163

[WWhiskey]

I personally don't mind the 163s,  I do think the B-29s are over priced tho,  if they didn't cost so much they wouldn't climb so high,  just my theory on that tho!
As far as 163s perks,,   The number of B-29s in the war compared to the number of 163s in the war is not correctly represented in perk points, also ,, it's not Berlin, the war incomppased more than that,, there are no rules that say a 163 can't engage a B-29 since it never flew over Berlin,  and the war can't be bombed into submission at the strats, the bish show that every other day or so.
I'll probably be returning to an enemy strat soon enough tho,,  it's about as real as it gets fighting for alt, going back and forth chasing the wind, dealing with blankets of flak, the view from 30k is as good your gonna find if you want to know what it was really like,  and it would be nice if they had more effect on the ability of one side or another to "win the war", or at least , if it paid a worthwhile perk point for the time airborne to land a successful mission!

Again all of this is " just my opinion" you don't have to agree or disagree with it just take it for what it's worth from another player, just like all the other players who have played for years and years,, like you!   Salute!!!

[surfinn]

This thread and another like it was started as a result of 31-37k b29s having to actually fire their guns at a aircraft that wasn't on the edge of being incapacitated at the alts they spent a long time to get to.
I was doing bomber interceptor missions on the same day this thread an another like it was started. The only person higher than me was fester still at the strats in a set of b29s at 32k, I was in a 110g2 at 29k.   He was circling the area to get alt before he headed into enemy strats. (we were on the same side)

With that said the 163 should not be perked any more than it is due to its limited range, limited ammo load, and limited availability.

I keep hearing how some one else spent so much time getting their bombers to alt and it cost them 300 perks and some one upped a 163 in 7 Min's to shot them down at 33 k. It was the bombers choice to climb forever into what he thought was a totally safe zone for him to fly in. He didn't have to fly into 163 territory.

So because he wasn't smart enough to stay out of 163 range, the 163 should cost as much as his b29s.

The strats are 1945 Berlin, deal with it and bring help or fly your 33k b29s out of 163 range.  But trying to incapacitate a entire map by hitting strats without having to face opposition by uber perking a 163 is bs.

[RedBull1]

Fester plays the game so much I don't even think he knows what he is saying sometimes. 

300 perks for a 163, that is more than a 262.

Hardly anyone can get 6minutes out of the 163 let alone aim the cannon on the 163 but if utilized to potential then it can actually do a lot of damage for a pilot.

So 100 perks is probably enough in my opinion. 

Fester plays the game 'so much' that he would (and does) know the capabilities of aircraft like the 163. It is just OP vs buffs, especially in the right conditions it can and will obliterate anything in its path.


You have a set of B-29's that cost 300+ perks and 2+ hours of your time to climb in, and are about to drop your bombs? Oh...that's lovely, let me get my dirt cheap 50 perk or less 163, take less than 2 minutes to get to 30k+ and/or well above you, then kill your entire set of buffs in 3 passes or less.

Looking back at it even 100 may be too cheap, I actually (Personally) think 150, or perhaps the same as the 262, 200.

[Wiley]

If it's all untouchable and stuff, what will upping the perk price accomplish?  If you don't die, you don't lose the perks.

Wiley.

[Lusche]

Fester plays the game 'so much' that he would (and does) know the capabilities of aircraft like the 163. It is just OP vs buffs, especially in the right conditions it can and will obliterate anything in its path.


You have a set of B-29's that cost 300+ perks and 2+ hours of your time to climb in, and are about to drop your bombs? Oh...that's lovely, let me get my dirt cheap 50 perk or less 163, take less than 2 minutes to get to 30k+ and/or well above you, then kill your entire set of buffs in 3 passes or less.

Looking back at it even 100 may be too cheap, I actually (Personally) think 150, or perhaps the same as the 262, 200.

But this is an exaggeration.

Not so much versus the more "conventional" bombers, but it ain't that easy vs a 30k+ formation of B-29s.

Having been mostly a strat player on both sides of the equation, I have witnessed many B-29 vs Me 163 fights. And hilling a whole high altitude formation of B-29s was a very rare occasion. Komet vs B-24 is a very lopsided matter, Komet vs Superfortress is a different thing.
And that's why the arena K/D of the Me 163 vs the B-29 is only at 1.57 since the 29 was introduced. If they would constantly kill whole formations it would be much higher.

I was one of the better 163 pilots for sure, but if I recall correctly, in my 60  kills of the Superfortress in the Komet there may have been only one instance of killing a whole formation in it. (It's actually easier in a Ta 152) On the other hand, my K/D in the B-29 vs the Me 163 is 18-4.


So while I could understand a raise in the perk cost of the Me 163, putting it at 300 is rather absurd.

