Does AH Need the B-29 Superfortress?

[muckmaw]

In response to Kieran, I would say, it's only fair to throw in a heavy that's not American.

How do you feel about the TU-4?

[Puck]

...So. Just how effing threatening could a 1942 plane, designed in 1940, early war plane be? It's not like it came out in mid/late 1944 or 1945.

...ask all the people who shot at the SR-71 fourty years after it was designed and missed...

I typically fly my B17 at 35k.  The only thing a B29 is going to add is bomb load.  As for "who will take the time to get it that high", me.  Typically I set the auto pilot and go back into the crew's lounge and watch a DVD, cook, wave a rubber chicken and do work voodoo on another machine, or whatever.  Not that I'd complain about the increaded bomb load.

My father was a nose gunner in the B-24 over on the Pacific side.  I have his old gunnery book, even.  I'd also like to see that added first.

[weazel]

But we DO need the B-25H!

[Kieran]

You're kidding yourself if you think the B-29 is not a quantum leap over the B-17. You left out that little bit about top speed, right? B-17G comes in around 290mph, B-29 is what, 360mph? And as has been pointed out, given there will be four per flight, that is 80,000 lbs of ord raining down on you with one pilot from a formation that is too high and too fast to catch unless you are in the right place at the right time in the right plane. This is indeed a serious threat by any standard.

B-29 remained as the backbone of the bomber fleet until the advent of the B-36 and jet bombers. The B-17 was relegated to sub patrol and target drone. Why is that?

P.S. The range of the B-29 is considerably longer than that of the B-17 as well, meaning liftoff with a quarter tank will allow you to climb and circumvent the AH globe at high alt. There's more here than meets the eye...

[Wlfgng]

who the hell spends time taking a buff to 30k ???
has to be boring as hell.

bring the Me163.. that will balance it out
forget those long climbs to intercept.

[dBeav]

Simply........  no

[Puck]

Taking the B17 up to 35k takes about 30 minutes, during which I do other things.  I'm always above 30k when I enter indian country.  Typically after I drop I'll come down to 20-25k and give the fighters a chance to improve my score for the hop.  I've only been seriously damaged twice; once when I quit paying attention and a 109 lagged out of nowhere, and once when that spit did the Memphis Belle trick on me.

To date nobody has ever been up at my alt when I'm dropping bombs.

Since I'm only on that screen for takeofff, landing, bomb run, and cource corrections it's not that boring.  The rest of the time I'm elsewhere in the apartment or on another computer (I use an 8 port KVM at home   )

B29 would be nice, but I'd still rather have a B24M for general bombing about.  That's the model my father spent the most time in  

[Kieran]

Drop down to 20K and I'll eat your lunch 9 times outta 10.

[Ratbo]

Seconded!!!

-W    (the biased)

B29 would be nice, but I'd still rather have a B24M for general bombing about.  That's the model my father spent the most time in   [/B][/QUOTE]

[Saurdaukar]

Im not sure why people are opposed to the B-29.  IMHO I think any addition to the game makes it that much better.  Look at the controversy surrounding the Me-262 - many people hought we'd be closer to a Korean arena with its release but does it have a huge impact on gameplay?  No.  I say bring the B-29 and perk it somewhere around 60-70.  Keep in mind that despite the fact that it carries a massive payload, thats alot of bomber perks to put on the line and the AC would make a big contribution to strat.  
  By the same token, I agree that we should introduce some Axis and Soviet heavy buffs as well.  An He-111 would be nice, Do-17, Fw-200 - and those Russian giants... Tu-2, right?  And as long as were doing all that - B-25H, Betty, B24 and please oh please some friggin divebombers: Stuka, Val, Kate, Avenger, Helldiver, etc etc.

[Hwkeye]

Sure, B-29...no problem.  BUT the perk points need to be at least 800!!

Hawkeye
The Original Flying Tigers

[Kronos]

I think they should bring it in.  Perk it around 100-200 pts.  That will give the bomber crews something to really salivate over, and also give a boost to the amount of bombers in the arena just so they can acquire the necessary perks for it.  Not to mention, it will provide a nice heavy extremely powerful but rare buff for us P47's to take out, thereby giving us more perks for the much wanted P47M/N.  (Which hopefully will be about the same time as the B29)  

[Taiaha]

Absolutely, definitely, yes I want it.  Who'd spend time taking it up to 30K?  Me.  I do it a lot of the time now anyway.

BUT.

A couple of things have to happen first.

First, the B29 has to get in line behind some other more pressing needs: Luftie, Russian and Japanese buffs, and a Liberator.

Second, as we discussed in the other thread, start modelling wind drift and bomb dispersal, and that will reduce the potency of that 20K (or 80K, if that ever happens) of ordinance "raining down."

Second, let's get a little more moderate on the perk costs.  800?  Give me a break.  It's not like it's a B52.  You can set a relatively low perk value so that peeople would actually fly it. (I personally thing perk values should be relative not simply to the power of the plane, but the overall use of the planes.  So, at the moment, 200 for the 262 is reasonable, because this is mostly a fighter sim at the moment, and the 262 can really unbalance the fighter element.  But since so few people fly buffs, especially on a regular basis, buff perks should generally be lower.) But, you could also drop the OBJ value.  And, as we also discused in the other thread, each side should only have one airfield from which you can launch the 29.

The only other thing I'd suggest is that when it is introduced, further down the line, it should maybe be introduced in a package with a couple of high alt interceptors.

[Shane]

something else to consider about the ord loadouts on the b-29 (or any buff for that matter - following the rationale behind this snippet - altho i doubt we'd ever see a fuel burn/alt ceiling based on weight of particular loadouts modeled)

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-04.html


this for the b-29b

Armament:  

 Maximum internal short-range, *low-altitude* bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at *high altitude*. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at *medium altitude. *

follow the link for the *altitude* definitions.

[Maverick]

What the hell is it going to do any differently than a 35k B17 in the game now. The load won't be any better than the lanc, except it will get higher and likey out turn fighters up there other than the 262.