We need a B29

[Nilsen]

no thx to the b29... need plenty more planes before that one.... maybe in version 10.87....... for dos

[Sakai]

Originally posted by bfreek
yeah , they would make great dive bombers,  then level off at the deck at say 600mph, instead of 520 like the b17.

Yes, we need a B-29: as the very last plane ever modeled for the game and only after a great many other worthwhile, as supposed to noodle wagging silliness, planes are modeled.  I can think of a dozen Japanese planes I would want before the 29.

I'd want infantry weapons and bear, wolves and deer to use them on modeled before a B-29.


Sakai

[Kweassa]

Beg to differ. The Japanese claimed that they would fight to the last person. When they realized it could come to that with no loss to the enemy they surrendered.

 The Japanese were taking steps to "an honorable ceasefire" already in the beginning of 1945.

 Like all countries, Japan had their share of 'Hawks' and 'Doves' - and the ultra hardline rightwing sections of the Army was what really drove Japan to an all out war.

 The history of the conflict between the sections of the more reasonable civilian politicians/Japanese Naval officers, and the hard-line expansionist Army officials goes way back. Those Army elites with Prime Minister Tojo at the absolute top, lost power near the last days of the war.

 For example, Pearl Harbor was originally intended as a more 'defensive concept' of tactical attack than a real 'attack&expand' type of mission - give the first blow, gain quick victories, fight about a year, and then initiate peace talks as soon as possible. The Naval officers were a new type of elites, educated and well informed of the potential might of the US. On the contrary, the Army has its origins sprouting from the Meiji reforms - old elites and aristocratic nobles who took pride in the fact that they were the new masters of modern Japan. By the last days of the war, they were completely removed from the seats of power - civilian politicians and new military officials were talking about the acceptable conditions of surrender, when Nagasaki and Hiroshima went up in smoke.

 The "fight to the last man" was a propaganda any country would initiate in a losing battle, nothing more. If America was on the verge of collapes, I don't think your generals would tell the soldiers "take it easy, we're gonna lose soon".

[BenDover]

Originally posted by Kweassa
If America was on the verge of collapes, I don't think your generals would tell the soldiers "take it easy, we're gonna lose soon".

No, they'd say "OMG!! WE'RE GONNA LOOSE!! F4 F4 F4!!!"



Et oh, 2 natural selection related posts, hope this doesn't become a habbit....

[ramzey]

Originally posted by Shark88
We need a B29 with a nuke

btw, pls not use "WE", write "I"

I not need B29, and never will need

[bigjava]

i  do not wanna b29 at all!!!  ..... and  
........if u wanna a b29 with nuke are u sure to have choosen the rigth
multyplayer game?  

[yb11]

why not the b29 we got the 262 and 163

[Sakai]

Originally posted by yb11
why not the b29 we got the 262 and 163

A fair question indeed.

The B-29 actually makes more sense to me than either of those.  If we limited it to rear bases, maybe after every thing else is modeled.  I mean everything.

But if you could have a new bomber or fighter (or two, or say 8 new models of planes already built) that was free and available everywhere or a B-29 which would you take?  Would you trade the B-29 for the P-39 (note that there are several useful P-39 variants that could be easily configured once the model was complete).  The Myriad B-25 models?  The He-111s?  How about simply taking the resources and fleshing out more fully the 109s and Spits?  Can nwe really justify the B-29 without a few more Spits and 109s and 190s?  I doubt it.  

I'd rather have merchant shipping to contend with.  The B-29 is too much plane, like the 262 and 163.  One flight would be a complete Base Killer.

I would trade these three to have had these resources put into developing other aircraft, I think "Billy the rocket boy vs the B-29 moonmen" is not what is appealing about WWII aerial combat.

If AH2 requires new modeling, I say dump the techno wonders and build the AC that fought 99.999999% of the aerial combat.

But that is simply one opinion.  I love the 29, it was used a ton in the Pacific, but not until the issue was decided.  I would much rather have a fighter or bomber from the fearful and heady days of 1939 to 1943.  

"Sakai, you'd swap an I-16 Rata for the magnificent B-29?"  In a heartbeat, especially when one realizes the Rata had a few configurations (some with MGs, some with cannon) and fought across a number of years (including the SCW) and is wonderful for both the Ma and the Scenario/CT crowd.  

So, would you want a B-29 if it cost you a different, more useful plane to the MA that was not only cool as hell but also would not unbalance gameplay?  Wold you rather have 4 new GVs or a B-29?  Or perhaps a submarine or artillery and a new fighter?

Those are the questions, in my opinion, that should be asked.

Sakai

[mia389]

Yep we need more bombers, last update we got all fighters. Ok so the kate and the stuka you call a bomber but not a real one :-0
ok so its a real one and I woulndt want a kate or stuka to dive bomb my house but more bombers would be cool with formations. B25 for cvs B24 or B29 for larger formation bombers would be great though.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by mia389
Yep we need more bombers, last update we got all fighters. Ok so the kate and the stuka you call a bomber but not a real one :-0
ok so its a real one and I woulndt want a kate or stuka to dive bomb my house but more bombers would be cool with formations. B25 for cvs B24 or B29 for larger formation bombers would be great though.

I'd agree, more bombers, but make:

He-111s
Sm79s
B-25s
B-24s
Wellingtons
Il-4s

None of those will throw the MA off, the B-29 is uber de duber.

The Stuka is a great plane, I wouldn't trade it for anything.

Sakai

[BenDover]

Would you trade the stuka for one with a dive siren?

[Sakai]

Originally posted by BenDover
Would you trade the stuka for one with a dive siren?

YES!

Sakai

LOL

[daddog]

He-111s
Sm79s
B-25s
B-24s
Wellingtons
Il-4s

and a host of others, (Betty, Emily...) before a B-29. Of course I look at this from an events perspective, but I care little for the B-29.

------------------------
CO daddog
332nd Flying Mongrels
Roster
Events!
Noses in the wind since 1997.

To be ignorant of one’s own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant. – Alcott

[HavocTM]

Okey, just a pet peeve...

"Nuke" and "Nuclear" in reference to weapons are references to the "thermonuclear" or "H" bomb.  These weapons are fusion weapons.

The two weapons used at the end of World War 2 were "Atomic" weapons, or fission bombs, not nukes.  

While, in the vernacular, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably; if you have ever seen both an atomic and a nuclear blast, you would realize the difference is quite spectacular.

I don't mean to be an ultra melon about it, but nuclear weapons have never been used in warfare, and as much as folks talk about historical accuracy here, I thought I might as well throw in my peeve.

[HavocTM]

double posted.. sorry