you don't think it would be selected over any other bomber, regardless of the mission.

Hefty perk cost will only hinder those that haven't been playing that long.  There is a very large group of players with enough bomber perks that they can fly the B-29 exclusively and lose them every flight for as long as they play.


ack-ack

Here's an example I like to take bombers down the enemy coast and hit the radar since I don't waste the time climbing a lancasters up to 15,000 feet to do so, so I'll take B-17's up and across the water and be up there in no time why waste a B-29 to do a simple run like taking out ordinance or dar.