[pembquist]

Maybe what is needed is more than just the one strat complex. The complaints about the 163 only apply when the strats retreat to HQ. If there were always a several sector behind front lines long flight target that wasn't just another identical town and didn't have 163's then the pilots who don't want to run that gauntlet would be happy. At the same time if you had two complexes the other could retreat and be better protected so it wouldn't be so easy to bring production waaaay down. The first 50 percent would be 163 free and assuming strat retreat the next 50 percent would be protected by the little devils.

[Lusche]

Maybe what is needed is more than just the one strat complex. The complaints about the 163 only apply when the strats retreat to HQ.

Just some nitpicking by me: On 9 of the 13 maps in rotation, the strats are near the HQ all the time. 

[Rich46yo]

Im sorry but 163's are crummy, obnoxious little air maggots that I saw only a few really master. The rest would ruin a long bomber flight by ramming you. I once had all 3 17s rammed by 3 different players. They are exciting little things however and do bring some exotic excitement to the plate.

[HawkerMKII]

hit fuel strat then hit fuel at 163 base down to 75%, that should stop a lot of them upping

[pembquist]

Just some nitpicking by me: On 9 of the 13 maps in rotation, the strats are near the HQ all the time. 

Well you can see how we'll I pay attention I guess. Would there be room on those 9 maps for another strat several sectors back? And there I thought I had a good idea. Killjoy.

[Lusche]

Well you can see how we'll I pay attention I guess. Would there be room on those 9 maps for another strat several sectors back?

No there would be no room, these are the small maps. Only the three large maps currently in use have the retreat 'feature' built in (and room for it).

[Franz Von Werra]

<--- a wanna be bomber pilot at best.
Not sure... strats only effect 'rebuilding time(?)' so not reeeally important. Players can still up from a nearby undamaged base.

If the HQ gets thoroughly bombed, then that team has had it for the duration.
No RADAR works anywhere - no red dots!
No DAR anywhere - no red bars!

If HQ gets bombed, some defenders might fly anyways, just for the challenge of saving the day for 'immersion' or a 'role playing' experience.
Either way, a dead HQ is a grid-lock breaker, suddenly some drama and change on a map. The whole war/map could end and get reset.
Some players might switch sides rather than be at a disadvantage, increasing chance of 'end of war.'

This said, other defenders might not like the disadvantage and the inability to find enemy targets - some might just log out!
163's serve a purpose defending the HQ.

Seems a 163 is to an HQ what a 5inch is to a CV.

[icepac]

The last couple of times I bombed enemy HQ, there were no planes upped to intercept but rather a bunch of M3s waiting nearby to resupply after I bombed it.

That is pretty pathetic.

They resupplied it in 7 minutes.

[icepac]

hit fuel strat then hit fuel at 163 base down to 75%, that should stop a lot of them upping

The change from 25% to 75% fuel has to be the dumbest change ever.

What's next?........hitting troops, ord, and hangers having zero effect?

This sounds like coddling the weak so they don't whine much like sports in primary school have excised competition.

[Babalonian]

This is not a rant due to dieing to a 163...but is the 163 perked high enough?should it be perked more? should it be perked less? opions please thank you <<S>>

It is only available at one field on the map, per country.  Avoid this base, and you'll likely avoid 163s.  It does take a notable effort (but is possible) to hop-scotch with the gear trolly still attached from the home field to other friendly fields, refuel, and thus station yourself closer to the fight - but this is such an effort and time consumer that it doesn't pose a serious issue. (most people will not waste ~hour to position a 163 closer to the fronts on a large map... although in many years I can remember doing it a handful myself for giggles and the challenge (and only 5-10 minutes of glorious dogfighting   )

I personally don't mind the 163s,  I do think the B-29s are over priced tho,  if they didn't cost so much they wouldn't climb so high,  just my theory on that tho!
As far as 163s perks,,   The number of B-29s in the war compared to the number of 163s in the war is not correctly represented in perk points, also ,, it's not Berlin, the war incomppased more than that,, there are no rules that say a 163 can't engage a B-29 since it never flew over Berlin,  and the war can't be bombed into submission at the strats, the bish show that every other day or so.
I'll probably be returning to an enemy strat soon enough tho,,  it's about as real as it gets fighting for alt, going back and forth chasing the wind, dealing with blankets of flak, the view from 30k is as good your gonna find if you want to know what it was really like,  and it would be nice if they had more effect on the ability of one side or another to "win the war", or at least , if it paid a worthwhile perk point for the time airborne to land a successful mission!

Again all of this is " just my opinion" you don't have to agree or disagree with it just take it for what it's worth from another player, just like all the other players who have played for years and years,, like you!   Salute!!!

Good points, and I agree that in some instances the B-29 is overpriced... but, if the plan is still in motion to someday rollout with a perked ordnance/loadout system in AH, I think it will address the cost of B-29s loaded to the gills and B-29s (still worth a perk cost) loaded with a more moderate loadout.