We're missing the point - bombers dont need to be perked

[dirtdart]

So what?  I don't see how that's an excuse for a free B-29, if the fire issue isn't a bug.  300 perks for a B-29 formation sounds fair to me.  100 is way too low.

Why, what is significant about 100 vice 300?  Just curious where you are getting your numbers.  I came up with 100 by guessing that the average bomber sortie yields 10 perks.  If I fly 10 missions successfully, should I not be entitled to the hottest ride in the game.  300 means I have to fly 30 missions at 1 hourish per mission, which is literally over a solid day of flying to get into the hot ride.  A bit much in my estimation.  The juice is not worth the squeeze.  

[Beefcake]

Not to mention the B29 bursts into the flames if you fart near it. The threat of fire from light MG bursts makes that 100 perk per plane a bit much. Last night I had 2 squaddies lose all of their buff perks in 1 sortie because their bombers got lit on fire.

It should be perked pretty high, however, the fact that it burns so easily makes me think that it should be more like 75-80 PPP instead of 100.

[moot]

Why, what is significant about 100 vice 300?  Just curious where you are getting your numbers.  I came up with 100 by guessing that the average bomber sortie yields 10 perks.

The same way you'd argue the spit14's got too high a perk right now.  And that point difference is milder.

  If I fly 10 missions successfully, should I not be entitled to the hottest ride in the game.  300 means I have to fly 30 missions at 1 hourish per mission, which is literally over a solid day of flying to get into the hot ride.  A bit much in my estimation.  The juice is not worth the squeeze. 

So the 262 in your opinion should cost 100 perks at the very most?  I'd agree 300 is excessive and 100 more like it, if the fire issue's not a bug.

[dirtdart]

The same way you'd argue the spit14's got too high a perk right now.  And that point difference is milder.So the 262 in your opinion should cost 100 perks at the very most?  I'd agree 300 is excessive and 100 more like it, if the fire issue's not a bug.

I said "nothing should be perked over 200"....alluding to the 262. I remember seeing 300+perk costs depending on ENY, there should be a cap is all I mean by that.  200 would restrict their use enough to make the point that ENY is already making.  Hell, can you even take one up because of ENY when the perk hits the ceiling, I don't know.

One your second point, what are your thoughts on perk cost single v formation? 

[MarineUS]

-1

that is all

[VAMPIRE 2?]

thread makes sense ,   

[moot]

Dirtdart,

I think ENY perk multiplier is as it should be.  If the country is so buried in unfair odds, adding Me262 and other performance crutches that aren't correspondingly expensive is not right.
Yes, IIRC past a certain point you are flat out denied rides below a certain ENY.

Also don't see anything wrong with single/formation price.  Three times the plane/ord/guns, three times the cost.

[Dadsguns]

I disagree with the specifics - 200 points or a bit more for a B-29 formation.  You can slip past any danger in a 262 thanks to speed, but a slower 262 wouldn't have 5 regiments' worth of defensive firepower.  Unless the B-29's flammability isn't a bug, I don't think 100 perks is enough for something so fast and well defended.  

Don't want to die to bombers?  Don't attack them straight and level from dead-six. Don't want to lose your 262?  Don't knife-fight props. Don't want to lose your B-29?  Don't fly it far below top speed or below 30k or so.

Exactly.   

If there was no perk the 29 it would be the next noe lanc stuka, which a 29 was never intended as its sole purpose in life.  High and Fast baby.........   

[dirtdart]

Exactly.   

If there was no perk the 29 it would be the next noe lanc stuka, which a 29 was never intended as its sole purpose in life.  High and Fast baby.........   

Yup, missing the point as well to my point.

Here is the point:

Bombers in general do not have the impact on gameplay that some of the perked fighters have.  If you fly a tempest or 262 correctly, it is extremely difficult to kill you, this is illustrated by those airframes having high KD.  None of the perked bombers give you that advantage, to the extent you would perk them at a rate higher than a 262 (formation).  They just dont have the impact on game play to merit such high perk costs. 

[moot]

If you fly a B-29 correctly it should be pretty difficult to kill you.  Not only that, but if you succeed in not being killed, or at least only after bombs away, you can close at least one airfield.  What other perk plane is capable of this? None by any measure.

This is starting to sound like a re-hash of the old toolsheder debate. "Bombers closing airfields is no big deal"

[dirtdart]

Lol.  How long does it take to turn a formation of 29s around at 40k.....

[moot]

Well now I have to try it for myself.  Even if you haven't said anything unbelievable, I can't just take your word for it that the B-29 is so incompetent that it doesn't deserve perking.  And since I'm not about to install the game again, I guess this argument's done.  I didn't miss your point, I disagree with it.  The only way I could agree would be if the fires aren't a bug.

[Tupac]

I just climbed up to 27k in the lwb, bombed 3 town and am RTB right now.

I took off with 117 minutes, and currently have 34 minutes and another 150 miles back to base

[crazyivan]

2000 bomber perks for N00K! Stop procrastinating HTC. I wantz it nowz!!!

[fullmetalbullet]

2000 bomber perks for N00K! Stop procrastinating HTC. I wantz it nowz!!!

they said its never gonna happen. so save your breath.